• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
The thing that blows my mind is that WHY are we STILL having this conversation when this shit was upheld over FORTY years ago!?

Like, Christ, Conservatives don't let ANYTHING go.

You lost the Abortion debate two generations ago. It's not going away. That ship has sailed.
Actually, they weren't even in the abortion debate prior to two generations ago. It was brought up as a wedge issue in the late 70's.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Why can't Obama break 200k jobs? Because of his job-killing policies, naturally.
Which Congress wouldn't even let him implement to begin with
 
Average number of jobs added per month since 2008.

BOagt-jCMAElhXN.jpg:large


https://twitter.com/Simas44/status/353146332531273730
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
US added 195,000 jobs in June. April was revised up from 145,000 to 199,000. May was revised up from 175,000 to 195,000.

We woulda had way more if not for Obama's job killing tax hikes on the job creators!

Anyone know what the total amount of private sector jobs created so far is?
 

bonercop

Member
Yeah, I love Marx, I think he was brilliant in a lot of ways, but this is where I usually end up disagreeing with him. I believe that the State is an emergent development of basically any population of sufficient size and that if you do successfully abolish it, even after the described revolution and temporary period of a strong State, eventually another State will arise and it might be the foundation for such a caste system all over again. Hence why I'm more in the "lets get to a state that is controlled by the people" area.

Of course even that is complicated when we get to things like the meaning of "control" and the problems of information management and why direct democracy is terrible, etc etc.

Why is direct democracy terrible? I mean, going by the polls, America would have universal health-care, introduced some minor gun-control measures, addressed climate change, legalized marijuana and legalized gay-marriage, if it were a direct democracy.

Not that direct democracy doesn't have it's flaws -- without proper protections for minorites and dissidents being codified, it can devolve into mob-rule -- but that's true of any system, you always need checks and balances. You could have a cabinet alongside direct-democracy like Switzerland. I think America would actually be a excellent candidate for Swiss-style democracy given how diverse the population is.

Again, there's still plenty of valid criticisms you can hurl at the concept, but I don't see how only being allowed to vote every two years on which group of privileged technocrats (who are obliged to prioritize corporate interests on a systematic level) get to be in charge is any better.
 
Why is direct democracy terrible? I mean, going by the polls, America would have universal health-care, introduced some minor gun-control measures, addressed climate change, legalized marijuana and legalized gay-marriage, if it were a direct democracy.

Not that direct democracy doesn't have it's flaws -- without proper protections for minorites and dissidents being codified, it can devolve into mob-rule --
It's not just mob rule that people worry about, but the rapidly-changing passions of the masses. It's not just that the mob is ruling that is the problem, but also how quickly public opinion can change on some things, which can lead to uncertainty about what the laws will be. New Hampshire has so many representatives and has elections so often that we're practically a direct democracy, and we've just swung back-and-forth rapidly between a liberal, progressive legislature, an ultra-conservative teabagger legislature, and now back to a more reasonable liberal legislature, and most of the time they've spent just undoing the legislation passed by the previous legislature. Having such rapid shifts in the law is no way to govern.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
It's not just mob rule that people worry about, but the rapidly-changing passions of the masses. It's not just that the mob is ruling that is the problem, but also how quickly public opinion can change on some things, which can lead to uncertainty about what the laws will be. New Hampshire has so many representatives and has elections so often that we're practically a direct democracy, and we've just swung back-and-forth rapidly between a liberal, progressive legislature, an ultra-conservative teabagger legislature, and now back to a more reasonable liberal legislature, and most of the time they've spent just undoing the legislation passed by the previous legislature. Having such rapid shifts in the law is no way to govern.

Rapid change isn't the problem with direct democracy. The problem is that the masses really don't understand how to govern and aren't qualified for it.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Rapid change isn't the problem with direct democracy. The problem is that the masses really don't understand how to govern and aren't qualified for it.

To put it in a way that can't be spun quite as poorly (although I agree) a direct democracy in which everyone votes on every minor bill and issue is a democracy that is controlled by an uninformed body because people can't spare the time to actually read up on and be knowledgable about everything. That's kind of the idea behind the professional representative, that they dedicate all of their time to doing that (weather they actually do is, of course, another question)

Oh, and also a direct democracy in our current cultural context would just basically hand government even further over to the control of the media juggurnaut, and I'd rather not do that.
 

bonercop

Member
To put it in a way that can't be spun quite as poorly (although I agree) a direct democracy in which everyone votes on every minor bill and issue is a democracy that is controlled by an uninformed body because people can't spare the time to actually read up on and be knowledgable about everything. That's kind of the idea behind the professional representative, that they dedicate all of their time to doing that (weather they actually do is, of course, another question)

This isn't the only way to have a direct democracy. Did you read the Wiki article I posted about Switzerland?

I think Switzerland proves that you can give the unwashed masses a little political power, without bringing on the end-times. In fact, I think Switzerland is a great example of the positive effect allowing people to vote on issues has, rather than electing technocrats who usually only care about their own interests. The Swiss voted against adopting the Euro and have done a fine job protecting their sovereignty.

look what happened to the rest of europe, lol

Oh, and also a direct democracy in our current cultural context would just basically hand government even further over to the control of the media juggurnaut, and I'd rather not do that.

How so? I'm not disputing what you're saying persay, but I think the 2-party system encourages tribalism in a way that dryly voting on issues that are important to you doesn't.

Rapid change isn't the problem with direct democracy. The problem is that the masses really don't understand how to govern and aren't qualified for it.
I don't think the vast majority of these politicians care or even understand 99% of the public.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I genuinely don't get that cartoon. Can someone explain it to me very basically?
 

User 406

Banned
I have no idea how to interpret this cartoon. I can't even tell if it's pro or anti.

It confused me at first as well, but then I realized how it's supposed to work. If you genuinely believe that gay people are fundamentally bad, then seating a couple of them right next to Rosa Parks can be viewed as making a mockery of a civil rights icon. To someone who is anti-gay, the cartoon underscores their belief that gay rights is not really civil rights and that calling it civil rights is an insult to the civil rights movement of the 60s.*

The joke just doesn't make sense to us because we don't have that key built in assumption that his audience does. You can only really get the punchline if you're a bigot.


* After decades of social pressure and change, cognitive dissonance allows such people to agree on a rhetorical level that the CRM was a good thing while still opposing everything it stood for.
 
It confused me at first as well, but then I realized how it's supposed to work. If you genuinely believe that gay people are fundamentally bad, then seating a couple of them right next to Rosa Parks can be viewed as making a mockery of a civil rights icon. To someone who is anti-gay, the cartoon underscores their belief that gay rights is not really civil rights and that calling it civil rights is an insult to the civil rights movement of the 60s.*

The joke just doesn't make sense to us because we don't have that key built in assumption that his audience does. You can only really get the punchline if you're a bigot.


* After decades of social pressure and change, cognitive dissonance allows such people to agree on a rhetorical level that the CRM was a good thing while still opposing everything it stood for.

I get it now.

I see a lot of conservative "humor" that I need to run through a filter like this to understand, but this one was so far out of my ability to relate to even hypothetically that I missed it.
 
Rapid change isn't the problem with direct democracy. The problem is that the masses really don't understand how to govern and aren't qualified for it.

Bingo. If we had direct democracy for the budget (for example, you choose where to allocate your "tax dollars."), many things that get alot of public facetime would get greatly funded like say, cancer research, but things that do good work, but either don't make sense at first blush or don't have a lot of attention would get shafted (ie. drug rehab, weird scientific funding, etc.).
 

Mike M

Nick N
Easy. It's saying that Egyptian democracy got drunk and has a hangover, and the solution is to adopt Radical Islam as a "hair of the dog" cure.

Nah dude, it's saying that radical Islam is the metaphorical "head" that is driving democracy in Egypt, and it's a god of death and shit.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
I think it's pretty clear that it is saying Islam grafted with democracy can't walk like an Egyptian. Also it is using the crook and flail on the ankh signifying repression of women and support for sharia Benghazi jihad Obama
 

AntoneM

Member
Nah dude, it's saying that radical Islam is the metaphorical "head" that is driving democracy in Egypt, and it's a god of death and shit.

Radical Islam is the Pharaoh, but with a heart of Democracy and dick made out of Egypt. In crude terms he's saying that Egyptian radical Islam is fucking democracy and ruing it for everyone.
 

Matugi

Member
So I'm looking through the page and I'm trying to figure out how any of it is funny. If that's the best of Conservative Comedy...well I suppose the joke it's not funny.

In all honesty I think the reason that there are few (if any) conservative comedians out there is because all the topics that are central to comedy (sex, drugs, self-deprecation, tongue-in-cheek racism, religion, etc.) are all sensitive to conservatives.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
That isn't even especially incomprehensible for a right-wing cartoon.

i3NSZqNsLyXcu.jpg

Welcome to hard mode.

This one is obviously foretelling the return of an ancient Egyptian priest as an undead, unkillable, all powerful mummy. It also shows that he can only be killed by using a foot-long sickle with a rabbit's foot attacked to the back end. It's all there.
 
Direct Democracy certainly has its advantages, but it needs to be used carefully. It works in Switzerland but not as well in California. It all depends on the implementation. Looking at public opinion and the fact that elections are controlled by gerrymandering with the presidential controlled by swing states, this country needs more democratization and not less.

Average number of jobs added per month since 2008.

BOagt-jCMAElhXN.jpg:large


https://twitter.com/Simas44/status/353146332531273730

Serious question, how much longer until the economy gets back to how it was before the recession?
 
Question for Poligaf:

How much is underemployment factored into the unemployment figures?

Does a job have to be 40 hrs to count?

I'm wondering now partially because of all the hours cuts that Obamacare has induced employers into making (ex. Walmart cutting most ppl over 30 to under 30).
 
No one can say that for sure and anyone who tells you they can is an idiot. That said it is getting better, slowly but surely.

Likely within the next 5 years? 10 years? 15? Surely someone could assume when it will likely be over by assume things stay the course.
 

The homosexual couple finally gets to sit at the front of the bus with Ms. Parks, who is astonished that it has taken so long for them to join her. A good cartoon.

For a second I thought I had gone to the horrible political cartoons thread at SA. Don't bring Lester here, just don't do it guys.

(Bors and Bennett can come)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom