Are the people in these videos stereotypical liberals?

The entire North used to vote Republican solidly, Philly didn't have a Democratic mayor until the early 50s, and since then it hasn't had a single Republican. The rest of the urban Northeast is basically the same, except for NYC's recent conversion.

The Republicans then weren't the Republicans now.

They probably were a little friendlier to labor then.

For instance, in 1960 somewhere beneath the Mason-Dixon I could have pretty safely said "find me a pro-integration Democrat around here".

But that was a long time ago.

Tucker Case said:

Well, even with the high life, you get extra bonus points in Euro-trash because it looks like two fruits fell out of the picture on the wall. :mrgreen::2razz:

Click to expand...

we got that poster from a pizza place that went out of business.

new coup for you said:

The entire North used to vote Republican solidly, Philly didn't have a Democratic mayor until the early 50s, and since then it hasn't had a single Republican. The rest of the urban Northeast is basically the same, except for NYC's recent conversion.

The Republicans then weren't the Republicans now.

They probably were a little friendlier to labor then.

For instance, in 1960 somewhere beneath the Mason-Dixon I could have pretty safely said "find me a pro-integration Democrat around here".

But that was a long time ago.

Click to expand...

I found you one. I did. Alaska has its fair share of Republican Longshoremen currently. I am not buying this whole "Republicans are white rich evil devils" rant you are winding up for.

I read on a bumper sticker somewhere that if you wanna live like a republican you have to vote democrat. :rofl

jallman said:

I found you one. I did. Alaska has its fair share of Republican Longshoremen currently. I am not buying this whole "Republicans are white rich evil devils" rant you are winding up for.

Click to expand...

You already know my position: the Republican party uses religion and various empty libertarian rhetoric to recruit and control labor that otherwise would benefit from pro-labor government

If you want me to find the AFL-CIOs list of which candidates union's support, I'm sure it's available somewhere, and I'm quite confident it'll back me up.

new coup for you said:

You already know my position: the Republican party uses religion and various empty libertarian rhetoric to recruit and control labor that otherwise would benefit from pro-labor government

If you want me to find the AFL-CIOs list of which candidates union's support, I'm sure it's available somewhere, and I'm quite confident it'll back me up.

Click to expand...

And I am quite confident that I don't give two curses what the labor unions have to say about pretty much anything considering how they have hamstrung American industry.

If you think that political party is dependent upon profession, you are deluding yourself. You wanted a Republican longshoreman and I showed you one of many. A great many.

you showed me a guy who's been dead for decades probably and pledged allegiance to a party which is utterly different from the Republican party in any way except name.

and the AFL-CIO is labor.

jamesrage said:

Are the people in these videos stereotypical liberals?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say stereotypical liberals. Stereotypical American hating Euro-trash maybe. I know this was played up for TV and such, but I think that limey bastard should have his teeth knocked out.

new coup for you said:

you showed me a guy who's been dead for decades probably and pledged allegiance to a party which is utterly different from the Republican party in any way except name.

and the AFL-CIO is labor.

Click to expand...

If you think that party affiliation is determined by the AFL-CIO or whatever other commie union bull**** organization you list, you are deluding yourself.

Republicans and Democrats alike cross every spectrum.

I think that the Democrats treat labor better, so labor, at least organized and self-conscious labor, tends to vote for them.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations are extremely old, respected and established organizations.

They're not exactly Code Pink.

new coup for you said:

I think that the Democrats treat labor better, so labor, at least organized and self-conscious labor, tends to vote for them.

Click to expand...

And Republicans tend to treat the economy more sensibly overall and oppose unions for that reason...free market and all that.

Organized and "self concious" labor tends to get duped more frequently because they are looking for someone to promise them a bigger cut than they deserve. They'll jump at whoever tells them the most convincing and appetizing lie.

jallman said:

And Republicans tend to treat the economy more sensibly overall and oppose unions for that reason...free market and all that.

Organized and "self concious" labor tends to get duped more frequently because they are looking for someone to promise them a bigger cut than they deserve. They'll jump at whoever tells them the most convincing and appetizing lie.

Click to expand...

I think right now is a hard time to argue for the benefits of an unregulated market.

Sometimes, in an unregulated market, people get insane loans that make no sense to anyone and end up with houses they cannot possibly afford. Then everything collapses and OH **** OH **** OH **** OH ****, etc. Sometimes that happens.

So we have Republicans who promise labor an end to the "death tax" (which they don't pay because they don't own much), an end to abortion (which they disproportionately need due the higher pregnancy rates of the working classes and their inability to cope with more children) and an barrier to gay marriage which affects them in no possible way.

And we have the Democrats who promise labor healthcare, reasonable working hours and an ability to retire in dignity.

Lets just say for the purpose of the argument that they're both lying, for ulterior motives.

The Democratic promises, if actually followed through, would help labor. The Republican promises are worthless and in some instances actually damaging.

new coup for you said:

I think right now is a hard time to argue for the benefits of an unregulated market.

Sometimes, in an unregulated market, people get insane loans that make no sense to anyone and end up with houses they cannot possibly afford. Then everything collapses and OH **** OH **** OH **** OH ****, etc. Sometimes that happens.

So we have Republicans who promise labor an end to the "death tax" (which they don't pay because they don't own much), an end to abortion (which they disproportionately need due the higher pregnancy rates of the working classes and their inability to cope with more children) and an barrier to gay marriage which affects them in no possible way.

And we have the Democrats who promise labor healthcare, reasonable working hours and an ability to retire in dignity.

Lets just say for the purpose of the argument that they're both lying, for ulterior motives.

The Democratic promises, if actually followed through, would help labor. The Republican promises are worthless and in some instances actually damaging.

Click to expand...

Except that no one was ever given a job by a poor man. Taxing the wealthy out of their wealth inevitably harms labor because it drives up the unemployment rate.

No one is taxing anyone into the poor house, they're just forcing corporations to treat their employees with human dignity.

It also allows the employers to become more functional consumers, benefiting the economy.

A Wal-Mart employee that's been unionized and is payed full time for 40 hours a week is spending more money then a private Wal-Mart employee that works 38 hours week (all that Wal-Mart will let them) and is therefore only paid for "part time" and isn't given any benefits.

new coup for you said:

No one is taxing anyone into the poor house, they're just forcing corporations to treat their employees with human dignity.

It also allows the employers to become more functional consumers, benefiting the economy.

A Wal-Mart employee that's been unionized and is payed full time for 40 hours a week is spending more money then a private Wal-Mart employee that works 38 hours week (all that Wal-Mart will let them) and is therefore only paid for "part time" and isn't given any benefits.

Click to expand...

It's up to Wal-mart to attract the caliber employ it wants with what it has to offer and it is up to the worker to find a job that will suit his needs.

Please, it's basic labor. Today's Wal-Mart is directly analogous to yesterdays manufacturing plant. Wal-Mart shuts down all the competing businesses in an area so that it becomes the sole (or at least commands such a large amount that it can dictate terms) employer of low-skilled labor.

There's such a concept of monopoly of employment as well as monopoly of production.

And you can argue "well there are still other jobs". This is partially true, even though there are inevitably vastly less) but they all have to compete with Wal-Mart and will be forced to adopt similarly abusive practices.

This is why no one wants to live in an unregulated or even lightly regulated capitalist society: competition does not always lead towards a benefit from an overall perspective.

Two excellent examples: missile stockpiling and male walruses.

No one wants the world to have 10,000 nuclear missiles. If the US and the Soviet Union both had 100 missiles each, it'd be effectively the same balance as 5,000 missiles each- except that it would limit the destruction if WWIII every occurred. But because both parties were locked into competition and couldn't be controlled by any outside source, both parties developed stockpiles that neither really wanted.

Male walruses. Female walruses are attracted to the biggest male. Therefore the bigger you are the more mates you have. Unfortunately being a 10 foot long, 2 ton walrus is actually very bad for you. Some male walruses get so big their bones actually collapse in on themselves because they can't support the weight. It'd be better if they were all fifty percent their size and it wouldn't change the balance of competition, but it would make for some more comfortable male walruses.

No one wants to destroy main street, create an endless mire of working class poverty and make all American consumer goods worthless crap that's made in China.

But all it takes is the American publics pathological consumerism and one firm who is willing to cut any corner to create "Everyday Low Prices" and then everyone has to compete against them and everyone must adopt their practices.

This is why capitalism does not allow for choice or freedom.

Government regulation allows a degree of restriction upon the producer to allow a degree of freedom to return to the consumer and employee.

Right now we have 25 foot long 7 ton walruses that all have 10,000 missile silos on high alert, at all times.

We basically need to reboot American capitalism so that it returns to a more genuinely competitive era.

dclxvinoise said:

It's also hilarious, but not that surprising, that you actually think that these people (who are major douches, by the way) are stereotypical Liberals.

Click to expand...

I'm almost embarrassed to admit I've watched several episodes of this train wreck of a TV show. Oh well...

With that, you've hit the nail on the head here. Nearly all the couples who appear on this show are major douches, with few exceptions. If they were typical, middle-of-the-road American families, there'd be nothing to watch.

:shock:

Grateful Heart said:

I'm almost embarrassed to admit I've watched several episodes of this train wreck of a TV show. Oh well...

With that, you've hit the nail on the head here. Nearly all the couples who appear on this show are major douches, with few exceptions. If they were typical, middle-of-the-road American families, there'd be nothing to watch.

:shock:

Click to expand...

Oh come on...that show is great braindead entertainment. It's like visiting a freak show for an hour a week.

The episode with the warrior of god woman from backswamp country was awesome!!!

Grateful Heart said:

I'm almost embarrassed to admit I've watched several episodes of this train wreck of a TV show. Oh well...

With that, you've hit the nail on the head here. Nearly all the couples who appear on this show are major douches, with few exceptions. If they were typical, middle-of-the-road American families, there'd be nothing to watch.

:shock:

Click to expand...

I watch shows like this regularly and kind of hang my head in shame for doing so. What can I say? People love sensationalism and I'm no different. It's like watching a car wreck. You don't want to watch, but you can't turn away. Though, it's rather hypocritical of me to criticize such shows and watch them at the same time. If I truly cared about it and had enough will power I could just shut the tv off, which is what I really should be doing in the first place.

jallman said:

Oh come on...that show is great braindead entertainment. It's like visiting a freak show for an hour a week.

The episode with the warrior of god woman from backswamp country was awesome!!!

Click to expand...

She used to have an official website with pictures of her and B-list actors who had kind of ashamed looks on their faces. She tried to become an actress if I recall correctly and that obviously didn't pan out.

dclxvinoise said:

She used to have an official website with pictures of her and B-list actors who had kind of ashamed looks on their faces. She tried to become an actress if I recall correctly and that obviously didn't pan out.

Click to expand...

What was her name? Marguerite or something like that.

I have to admit, I was in the floor laughing my ass off by the end of that episode.

jallman said:

And Republicans tend to treat the economy more sensibly overall and oppose unions for that reason...free market and all that.

Organized and "self concious" labor tends to get duped more frequently because they are looking for someone to promise them a bigger cut than they deserve. They'll jump at whoever tells them the most convincing and appetizing lie.

Click to expand...

Republicans fight the unions because the unions make it impossible for Republicans to lie, cheat, and steal effectively.

Union contracts prevent employee abuse --- big business hates this as much as they hate jury trials (they generally lose because juries tend to side with the underdog).

Anytime business it prevented from sodomizing their employees they get pissed off and call those employees "scum".

jallman said:

What was her name? Marguerite or something like that.

I have to admit, I was in the floor laughing my ass off by the end of that episode.

Click to expand...

Yep, Marguerite Perrin. She even has a myspace with a mix version of her screaming her "god warrior" stuff set to low-fi casio beats.

new coup for you said:

No one wants the world to have 10,000 nuclear missiles. If the US and the Soviet Union both had 100 missiles each, it'd be effectively the same balance as 5,000 missiles each- except that it would limit the destruction if WWIII every occurred. But because both parties were locked into competition and couldn't be controlled by any outside source, both parties developed stockpiles that neither really wanted.

Click to expand...

Your entire post was so long that it would be fruitless to respond to all of it. But I highlighted just one bit since it has about as much merit as the rest of your analysis. It reflects an idealistically naive view of history, worldwide conflict, and military strategy, sorry.

The balance of power would be effectively the same if each side had 100 missiles? Really? Would that also make for a more effective deterrence? How about if each side had 50 missiles? Or only 10? Also an effective deterrence? And how would those 100 or 50 or 10 nuclear warheads be distributed? Would they all be land-based in silos? Or carried by bombers? Or submarines? Or doesn't it really matter, because as you indicate, 'no one wants the world to have 10,000 nuclear missiles,' so therefore anything less than 10,000 must, by definition, be preferable?

Your walrus example wasn't much more convincing.

Do you think anyone in the US would tolerate even 5 nuclear missiles going off inside the US?