Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And just WTF do you think 99%er means in the first place?

I know you don't like to read things you disagree with, Frazzled, but come on! I've explained what I think it means countless times over the past week or so.

Funny, it sure looks like I'm right...again. From the link from the OccupyWallstreet site:
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we're working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.

They are the 1 percent. They are the banks, the mortgage industry, the insurance industry. They are the important ones. They need help and get bailed out and are praised as job creators. We need help and get nothing and are called entitled. We live in a society made for them, not for us. It’s their world, not ours. If we’re lucky, they’ll let us work in it so long as we don’t question the extent of their charity.

We are the 99 percent. We are everyone else. And we will no longer be silent. It’s time the 1 percent got to know us a little better. On Sept. 17, 2011, the 99 percent will converge on Wall Street to let the 1 percent know just how frustrated they are with living in a world made for someone else. Let us know why you’ll be there. Let us know how you are the 99 percent.

Looks like 1% is being blamed, for everything. That 1% is scuttling and fiendish, not like the rest of us progs. I think they will need to wear red hats.

The whole 1% vs 99% thing is getting boring.

How about changing the entire evolution to the Brave New World? I like that analogy better.

1 percenters could be the Alpha+ and Alpha-
99 percenters would be Deltas and Epsilons of course

Phanatik wrote:
All politicians care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.

Fixed that for you.
Your welcome.

Phanatik wrote:
And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.

The funny part about this is that young Phanatik has me on ignore.

dogma wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.

The funny part about this is that young Phanatik has me on ignore.

Lucky!
you say it like it's a bad thing.

alarmingrick wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
All politicians care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.

Fixed that for you.
You're welcome.

Fixed that for you.
Uh...

alarmingrick wrote:
Lucky!
you say it like it's a bad thing.

For his credibility, it is. When people challenge him, he ignores them. It is really quite hilarious.

I'm also amused that he accused a mod, someone who has the power to censor him, of censoring him by criticizing his position.

Its almost as if he were attempting to manipulate the debate, which, according to Phanatik, is something that only liberals do.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And just WTF do you think 99%er means in the first place?

I know you don't like to read things you disagree with, Frazzled, but come on! I've explained what I think it means countless times over the past week or so.

Funny, it sure looks like I'm right...again.

You also apparently don't bother to read what YOU posted, either.

You asked me what I think it means... not what some people with a website think it means.

Phanatik wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
All politicians care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.

Fixed that for you.
You're welcome.

Fixed that for you.
Uh...

So, you're saying that your first statement, that was originally quoted, was wrong?

Original statement below.

Phanatik wrote:
Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.

dogma wrote: For his credibility, it is.

Wasn't aware he had any....

Alright, let's try and steer this back toward Romney or at least away from specific users. Thanks!

chaos0xomega wrote:
I could be described as socially and fiscally conservative, yet I would never vote for a candidate on the principal of religion, one =/= the other.

No one said that they did.

You're mixing terms.

chaos0xomega wrote:
But do we need to base an election system around the concept of political parties? I say nay.

But statistics say yea, in the face of which whatever you may want is irrelevant.

In theory we don't need political parties (2 or more) to get elected. However, minus the party concept you are going to be dependent on very rich individuals to run. The party system allows for a place to promote shared ideals so that if I give 10$ to say the Hrumpf! Party they can judge prospective candidates that share the glorious ideals of the Hrumpf and dole out say 2$ to 5 candidates rather than have that candidate have to come up with all the dollars himself or spend an inordinate time trying to talk me into personnally giving him $10.

chaos0xomega wrote:Whats so stupid about someone expressing dissatisfaction with something and stating that they would move to another country?

It's stupid because no-one ever does it. It's even dumber when it's a right winger so outraged at the thought of the country returning a Democrat to power that they'd move to the UK, which is far more left wing than the US.

Says the guy in Australia?

The number of people who are undecided between the two parties but get out and vote every election is almost completely negligible. There are plenty of folk who don't align with either party, but their voting attendance is woeful. When these people do vote, it is always terrible for the Republican party.

These are basic, very well documented stats that remain true regardless of where anyone lives. Facts are good like that.

Pandering to that segment of the population ostracizes way more voters than it gains. The only exception to this is, of course, the primary, where you need to pander to them if you want to carry certain states within the context of your own party. Kinda like how people need to pander to farmers in Iowa if they want to carry that state in the primary. This is part of the reason why the primary system is flawed, let alone the fact that it has no place in our government and shouldn't exist, period.

Sort of but not really. There is a marked difference in priorities between the hardcore of the Republican party, who vote in primaries, and the more moderate Republicans. Both groups have to be appeased for the party to be successful in an election.

But you are confusing the second group with non-affiliated voters, who have little to no effect of elections.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:Democrats/liberals care about getting (re)elected. They will say or do or spend anything to do so. They will ignore history, or distort it. They isolate groups, tell them they have been victimized and then pander to them. They would spend this country into oblivion so long as they are in charge when the fall happens. And hope to be in charge of the chaos that follows.

Uh huh. Because by choosing team liberal, they become cynical, lying villains obsessed only with winning power. If only they'd chosen team conservative, who champion their noble and true beliefs above any personal gain.

Wow, it's gets so much easier to understand the world once we decide politics is actually just about cheering for team red or team blue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:And once again the liberal censorship machine goes into action to trample on free expression by declaring that only they know what topics are fit for conversation.

You don't understand what censorship means. Censorship is demanding a topic cannot be discussed. It is not considering a topic too stupid be worth talking about.

You are free to spend as much of your spare time pondering how McCarthy was so hard done by, when all he did was use bully boy tactics to intimidate non-communists into giving up non-communists, but it is a stupid, stupid effort.