NationStates Jolt Archive

Democrats, Republicans, neither, or myrth?

Just cast your ballots and be done with it.

EDIT: please treat neither and both as the same.

My bad, but: it comes out the same if you think there is no difference on this issues between the 2 parties.

Dems at least pretend to.

Was there supposed to be a poll?

Dems at least pretend to.

Was there supposed to be a poll?

Yeap. I don't manage lightvelocity when typing.
Bad karma - my fault.

I don't think either party is purposely apathetic to the poor. People who are against whichever group will say the party doesn't care, but I don't believe the accusations to be true.

Wheres the both category?

I don't think either party is purposely apathetic to the poor. People who are against whichever group will say the party doesn't care, but I don't believe the accusations to be true.

You're probably right.

But after 2 threads of fillibustering, I guess it's time to VOTE and be done with it.

Note to fillibusters: it won't help you. The Vote is cast and the matter is settled by the time you've explained your first metaphore.

Why isn't there a 'Both' option? I think it's the case that both parties don't care for the poor.

Wheres the both category?


Merged with neither and/or myrth.

Why isn't "both" an option?

Edit: Nevermind.

George Bush doesn't care about poor people - or was that black people? :D

Merged with neither and/or myrth.
Even though they're diametrically opposed positions...

"Neither" would assert that the two parties DO care.

"Both" would assert that the two parties DON'T care.

George Bush doesn't care about poor people - or was that black people? :D
I never understood why that was a bad thing. I want the government to be indifferent toward me.

I never understood why that was a bad thing. I want the government to be indifferent toward me.
Not sure if you missed the joke there, but it was a play upon the infamous Kanye West quote of the relatively same nature.

Myrth only cares about the rich posters. He cares not about the common forumgoer.

I never understood why that was a bad thing. I want the government to be indifferent toward me.

Agreed. I would be much happier if the government had no idea I even exist.

Agreed. I would be much happier if the government had no idea I even exist.

I also agree. It's definitely better than them knowing your every move.

I wouldn't say that either party "doesn't care" about the poor. Only a few people would honestly say that the poor don't matter and that they could care less about them. The big problem, though, is that both parties are wedded to an economic system that while promised to be the cat's meow for everyone in reality turns out to be spectacularly bad for poor people. They stay with this system because partly because everyone in control of either party still believes that the model will work, and partly because money is what drives politics these days, and so they need the money of the rich and influential to succeed at politics. Engaging in overt populism, then, is merely biting the hand that feeds you.

Not sure if you missed the joke there, but it was a play upon the infamous Kanye West quote of the relatively same nature.
I felt the same way about Kanye's remark.

Though it did create that incredibly amusing reaction from Mike Myers.

Neither care about the poor. Anyone who believes differently is trying to sell something.

wheres the both option?

Myrth only cares about the rich posters. He cares not about the common forumgoer.

Aye. :(

Myrth, our oppressive overlord, hast thou forsaken us, as the Republicans and Democrats have done?

Where are the options for the French, the Texans, the Communists and Jesus?

Where are the options for the French, the Texans, the Communists and Jesus?

Um... you were 3/3, but Jesus? How do you derive that one? :confused:

Um... you were 3/3, but Jesus? How do you derive that one? :confused:
Easy.

Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics. Therefore, Jesus can't care about the poor.

Um... you were 3/3, but Jesus? How do you derive that one? :confused:

Two ways.

First- Consorting with tax-collectors who preyed upon the poor.

Second- His explaining that poor people giving money to the church was better than rich people giving to the church. Advocating the poor give away what money they have.

I care for the poor, but not by bailing them out.

Two ways.

First- Consorting with tax-collectors who preyed upon the poor.

Second- His explaining that poor people giving money to the church was better than rich people giving to the church. Advocating the poor give away what money they have.

Um....

1) Consorting? He over-turned the tables and fought AGAINST the tax collectors in the temple. He did say "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", but that's hardly consorting!

2) That's out of context. It was explaining that it isn't how much you give, but what you give up means to you is what matters. It's nothing for Bill Gates to give $5000 to a soup kitchen. But if James on 8th Avenue gives $50 and lives on $300 a week, he made the bigger sacrifice even though he gave 1/100th of what Bill Gates gave.