Go On a Date with the Political Opposition to Save the World

[You-Gi-Owe]

I'm hitting the hay. I think what we've learned tonight is that it is far more difficult for a rightwinger to be sexy than a leftwinger (*thinks of George Clooney, Arch-Liberal, and melts slightly*). I believe this is because the extreme rightwing espouses a very negative and unfriendly worldview, and excessive negativity and unfriendliness make a person unattractive.

EDIT: We've also learned that, liberal though I am, I don't value the whole of humanity enough to date a guy I wouldn't want to bang.

Sorry, I thought you were making a blanket statement on all of the "Right Wing", not just the men. I mean, just look at your post.

Y, you've got to stop quoting Muravyets. When you do, I have to look at what she's said, which defeats the whole purpose of a key setting on this board.

But since I've actually had to read it, I will admit that it made me It's obviously an unconscious caricature of the archetypal self-righteous, arrogant leftie b*tch.

The fact is, conservatives as a whole are more tolerant, more charitable, and far better lovers than self-righteous, arrogant leftie b*tches. Although speaking for myself, if I found myself matched by aliens with anyone even remotely resembling a self-righteous, arrogant leftie b*tch, I don't care if she looks like Carrie Prejean and screws like Jenna Jameson, as far as I'm concerned she might as well be a tattooed crack whore with terminal AIDS. In which case, it'd be a bad day for humanity.

[Muravyets]

NM is just sad because I never talk to him. That's why he flames without provocation. He's trying to feel a warmth he doesn't get from me (or anyone else in NSG, really).

You go ahead and quote me in your weird little ways if you want to. Or not, whatever. I'm sure someone somewhere will enjoy watching you two snicker behind your hands just like you did with your friends at the back of the class when you were kids.

[Jello Biafra]

1) Anarcho-communist.

2) Hm. Chris Beverley, is in the BNP leadership. Pic in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2929

3) Most of those other ones.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

1) Anarcho-communist.

2) Hm. Chris Beverley, is in the BNP leadership. Pic in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2929

3) Most of those other ones.

that's pretty low, BNP members, what about...eh considering the question i guess you can only really get the rubbish pick of the lot.

[Dyakovo]

The fact is, conservatives as a whole are more tolerant, more charitable, and far better lovers than self-righteous, arrogant leftie b*tches.

[New Mitanni]

The fact is, conservatives as a whole are more tolerant, more charitable, and far better lovers than self-righteous, arrogant leftie b*tches.

Known fact. Deal with it.

[The Black Forrest]

The fact is, conservatives as a whole are more tolerant, more charitable, and far better lovers than self-righteous, arrogant leftie b*tches.

Known fact. Deal with it.

Indeed. How many Christian leaders have been caught with hookers, commented rape, etc.....

[Treznor]

Known fact. Deal with it.

Indeed. How many Christian leaders have been caught with hookers, commented rape, etc.....

Oh, forget the Christian leaders; we've had ample opportunity to observe their hypocrisy over the last thirty years. How about the "family values" politicians? Craig? Foley? Gingrich? Good, upstanding conservatives leading the nation into a new era of moral piety? You know, the guys who impeached a president over a blowjob while conducting their own extra-marital affairs?

[Jello Biafra]

The fact is, conservatives as a whole are more tolerant, more charitable, and far better lovers

Are these "more tolerant" conservatives the same ones who refer to homosexuals as 'degenerates'?

[Treznor]

The fact is, conservatives as a whole are more tolerant, more charitable, and far better lovers

Are these "more tolerant" conservatives the same ones who refer to homosexuals as 'degenerates'?

I think they're simply more tolerant of their own sexual infidelities. "Don't ask, don't tell." For them, that's tolerance.

[Unilisia]

*Looks to the right*

Palin....

Coulter....

Limbaugh....

Fuck, the world isn't worth this. D:

Wait, how can you go out with a male and female.

Some of the folks here swing both ways, obviously.

Yes, some of us do (looks at Comaack with squinty eyes)

[Unilisia]

Known fact. Deal with it. [/quote]

Indeed. How many Christian leaders have been caught with hookers, commented rape, etc.....[/quote]
Oh, forget the Christian leaders; we've had ample opportunity to observe their hypocrisy over the last thirty years. How about the "family values" politicians? Craig? Foley? Gingrich? Good, upstanding conservatives leading the nation into a new era of moral piety? You know, the guys who impeached a president over a blowjob while conducting their own extra-marital affairs?[/quote]

Conservatives...leading us somewhere good....you make me laugh buddy

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Conservatives...leading us somewhere good....you make me laugh buddy

we shouldn't have to be led anywhere...oh well *sighs* guess the current political system will have to do for now.

[Tiesabre]

Eh. I guess Palin's fuckable.

[Taeshan]

Eh. I guess Palin's fuckable.

Definetly

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Eh. I guess Palin's fuckable.

well she did fuck over the conservatives last time the election came around.

[New Mitanni]

Conservatives...leading us somewhere good....you make me laugh buddy

Laugh 'til you plotz

[You-Gi-Owe]

Eh. I guess Palin's fuckable.

well she did fuck over the conservatives last time the election came around.

Nah, the smartest thing McCain did was to pick her. It got him attention. The conservatives shot themselves in the foot because of the Romney + Huckabee in-fighting.

[Treznor]

Eh. I guess Palin's fuckable.

well she did fuck over the conservatives last time the election came around.

Nah, the smartest thing McCain did was to pick her. It got him attention. The conservatives shot themselves in the foot because of the Romney + Huckabee in-fighting.

When you're engaged in an election challenge, you need a running mate who either knows what they're talking about, or knows how to keep their mouth shut. Palin either forgot or never learned the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Palin made the mistake of opening her mouth, and that helped kill the GOP's chances of winning this election. Frankly, she did them a favor. The GOP needed a Democrat in office to shift blame away from themselves for the past eight years.

[Melkor Unchained]

When you're engaged in an election challenge, you need a running mate who either knows what they're talking about, or knows how to keep their mouth shut. Palin either forgot or never learned the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Palin made the mistake of opening her mouth, and that helped kill the GOP's chances of winning this election. Frankly, she did them a favor. The GOP needed a Democrat in office to shift blame away from themselves for the past eight years.

In fairness, Biden wasn't exactly an inspired choice on these grounds either. I think picking Palin was a good idea for him at the time, but eventually it backfired. McCain was clearly sitting on the fence, hoping to pick up disenfranchised identity voters. Had the DNC gone with Clinton, he probably would have picked up Alan Keyes or (if he could) Colin Powell.

Also, Palin got three or four times the media coverage that Biden did, which also helped at first but hurt in the long run.

[North Suran]

In fairness, Biden wasn't exactly an inspired choice on these grounds either.

Biden may not have been the best choice for Vice-President, but he is at least preferable to a corrupt and jingoistic bimbo with the political tact of an inebriate walrus (such as publicly stating that war with Russia should be kept open as an option).

I think picking Palin was a good idea for him at the time, but eventually it backfired.

How so?

The only political experience she had was being Governor of Alaska, where she already showed early signs of corruption.
If anything, the whole idea of putting her forward was just a cynical "Me, too!" response to Hillary Clinton's appeal to women voters.

McCain was clearly sitting on the fence, hoping to pick up disenfranchised identity voters.

And by choosing Palin - a woman with extreme views and convictions, not to mention questionable intelligence - he alienated himself from the less-extreme conservative voters.

Had the DNC gone with Clinton, he probably would have picked up Alan Keyes or (if he could) Colin Powell.

Surely if he was running against Clinton, it would have been more likely for him to pick Palin as his running mate, in order to undermine Clinton's aforementioned appeal to women voters?

Also, Palin got three or four times the media coverage that Biden did, which also helped at first but hurt in the long run.

Considering some of the rather questionable statements she made it, it's unsurprising.

[Melkor Unchained]

Biden may not have been the best choice for Vice-President, but he is at least preferable to a corrupt and jingoistic bimbo with the political tact of an inebriate walrus (such as publicly stating that war with Russia should be kept open as an option).

"Corrupt" might be a stretch since there's not really any evidence of that, but the rest sounds accurate enough. I don't remember defending Palin in the above post...just pointing out that it was a stunt for identity votes, which was taking a page out of the DNC's book.

I remember when Obama picked Biden he said something like "Joe Biden has been a committed advocate for change in Washington for the last 35 years." Really? He sure got a lot done, didn't he! I remember wondering why he would spend so much time harping on change only to pick a beltway insider as his running mate, and then I remembered that American politics is 90% jockeying for election and 10% actual policy no matter which party you belong to.

How so?

The only political experience she had was being Governor of Alaska, where she already showed early signs of corruption.
If anything, the whole idea of putting her forward was just a cynical "Me, too!" response to Hillary Clinton's appeal to women voters.

Exactly. And sometimes voters respond to that sort of thing. I think you may be assuming a level of (collective) intelligence that doesn't actually exist in the American electorate. Some people will vote for a candidate because of their identity.

You sort of answered your own question here, but it's also in my post above. Picking Palin was a good idea at the time because it was seen as a way to sway disenfranchised Democrats--a lot of them women--who really wanted to see a woman in the White House. I don't know how many of you remember this poll, but at the time the RNC probably assumed that picking up Palin would augment these results. The numbers don't look overly impressive on their own, but those were the key "center" (not really, but I'm using it for lack of a better term) voters that the GOP would need to win a close election. At the time they had every reason to believe that picking up Palin would solidify or augment these numbers and capture key (otherwise Democratic) voters.

And by choosing Palin - a woman with extreme views and convictions, not to mention questionable intelligence - he alienated himself from the less-extreme conservative voters.

I'm not so sure about that. People seem to talk about the 2008 election like it was some landslide victory, but it was reasonably close. I don't think Palin alienated very many people who would have been inclined to vote for McCain in the first place, I think she just failed to capture the votes the GOP thought she would.

Surely if he was running against Clinton, it would have been more likely for him to pick Palin as his running mate, in order to undermine Clinton's aforementioned appeal to women voters?

Maybe, it's hard to say. I would have gone with Pawlenty myself if I were McCain, but then again if I were McCain I probably wouldn't have won the nomination in the first place!

[Treznor]

When you're engaged in an election challenge, you need a running mate who either knows what they're talking about, or knows how to keep their mouth shut. Palin either forgot or never learned the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Palin made the mistake of opening her mouth, and that helped kill the GOP's chances of winning this election. Frankly, she did them a favor. The GOP needed a Democrat in office to shift blame away from themselves for the past eight years.

In fairness, Biden wasn't exactly an inspired choice on these grounds either. I think picking Palin was a good idea for him at the time, but eventually it backfired. McCain was clearly sitting on the fence, hoping to pick up disenfranchised identity voters. Had the DNC gone with Clinton, he probably would have picked up Alan Keyes or (if he could) Colin Powell.

Biden's selection was purely to offset the charges of Obama being "inexperienced." It's hard to get a more experienced Washington insider than Biden. He's cozy with corporate lobbyists, knows all the locals and probably knows where more than a few of the bodies are buried. He did what Palin refused to do: he kept his head down and his mouth shut, except when they were ready for him to perform. During his debate with Palin he stayed on-topic and stuck with the facts.

Nowadays we wish he'd stick with that strategy, but he's safely sworn in and they're not going to remove him because his speech vaguely reminds us of Dubya. He can get away with this until a little before the 2012 elections, at which point I expect him to become a doormouse once again.

Palin can't stop talking, and the more the public hears from her the more they're glad they didn't elect her.

Also, Palin got three or four times the media coverage that Biden did, which also helped at first but hurt in the long run.

Palin was a shrewd choice, because it was the first time the Republicans seriously put forward a presidential running mate who wasn't a White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male. The problem they made was in choosing the wrong non-male. There were far more intelligent choices among the women in the GOP, but they went for one with a lot of popular appeal in a "safe" battleground. Honestly, I think my original assessment was correct: the race was looking to be close, and the GOP knew they didn't want to be in the driver's seat for the mess they'd created.

[Melkor Unchained]

Yeah, that makes sense. I just never liked Biden I guess. Still, I don't think Obama lost very many votes on account of "inexperience," the charge struck me largely as a rationalization from the people who would never have voted for him anyway.

[North Suran]

"Corrupt" might be a stretch since there's not really any evidence of that, but the rest sounds accurate enough.

Fair enough, but it still raises the issue of whether someone who may have already abused their political power as the Governor of Alaska should be entrusted with a position in the White House.

I don't remember defending Palin in the above post...just pointing out that it was a stunt for identity votes, which was taking a page out of the DNC's book.

It seems rather cynical to merely label Obama as a "stunt for identity votes".
Yes, he may have appealed to black and minority voters, but I'm pretty sure other factors (charisma and political ability, for example) were equally considered.

I remember when Obama picked Biden he said something like "Joe Biden has been a committed advocate for change in Washington for the last 35 years." Really? He sure got a lot done, didn't he! I remember wondering why he would spend so much time harping on change only to pick a beltway insider as his running mate, and then I remembered that American politics is 90% jockeying for election and 10% actual policy no matter which party you belong to.

To be honest, if you want somehow to blame for this fact, you need only look at the public.

Exactly. And sometimes voters respond to that sort of thing. I think you may be assuming a level of (collective) intelligence that doesn't actually exist in the American electorate. Some people will vote for a candidate because of their identity.

Yet still, I think its a tad unfair to presume that female voters will vote for ANY woman who is shunted onto the political stage, regardless of her credence and ability.

I'm not so sure about that. People seem to talk about the 2008 election like it was some landslide victory, but it was reasonably close. I don't think Palin alienated very many people who would have been inclined to vote for McCain in the first place, I think she just failed to capture the votes the GOP thought she would.

=
The fact is, up until McCain chose Palin as the VP candidate, public opinion had been mainly divided.

After that action, it promptly leaned in Obama's favour.

Yes, 51% is not a landslide majority, but considering the general results of recent American elections, it's comparatively large.