How do I Image Macro IRL?

[Scottsman]

Sorry, I just can't stay quite about this. What is your beef with photo ID's? Voter fraud is a serious issue. You need ID's for lots of other stuff, but not steering the country? You can get an ID for free at some places, it's at best a hassle. I'm trying to figure out the racial element that was alluded to, but I just don't see it.

[mgb519]

Sorry, I just can't stay quite about this. What is your beef with photo ID's? Voter fraud is a serious issue. You need ID's for lots of other stuff, but not steering the country? You can get an ID for free at some places, it's at best a hassle. I'm trying to figure out the racial element that was alluded to, but I just don't see it.

I can't quiet understand what you're responding to there.

[Alex]

Sorry, I just can't stay quite about this. What is your beef with photo ID's? Voter fraud is a serious issue. You need ID's for lots of other stuff, but not steering the country? You can get an ID for free at some places, it's at best a hassle. I'm trying to figure out the racial element that was alluded to, but I just don't see it.

I think the issue is that people need to show a valid ID to vote, but when donating money to Super PACS, the donors don't have to disclose who they are to anyone, hence the second panel. Politicians can now receive unlimited money from anonymous donors.

[Zupponn]

Sorry, I just can't stay quite about this. What is your beef with photo ID's? Voter fraud is a serious issue. You need ID's for lots of other stuff, but not steering the country? You can get an ID for free at some places, it's at best a hassle. I'm trying to figure out the racial element that was alluded to, but I just don't see it.

I think the issue is that people need to show a valid ID to vote, but when donating money to Super PACS, the donors don't have to disclose who they are to anyone, hence the second panel. Politicians can now receive unlimited money from anonymous donors.

And this is an issue, why? How much would the removal of the anonymity actually change the amounts given to politicians? I'm convinced that the people would still donate just as much. Also, IMO ads can only do so much and little to nothing when the voters actually care about an election. Here in Wisconsin we're having a pretty big recall election for our governor in a couple of weeks and no matter how much money either side spends, the polling numbers have remained virtually unchanged. The difference between this election and a normal governor's election is that the voters here in Wisconsin care about this election more than almost any election ever, so they've been watching the news and ignoring the dumb ads.

[Scottsman]

Sorry, I just can't stay quite about this. What is your beef with photo ID's? Voter fraud is a serious issue. You need ID's for lots of other stuff, but not steering the country? You can get an ID for free at some places, it's at best a hassle. I'm trying to figure out the racial element that was alluded to, but I just don't see it.

I can't quiet understand what you're responding to there.

The original post. THat is what I am responding to. The one about photo ID's.

[Natalya]

It just seems strange that when historically you haven't needed a photo ID to vote, well now they're trying to say you do, but if you're going to spend millions of dollars to influence an election more than any single vote would, well now you don't have to be identified at all anymore if you want to do that.

It is a paradigm shift, nay, a complete reversal of that which used to be the norm.

Sorry, I just can't stay quite about this. What is your beef with photo ID's? Voter fraud is a serious issue. You need ID's for lots of other stuff, but not steering the country? You can get an ID for free at some places, it's at best a hassle. I'm trying to figure out the racial element that was alluded to, but I just don't see it.

I think the issue is that people need to show a valid ID to vote, but when donating money to Super PACS, the donors don't have to disclose who they are to anyone, hence the second panel. Politicians can now receive unlimited money from anonymous donors.

And this is an issue, why? How much would the removal of the anonymity actually change the amounts given to politicians? I'm convinced that the people would still donate just as much. Also, IMO ads can only do so much and little to nothing when the voters actually care about an election. Here in Wisconsin we're having a pretty big recall election for our governor in a couple of weeks and no matter how much money either side spends, the polling numbers have remained virtually unchanged. The difference between this election and a normal governor's election is that the voters here in Wisconsin care about this election more than almost any election ever, so they've been watching the news and ignoring the dumb ads.

I do not think the amounts given would change, but I do think the uses to which the money is put would be at risk of being discredited.

[Colette]

This is my opinion about politics.

America during World War II and the subsequent era was controlled by Démocrats. A full hegemony over the houses and the presidency. I would say this was the golden age of America, when life was good et. al and America was America with the exception of the looming Soviet Union (but realistically they would never get into nuclear war.) I would argue the competition with the Soviet Union (one, unified but coordinated enemy) was actually a beneficial force that drove some of the most impressive innovation ever seen in this nation (i.e moon landing).

Then came ‘Nam, which was a complete disaster, but then again Démocrats were never really strong in foreign policy.

Then Reagan came and ran up the deficit. While I’ll be the first to admit that he’s not a truly evil guy, his practices would later be exaggerated and worshipped by Républicans and ultimately lead this country down the ditch. Reagan spending is survivable as long as a Démocrat comes later to mop up the mess.

It was in Clinton’s administration that the House of Reps was first retaken by the Républicans after decades-long Démocratic hegemony. This led to some shaky times (i.e Gov’t shutdown) but ultimately they ended up working together fine. and Clinton’s radical policies eventually created a surplus. Even despite Lewinsky I would still say he was the best president of modern times.

Then came hell.

Not like he was a villain, he was just Dick’s puppet, but he ran up the deficit like a drunken sailor in Las Vegas. We now spend like a half of the world’s military expenditures. He created these bullshit wars in the middle east which just further added to America’s bar tab and have served no purpose other than setting up a puppet gov’t that will be overthrown by Taliban 6 months after we leave. In other words: he made America suck dick.

As for the next 4 years after Bush, all I have to say is that Obama has no penis, and neither do any other démocrats.

TL;DR: Démocrats were in charge during the good times while Républicans were ruling when America was down the shitter. I doubt it’s coincidence-Démocrats are much better than Républicans at running our country.

[Silverdream]

Then came ‘Nam, which was a complete disaster, but then again Démocrats were never really strong in foreign policy.

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Truman, were weak in foreign policy?

Reagan wasn't a very good president, however he was one of the bigger factors in the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Though I'm not going to be acknowledged for this post, I'm going to state my opinion on politicians and politicians. politicians have almost always been the safe bet for president. When your country is not under any particular stress, they usually don't fuck up. However, many politicians such as Lincoln have lead your country in the most difficult of times. politicians are usually voted for when politician solutions don't work or when the USA is already in the shitter.

This is all as a foreigner who knows more about European and Canadian history.

[Colette]

Then came ‘Nam, which was a complete disaster, but then again Démocrats were never really strong in foreign policy.

In recent times. Roosevelt was a legend but he was like quite a few decades ago, a lot of if not all démocrats have flubbed FP since then.

If we wanted to go back in time, I could argue Lincoln was a good Républican, but obviously that was quite a while ago.

[stubby]

Reagan wasn't a very good president, however he was one of the bigger factors in the downfall of the Soviet Union.

A "bigger factor" in the sense that, under his administration, we were spending as much money to try and keep the Soviet Union from collapsing as we were in trying to oppose it. Cold War posturing was key to the GOP platform for re-elections, and to their plan for keeping the economy running through military-industrial spending. They were doing anything they could think of to keep the Soviets in power; the fall of the USSR was a disaster for the right.

[Keldoclock]

See what I mean? Empires like ours need strong enemies to push and challenge them to advance, these can be other nations, extreme internal struggle, or even nature itself ( a frontier is a *massively* beneficial force for a nation- the innovations that are produced to deal with the harsh environment and low manpower are immensely useful).


This is why I maintain my stance that this nation needs a new frontier, because we sure as hell aren't going to find any strong enemies in other nations, and internal struggle will be painful and damaging and probably result in something that is not only very unpleasant to reach, but also nothing like the America of today.

[Zupponn]

This is my opinion about politics.

America during World War II and the subsequent era was mostly controlled by Démocrats. A full hegemony over the houses while the presidency was controlled by both parties. I would say this was the golden age of America, when life was good et. al and America was America with the exception of the looming Soviet Union (but realistically they would never get into nuclear war.) I would argue the competition with the Soviet Union (one, unified but coordinated enemy) was actually a beneficial force that drove some of the most impressive innovation ever seen in this nation (i.e moon landing). Despite these things, this era and the following era are the reasons that we have such a huge national debt now along with the Social Security problem.

Then came ‘Nam, which was a complete disaster, but then again Démocrats were never really strong in foreign policy. This is the main reason that we have such a large national debt.

Then Reagan came. While I’ll be the first to admit that he’s not a truly evil guy, his practices would later be exaggerated and worshipped by Républicans.

It was in Clinton’s administration that the House of Reps was first retaken by the Républicans after decades-long Démocratic hegemony. This led to some shaky times (i.e Gov’t shutdown) but ultimately they ended up working together fine. and the House's radical policies eventually created a surplus.

Then came hell.

Not like he was a villain, but he ran up the deficit like a drunken sailor in Las Vegas. We now spend like a half of the world’s military expenditures although this isn't really a new idea. This spending trend was created by the earlier politicians and was just increased by Bush. He created these bullshit wars in the middle east which just further added to America’s bar tab. Bush's presidency can really be looked at as 2 presidencies dominated by the Iraq War and 2 major domestic incidents. His first term is considered by historians to be a good term, as he is the only president in the past 100 years who would have been able to handle 9/11 as well as he did. The second term was not very good as Katrina took a big piss on him. Bush had to deal with a lot more shit than most presidents have to even think about, but he was about average, maybe a little below average, as presidents go.

As for the next 4 years after Bush, all I have to say is that Obama has no penis, and neither do any other démocrats.

Fix'd (somewhat).

[Colette]

OK I respect your opinion for the most part, but the past 100 years? You're saying that empty skull named George w Bush is better than Woodrow Wilson (WWI), FDR (WW2+Pearl Harbor+Great Depression), and JFK (Cuban Missile Crisis)? Also, it's hard to argue that Républicans were not the ones who drove up the deficit.



Also: I flubbed when I said dems controlled the presidency-nice catch.

[Zupponn]

Nope, I'm just saying that only he could have handled 9/11 as well as he did. What other president would have gone to the site with a fucking megaphone and made a speech like he did? He brought the country together in a way that only the best presidents have been able to do. Of course, I'm not saying that he is in the top half of our presidents, but if he would have lost his reelection, then he might be.

[Colette]

Nope, I'm just saying that only he could have handled 9/11 as well as he did. What other president would have gone to the site with a fucking megaphone and made a speech like he did? He brought the country together in a way that only the best presidents have been able to do. Of course, I'm not saying that he is in the top half of our presidents, but if he would have lost his reelection, then he might be.

Because really, what other president could have responded to a disaster like 9/11 better than comfortably reading a book to a kindergarten class?