I remember...

[Itachi888Uchiha]

Do you Newgrounds?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzpIk6Zv2tA&feature=BFa&list=
FL93sXXYocrY3Uibh9vywJoA

[bismuthfeldspar]

can you post a transcript of the video

[Itachi888Uchiha]

At 6/8/12 10:54 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: can you post a transcript of the video

lol it's a parody of an old campaign video. Basically two guys just say I remember to really dumb stuff and end it with, "That's why I'm voting democrat." I just wanted people to discuss people who vote for one political party constantly no matter what, and if you do so..why (because that's part of what I think the video is making fun of).

[BUTANE]

At 6/8/12 11:12 AM, Itachi888Uchiha wrote:

At 6/8/12 10:54 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: can you post a transcript of the video

I just wanted people to discuss people who vote for one political party constantly no matter what

The Republican's platform is pretty much the same constant idea: Cut taxes and spending (except for the military), increase religious rhetoric in school (like creationism and abstinence only sex education), claim global warming is clearly just liberal mumbo-jumbo because it still gets cold sometimes, outlaw abortion, kill social security, and prevent any sort of health care reform (even though we spend more than any other country).

Democrats want to: Increase taxes when necessary (like right now) to pay for essential programs and government projects, increase funding for science and mathematics in schools, lower tuition costs for college students, allow women to chose what is right for them and their bodies, push for equality in the work place in regards to equal pay for men and women as well as rights for same sex couples, they support health care reform because the system that was in place for years was constantly outpacing inflation and was significantly more expensive than any other industrialized country (and not as good either), and they want to reform and fix social security to make it last another generation and ensure that the elderly are cared for in retirement.

Obviously these lists have been shortened and focus on mostly hot-button topics, but the two parties are essentially opposites.

I vote for one party only because there is nobody in the opposite party that could even come close to representing what I believe in. The real question is, how can people be on the fence?

[Camarohusky]

At 6/8/12 03:28 PM, BUTANE wrote: I vote for one party only because there is nobody in the opposite party that could even come close to representing what I believe in. The real question is, how can people be on the fence?

Not everyone is in lock-step with the parties.

Many people hold a handful of beliefs from both parties. An example would be someone who is tough on crime but fiscally liberal. These people are on the fence because it isn't necessarily about what issues the candidate supports, rather it's a question of which handful of issues is more important to them at the time of voting.

Then again, there are those who are on the fence out of laziness, or just plain ignorance.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/8/12 11:12 AM, Itachi888Uchiha wrote: I just wanted people to discuss people who vote for one political party constantly no matter what, and if you do so..why (because that's part of what I think the video is making fun of).

I don't know, I think it's pretty clear that the point they are trying to make with their satire is that the people who made the original ad was trying to blame everything bad that happened during Republican administrations on the current Republicans. "I lost my home and all my worldly possessions to hurricane Katrina.... which was caused by George W Bush.... That's why I'm voting Democrat."

The original ad simply points out the big missteps of the Bush administration and why it would be a bad idea to go back to that. Bush didn't cause Katrina, but he severely mishandled it after it happened and didn't make a big effort to prevent such a disaster from happening in the first place.

[ohbombuh]

At 6/8/12 05:09 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Bush ... didn't make a big effort to prevent such a disaster from happening in the first place.

Silly Dubya! He was focused on educational reform and the War on Terror, when he should've been spending more federal dollars to prevent regional weather problems.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/12/12 11:52 PM, ohbombuh wrote: Silly Dubya! He was focused on taking funding away from schools that are already failing and preemptively starting wars with Middle Eastern countries, when he should've been spending more federal dollars heeding the warnings of climatologists that it was only a matter of time before a disaster like Katrina struck the South.

There you go, I fixed it for you.

[ohbombuh]

At 6/13/12 05:01 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 6/12/12 11:52 PM, ohbombuh wrote: Silly Dubya! He was focused on taking funding away from schools that are already failing and preemptively starting wars with Middle Eastern countries, when he should've been spending more federal dollars heeding the warnings of climatologists that it was only a matter of time before a disaster like Katrina struck the South.

There you go, I fixed it for you.

Oh shit, I forgot to point to a single, notable climatologist giving such a specific warning. Moreover, I forgot that Katrina was a problem for the South, whose history's leaders called for states to solve their own problems. Oh well, Bush was still a fool for not throwing money at schools and for trying to defend America (in an admittedly historically-uniformed way). Unlike him, Obama has really done a lot for peace in the Middle East; that's why he got the Nobel Peace Prize, and that's why I'm voting Democrat.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6/13/12 06:21 PM, ohbombuh wrote: Oh shit, I forgot to point to a single, notable climatologist giving such a specific warning.

Go ahead and Google "Hurricane Pam". FEMA had conducted a hurricane simulation that predicted exactly what would happen if a hurricane of Katrina's size hit Louisiana 14 months before it happened. The resulting report outlined a number of measures that should be taken to avoid the predicted devastation, none of which were implemented.

In a Good Morning America interview three days after Hurricane Katrina hit, President Bush said "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees".

Moreover, I forgot that Katrina was a problem for the South, whose history's leaders called for states to solve their own problems.

Oh, right, I forgot how the Confederates actually won the Civil War, thus making the South not really part of the United States of America.

Oh well, Bush was still a fool for not throwing money at schools

No, he's a fool for thinking that what failing schools really need to succeed is to have their funding cut.

and for trying to defend America (in an admittedly historically-uniformed way).

I assume that what you meant to say was "uninformed" which is right on the money, and "trying" is another keyword, but "massive failure" seems to be missing however.

Unlike him, Obama has really done a lot for peace in the Middle East; that's why he got the Nobel Peace Prize, and that's why I'm voting Democrat.

Oh, you must have me confused with someone who thinks Obama good on foreign policy. No, Obama is pretty much an adherent of the neo-con ideology when it comes to foreign policy, which is why you don't see as many Republicans criticizing Obama on this front as on other matters of policy.

[ohbombuh]

At 6/13/12 08:02 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 6/13/12 06:21 PM, ohbombuh wrote: Oh shit, I forgot to point to a single, notable climatologist giving such a specific warning.

Go ahead and Google "Hurricane Pam". FEMA had conducted a hurricane simulation that predicted exactly what would happen if a hurricane of Katrina's size hit Louisiana 14 months before it happened.

Simulating a disaster is not the same as confidently predicting it will happen. Moreover, FEMA only exists to solve emergencies; i.e. its members stay employed if there's some mess to clean up. Of course the agency is going to look for possible problems, even if it considers them unlikely. And if there was so much reason to believe the flooding was imminent, why didn't local leaders (mayor of New Orleans, governor of Louisiana, etc.) shore up their own levees?

Moreover, I forgot that Katrina was a problem for the South, whose history's leaders called for states to solve their own problems.

Oh, right, I forgot how the Confederates actually won the Civil War, thus making the South not really part of the United States of America.

I don't care as much about the winning side as I do for the side with a view of the Constitution that won't result in a Leviathan government. What works is important, but it's a small touch of irony that people in the once-independent South were "using pity as a weapon," so to speak.

I'm not endorsing slavery, but I frankly don't believe you can make a bunch of shortsighted fools better in the long run by chaining them together. Most often, you'll have them become even more foolish and expect other members of the group to solve their problems (I'm looking at you, PIIGS).

Oh well, Bush was still a fool for not throwing money at schools

No, he's a fool for thinking that what failing schools really need to succeed is to have their funding cut.

Tit for tat. Still, I can't deny a lot of educational problems are out of individual teachers' hands (compulsory attendance, waiting at the mercy of old union members, politics changing curricula, etc.). My take on it is that states have the most educational clout, but at least he managed to build a bridge between the parties.

and for trying to defend America (in an admittedly historically-uniformed way).

I assume that what you meant to say was "uninformed" which is right on the money, and "trying" is another keyword, but "massive failure" seems to be missing however.

Yes, please excuse my typo. And yes, that was a failing point of Bush, but that doesn't support the original video's implied conclusion that the Democrats would automatically stop it. Personally, I view Ron Paul (neither a man of war nor a Democrat) as a wiser version of Bush in that he'd actually spend less when he taxes less and avoid intervention in foreign countries.

Unlike him, Obama has really done a lot for peace in the Middle East; that's why he got the Nobel Peace Prize, and that's why I'm voting Democrat.

Oh, you must have me confused with someone who thinks Obama good on foreign policy. No, Obama is pretty much an adherent of the neo-con ideology when it comes to foreign policy, which is why you don't see as many Republicans criticizing Obama on this front as on other matters of policy.

Sorry, it's just that seemingly few anti-war liberals criticize him for it either. As it stands at my school, the people who see Obama as a flawless replacement for Bush's warmongering tend to be the ones who think Obama should shoot up Africa until Joseph Kony disappears.