democrats – the first step with any contagion is containment

  • Leave A Comment

    Leave a comment ?

    25 Responses to democrats – the first step with any contagion is containment

    1. so is this anti-democrats propaganda? I don’t get this debate!? Wasn’t there someone who said that “You’re Un-American if you don’t vote Republicans”? So you DON’t get a democratic choice??? So what you’re basically saying is that you’re against Democracy???

      Reply

      • That’s the point, really. You force the two party system into such a binary that a third party can’t ever exist again – then you use this binary to force as many people as possible into one of the two camps, even though there’s no way anyone wholly agrees with every part of what “their” party is doing.

        Once you have everyone in separate camps of vaguely equal size, you grab ahold of the most spineless, ignorant, fearful, and angry of the group and really rub them raw, get them talking and irritated. This will finally have both sides forgetting that their respective leaders are both controlled by the same source, instead focusing their attention on arguing with EACHOTHER about bullshit irrelevant to the system in the first place, giving you ample time to ROB THE SHIT out of them on every personal level until they’re more concerned about bible passages and fetus rights than their living conditions, which by now, are approaching anything but “Free” but still better than most of the world has it so shut the fuck up and get back to the television.

        Shit like this pisses me off – there’s a party system for a reason, and it’s to prevent monopolization of power — it’s supposed to PREVENT you knowing who you’re going to vote for before you even hear the ISSUE. Pretty interesting how they’ve pretty much backed everyone into that corner anyway, when’s the last time an “independent” got any respect?

        If you vote based on your party instead of the issue and create political dogma like this, you’re nothing short of a moron.

        Reply

        • This is a basic game theory problem. Mathematically speaking, any voting system with “first past the post” winner criteria will eventually converge on a binary opposition of nearly equal size. Preferential voting or proportional voting give stronger results to diverse parties and candidates because there’s no such thing as a “wasted” voted under those systems.

          Reply

        • Parties are just an excuse to mindlessly cast your ballet

          Reply

      • It’s better if you don’t try to understand these crazy people.

        Reply

      • I guess this means republicans are commies. That have been since 2000.

        Reply

      • the united states has never been a proper “democracy“. it has always been a lot more of a “republic” (the phrase “and to the republic for which it stands” should be a hint)…

        Reply

    2. always been curious why its democrats and republicans…
      i mean its a democratic country right? so the democrat part makes sense
      why republicans? its not a republic country.

      /if i have just commited some grave stupidity then please don’t say anything mean

      Reply

      • Its not stupid – the Democrats want a Democracy (everyone has an equal vote) the Republicans want a Republic (a small group – the wealthy and successful, control the government)

        Back in the colonial days, the wealthy didn’t think the average citizen was bright enough to be involved in government, so some elites like James Madison developed the concept of “representative democracy” so that the fortunate could maintain a power base and still claim that we have “government by the people”.

        Today, the majority of Senators and Congressmen are millionaires, many are multi-millionaires.

        In modern times, the Republicans want to serve the wealthy by cutting taxes on millionaires and reducing government spending on programs that help the poor and middle class like health care, public schools and unemployment insurance.

        The Republicans claim they are for “small government”, but a quick look at a chart of the national debt over the last 100 years shows this is bull, the Repubs always increase overall spending and the Dems generally reduce it.

        The Democrats fight for programs that help the poor and middle class, like health care, public schools and unemployment insurance.

        It’s a gross oversimplification, and you can always find cases where a Democrat supported this or a Republican supported that – but this is where the names came from, anyway.

        (prepares for wave of right-wing republican bullshit about “trickle down” theory, where we give everything to the big corporations and hope they leave some table scraps)

        Reply

        • You realize you are totally and completely wrong? Matrix covers it in his post. Thanks

          Reply

          • Sorry, no -as I said it might be oversimplified but we don’t really have space here for a 200 page treatise on the history of politics. Are you saying that most Congressmen and Senators are not millionaires? That Republicans didn’t press for tax cuts for the upper class? That they aren’t now pushing for cuts to welfare and Medicare? That James Madison didn’t develop the concept of “representative democracy”?
            Methinks it is you that are wrong.
            Thanks

            Reply

      • The names are historical. The Democrats started out as the Democratic-Republicans back in Jefferson’s times, when their opposition was the Federalists and later the Whigs and the Know-Nothing Party. Gradually the dropped the “Republican” part of the name, because it was just too long. The modern Republican party doesn’t show up until Lincoln, where the name emphasized remaining unified as a Republic, in contrast to the Confederates who try to divide and form their own government. Neither name as anything to do with their current political views.

        Reply

          • Try reading your own link.
            Whig (1832–1854)
            Republican (1854–1865)
            Also the article has a whole section title “Redefining Republicanism” that goes into detail about what I said in the last post.

            Reply

            • The Republican party was a combination of the Whig party, the Free soil party plus anti-slavery activists. Lincoln was a Whig so he went with the new party as it was anti-slavery. But today, with Republican Presidential candidates calling for secession and Virginia Governor McDonnell calling the Civil War “a noble fight for independence against the power of the dreaded Union Army” I doubt the Republican party of today would support a candidate like Lincoln for president. Lincoln felt that the Federal government had a “sovereign right” over individual states – how many Republicans today support that view?

              Reply

    3. Containment? Like in concentration camps? Keep staying classy GOPers.

      Reply

    4. i think all the smaller parties should ally to forge a realistic 3rd party, and rally against the binary democrat vs republican system

      Reply

    Leave a Comment



    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Architecture Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas