Republicans or Democrats?

43 comments

• Dougster

  •

  15 years ago

  MisterGay: "Nope, that was communism. " Incorrect. Under communism the workers would own and control the wealth. "Dictatorship of the proletariat". In the USSR it was a very small elite of the ruling party who controlled every aspect of society and told the workers what to do often at gun point. It was fascism. Please get a fuckin' brain! MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
• how

  •

  15 years ago

  Socialism always involves tyranny, because responsible citizens who produce and succeed don't willingly give away all their earnings, but must be forced to do so. Capitalism, with whatever faults it has, can co-exist with liberty. This is always preferable to tyranny.
• Dougster

  •

  15 years ago

  how: "Capitalism, with whatever faults it has, can co-exist with liberty. This is always preferable to tyranny." This strikes me as rather simplistic and more than a little naive. In practice the most successful in capitalism will use their wealth to influence the government/courts to become tyrannical, in such a manner that it furthers their accelerated accumulation of wealth. Yes, even if thats means denying liberty to others. I'm not sure what Utopian world you live in, but there is little correspondence between it and reality, so keep wanking away.
• MisterGuy

  •

  15 years ago

  "So the former Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic didn't involve socialism?" Nope, that was communism. "Socialism always involves tyranny, because responsible citizens who produce and succeed don't willingly give away all their earnings, but must be forced to do so." Tell that to India, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, Zambia, Tanzania, etc., etc., etc....
• Notsosly

  •

  15 years ago

  ""Didn't the former USSR try this?" Nope, but thanks for asking" So the former Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic didn't involve socialism? Ok.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "Didn't the former USSR try this?" BTW, I've had the opportunity to meet some hardcore communists from the Soviet Union. Of course, my reaction was why are you in America? The answer that I was given was that U.S. destroyed their nation and they were forced to flee. They wanted to learn about capitalism. Did they love the U.S. after seeing all the alleged freedom and the fully stocked shelves? Hardly. It sounded more like disgust. Do I think the Soviet Union was wonderful? Not all----especially after listening to these pro-Soviets. I can see why *they* would prefer it. And, if that is the price for getting rid of wealth inequality so be it----I'd rather have the Soviet system than a large corrupt government for the wealthy, iows, the rich get to be equal to their fellow citizens in the eyes of government and that is more important to me than material goods. :) Wealthy asshole doesn't mind corruption cause he ain't getting screwed? Time to level the playing field guys. Sorta like the clubber who loves government until it seeks to shut down *his* favorite club. When government is attacking other clubs that ain't of no concern to him because he is too busy loving government. A clubber like that NEEDS to have the government shut down his club to smack him into reality and out of flag waving.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "Didn't the former USSR try this? How'd that work out?" Seems like your mixing apples and oranges, imo. Besides let us say that, that is the end result. If it cures wealth inequality, then that is good enough for me. :) The poverty isn't the main problem, imo. I don't need more goods or services even when I was dead broke and food was in short supply. What I needed and had (making America fantastic for *me* and my people) was a lack of government. Now, the government gets big and aggressive that changes the game. I'm being oppressed by basically wealthy thugs who use the government to steal and jail. Worse, I fell for the fraud that you just work and save and that's all it takes. Yeah, even for a nobody like me that is all it takes assuming you don't have a corrupt government ready to take it from you with a few pen strokes. A corrupt government that caters to the wealthy, btw. Until President Bush, I had dream of a small government where basically you can work and be left alone. That model doesn't work. Supposed conservatives actually want large government. Now, that is a real problem, imo. If you all want large government, then I want large government dedicated to helping the poor and middle class. Also, because my rights seem totally dependent on how wealthy I am (thanks to the corrupt government of the wealthy), the government should have an even more important task. Elimination of wealth inequality. Ideally, I'd just rather have the nasty government off of my back. That is a pipe dream. Wealthy people love more government when it is serving them. So, they use it as weapon; well then at least use it as a good weapon. :) I'll always remember that wealthy asshole who thought creating a more expensive restrictive community was the greatest thing in the world cause it would attract more wealthy assholes like himself. I explained that Coral Gables was right nearby filled with wealthy assholes like himself and plenty restrictions galore. He has the nerve to complain it is too expensive! Nasty crooked clown (he was an attorney).
• MisterGuy

  •

  15 years ago

  "Didn't the former USSR try this?" Nope, but thanks for asking...
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  I think both Republicans and Democrats are pretty much sleaze city when it comes to stripclubs.
• gatorfan

  •

  15 years ago

  Democrats are more pro-immigration which always benefits our favorite strip clubs.
• txtittyfan

  •

  15 years ago

  California is a liberal state, but the mileage does not compare to Tx which is a conservative state. In my experience, both parties seem to equally disdain strip clubs when it suits their need when campaigning for election. (at least publically)
• Dudester

  •

  15 years ago

  Texas is a GOP state, but it was the dems on the Houston city council that passed the anti strip club ordinance that mandated distance requirements, pasties, etc. Although republicans are a lot of talk when it comes to strip clubs, it's the dems that want to pass laws against them.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  Hi TUSCL_Brother, I may be wrong, but I believe the U.S. Supreme Court held that strippers are protected by the First Amendment.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. marked a retreat from the Court's previous view that nude dancing, to the extent it is not obscene, is a form of freeexpression protected by the First Amendment." Read more: [view link]
• Clubber

  •

  15 years ago

  gatorfan, In general, Republicans are pro LEGAL immigration, democrats, pro ILLEGAL immigration. In Miami some years ago, a democratic US Attorney bit a dancer in a club. It was all the rage for a bit, and I do not know for certain, but I'm sure it cost him professionally. Although, that might be a liberal red badge of courage.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  Good point about LEGAL v. ILLEGAL. Seems like ILLEGAL immigration is best for stripclub patrons. I'd love to know how many LEGAL immigrants work in stripclubs compared to ILLEGAL immigrants. If legality is oh so super important the government can legalize all the illegal immigrants. :) But, gee I think that would hurt the big bad corporations. America needs its ILLEGAL immigrants just as it needs cheap products from China. You don't have to think to hard to see one fraud after another in this country----fraud ain't necessarily bad; might even be a necessary evil. I read a wonderful article sometime back about how much Social Security allegedly benefits from ILLEGAL immigrants----basically SS gets the cash and doesn't have to pay 'em benefits.
• samsung1

  •

  15 years ago

  I am a reader of night vision (an ohio monthly magazine about strip clubs) and they ran "vote democrat" ads in their paper claiming the Christian conservative wants to destroy the strip club industry. Also, Indiana is a more conservative than Ohio and their strip clubs are ranked higher than the ones in Ohio.
• chasman

  •

  15 years ago

  While the sun is up Republicans are opposed to strip clubs because sex is bad, mmm'kay, and Democrats are opposed to strip clubs because objectifying and exploiting women is bad, mmm'kay. After the sun goes down... well, the clubs are dimly lit for a reason.
• Book Guy

  •

  15 years ago

  Excellent points about immigration, Christian conservatives, etc. I think that generally a LIBERTARIAN would be pro-strip-clubs and an AUTHORITARIAN would be anti. The trick is, which is Republican and which is Democrat? Each mainstream party has a mix of the two slants. It's the same question in different guise as: would a feminist approve or disapprove of pornography and prostitution? Some types yes, some types no.
• MisterGuy

  •

  15 years ago

  "Although republicans are a lot of talk when it comes to strip clubs, it's the dems that want to pass laws against them." This is pretty much nonsense. Both of the extremes in either Party would like to restrict strip clubs (and the sex industry in general) for likely a different set of reasons. One of the most liberal states in the Northeast (VT) has only two strip clubs & both are very restricted by local laws. The Barre, VT mayor has been particularly harsh towards the local strip club that's located there, and he's a wing-nut GOPer. Right next door in NH (which is one of the most "conservative" states in the Northhast), they have a grand total of one strip club...with a very similar set of restrictive rules. "In general, Republicans are pro LEGAL immigration, democrats, pro ILLEGAL immigration." Again, this is utter nonsense. The extreme Right-wing of the GOP is very xenophobic these days about immigration issues though.
• DandyDan

  •

  15 years ago

  Here in the Midwest, Nebraska and Kansas are essentially in the pocket of the Republican Party. In Nebraska, no club has two way contact, while in Kansas, there are clubs where you can get extras and everything I've been to in Kansas is two-way contact. Iowa generally favors the Democratic Party, but its clubs are a lot like Kansas' clubs. My view of politics is that there is not only a Left and a Right, but also an Up and a Down as well, but they never talk about there being an up and down, whatever that would translate to.
• txtittyfan

  •

  15 years ago

  Sounds like politicians, regardless of party affiliation, like to publically denounce strip clubs to show their moral integrity and garner votes. While the citizens enjoy the benefits of strip clubs based upon the local convention. Some areas just enforce the laws more than others.
• how

  •

  15 years ago

  txtittyfan has posted the most sensible answers to this thread. jablake the least (what color is the sky in your world, ja?)
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  Hi how, Sometimes it is blue. Sometimes it is black. Sometimes it is red. Sometimes it like a rainbow. :) I'm told that if human eyes weren't so defective we'd see the sky in many more colors. Perhaps genetic engineering is path worth exploring---humans need not only better eyes, but more importantly significantly increased brain power. Yep, the includes the most intelligent humans. :) If you really believe that "conservatives" are typically nicer than liberals, then you need to really open your eyes and mind. As far as the ILLEGAL immigrants praise the Lord that they're willing to come and "steal" American jobs. LOL! I just wish the government would work harder to encourage more ILLEGALS to come and try and do some positive things. Maybe ILLEGALS could be used to help fill the government's prisons----but, make it attractive to 'em. You know conjugal visits, drugs, better food, air conditioning, whatever it takes to welcome them to this nation. :)
• uscue13

  •

  15 years ago

  Just look at the politicians that have all gotten in trouble recently (caught by escorts, strippers and oval office action even). What party do a majority of the "sex" scandals happen to? I don't know, I didn't look up the guys -- only one I know for a fact is Clinton was a democrat -- but if the scandals tend to favor one side more, maybe that side has the better attitude about workers that cater to sexual desires. Either that or they're just extremely bad at hiding it.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "Let's just change the wording 'strippers' to 'First Amendment Freedom Fighers' or 'First Amendment Dancers'. LOL" LOVING IT!!! :)
• gatorfan

  •

  15 years ago

  New Jersey is about as Democrat as it gets, however townships in New Jersey dont exactly want strip clubs in their towns. Political parties have nothing really to do with favoring strip clubs, it all comes down to "you want one in your backyard"
• casualguy

  •

  15 years ago

  I haven't done a survey but I thought there were more strip clubs in Republican states.
• Book Guy

  •

  15 years ago

  I have to admit, I have a lot of reasons to like "illegal" immigrants too. Here in New Orleans the Hispanic (probably mostly illegal) community is full of men willing to work, at a decent or even indecently low wage, at jobs which the long-standing inner-city African American community has not been willing to perform. There are plenty of arguments against this sort of situation -- the most obvious being, that the illegals are taking jobs away from legal workers. But frankly, the inner-city community has had about 50 years to step up to the plate and has failed. The new influx of Hispanics has proven, pretty quickly, that men willing to lug cinder blocks around a construction site will soon learn to wield a hammer, then a power saw, and in about two years they'll be buying a truck and renting an apartment for themselves and a growing brood of church-goers who also are willing to wield a hammer. Here we need the workers, the city still has tons of cash and fewer laborers than available jobs, thanks to all the post-Katrina rebuilding and insurance and FEMA money. I know that in other cities, it's not 100% such a happy story, about the manners in which new illegal laborers have influenced the labor market. And in plenty of places in the USA, a new wave of Hispanics might mean in many ways a new wave of Hispanic violent criminal gang members. But that's not what we got in NOLa. What we got here, thanks to the Hispanic immigration wave (legal and illegal) and the election of Obama, is, basically, "racism is officially dead. No, the white man ain't holdin' you back no' mo'. Git off yer ass and get a job, an education, and kick that addiction." I think it's a positive development. (By the way ... I don't attend church, and I'm painfully aware of how a growth in church-going often reduces strip-clubbing opportunities. But that's a different issue. Just thought you might get the wrong message from a little bit of the preceding.)
• gk

  •

  15 years ago

  In a truly classic conservative environment, adults would be left to make their own personal choices, including how we enjoy ourselves in SCs. Liberals are big on controlling behavior and are more liokely to use legislation to do that than Republicans. But conversely, as Samsung would atttest, it is the wacko social conservatives in Ohio (not the classic conservatives) that devasted SCs by forcing a law through the legislature that polices distance, contact and hours. There's no uniform enformement, but there is fallback for harrassment and citations when the spirit, or more likely the budget, moves any local minicipality to do so. I always go for who will give the least government interference.
• MisterGuy

  •

  15 years ago

  "Liberals are big on controlling behavior and are more liokely to use legislation to do that than Republicans." You are confusing "conservatives" & GOPers with Libertarians, period.
• how

  •

  15 years ago

  gk noted simply that "Liberals are big on controlling behavior, and are more likely to use legislation to do that than republicans." This is the truest and most salient observation in the thread thus far. Good post, gk.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "gk noted simply that 'Liberals are big on controlling behavior, and are more likely to use legislation to do that than republicans.' This is the truest and most salient observation in the thread thus far. Good post, gk." Key words being *more likely*. I'd MUCH rather have health care for everyone than have government paid health care just for the elderly or just the elderly and some children or etc. Ideally, I'd love to see the government completely out of health care, but if government is going to stick its nose in then go for the gold and help everyone. :) And, as long as government is sticking its nose even partially in health care (dabbling in socialism), then an even better goal is stealing from the rich----from every possible direction. Make it so the rich are thrilled to keep 5% of what the currently have. :) Socialism is the future and a brighter future than Bush Republicans every day of the week.
• Notsosly

  •

  15 years ago

  "Socialism is the future and a brighter future than Bush Republicans every day of the week" ...says every poor person I know.
• Philip A. Stein

  •

  15 years ago

  Socialism also cures affluency
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "...says every poor person I know." Yes, I don't know any poor people that liked President Bush. However, most poor people that I know unfortunately haven't embraced socialism as the solution. Too many wrongly, imo, believe in America. President Obama seems too moderate. But, just real universal health care would be a good start. Nationalize the banks would be fabulous. All attorneys would work on a government salary---with private practice a first degree felony. :) Yes, the more government employees making equal wages the better.
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "Socialism also cures affluency" A definite benefit, imo.
• Notsosly

  •

  15 years ago

  Didn't the former USSR try this? How'd that work out?
• gk

  •

  15 years ago

  So Jablake, as you a Socialist? Stop and think a minute. There is no socialist, central planning type of government, whatever you want to call it, that has fostered a ny nation becoming the leading country in the world with the leading economy like the Uniterd States has achieved. All efforts have either failed miserably--for example, the Soviet Union, or failed to rise up to our level, for example France, Britain, Germany--all "saocial democracies." Not one of them compares to the U.S., where people still flock when they want to find livberty, opportunity and a better. Even here in the U.S. the socializerd, communal efforts failed from the outset. When the Pilgrims established Plymouth Colony they all owned the land together, farmed it together and shared the "bounty" together. Result: they practically starved to death. Only when the citizens assumed individual ownership of their land with the charge to produce as much as they could and do it profitably did they increase farm output and generatge more bountiful harvests--and survive. Today we celebrate the failure of socialism/collectivism/shared wealth and the victory of individual initiative in American--we call it Thanksgiving! So be careful what you wish for, it doesn't always deliver what it promises. As for health care,15% of our citizens don't have adequate insurance for care like the rest of us. They do have access to health care--they simply go to the emergency room. But that's not the best solution and doesn't work in accute situations, we all know that. So something needs to be done--for the 15%. So why turn decision-making for health care a significant segment the U.S. economy that un unrivaled in the world, over to the government when it works pretty well for the other 85% of us! Yes, we can smooth some rough edges, but let's not throw away something that the world envies. For example: 1. When faced with a real health crisis, Canadians come to the U.S. for their care because it takes to long to get something done in Canada. 2. When the super wealthy of the world need health care, they don't go to France for their socialized medicine, the come here. I hope I made my point. Now as to your class warefare against the wealthy. This is a false argument foisted on you by opportunistick politicians. I forget where I read it, but someone once wrote 'I never worked for a poor person.' Think about that. All "Robin Hood" tendencies are foolish because they only penalize people who take risks, invest capatal and employ the rest of us. Again, we can always smooth the rough edges, but let's not destroy the system. And remember this, under socialized medicine/universal health care, strip clubs will likely be declared unhealthy because they promote bad behavior and will therefore lead to their mass closure by the government for the sake of better health and reducing costs. So to protect our hobby, oppose national health care.
• gk

  •

  15 years ago

  And one more comment, please excuse my typos!
• jablake

  •

  15 years ago

  "So Jablake, as you a Socialist?" Unfortunately yes I am, that is to me the lesser of 2 evils (Bush Republicans v. Socialists). I would like a small government that does almost nothing with a free market----not saying this would create more wealth or even more happiness for all. More wealth or more overall happiness isn't what drives me. What I really like is to be pretty much left alone and free to associate with my people----the highest good wasn't more wealth or better health or even hotter women. It was to be ignored/left alone/segregated/etc. That probably seems strange to most people. For a long time, that ideal was mine---right here in the U.S.A. lots of freedom. I wasn't and my people (generally) weren't pro-U.S.A. We were basically defeated and you accept that---doesn't mean you have to like it. So despite the occupation, there was a lot of freedom and the police were our police----the police protected and served my people and me. Anyway, the game changes for better and for worse. The class warfare arises due to 3 issues. First, wealthy people trying via force of government to have me spend like I have lots of money---they don't appreciate how much wealthier they are-that is fine if they leave me alone (they won't). That is the key and generally they don't understand. Second, the government is corrupt. So, if there is going to be massive corruption, then, imo, that corruption should be serving the poor and the wage slaves. Third, if socialism is going to be accepted in parts then morally I want to see it more inclusive. If the government wishes to extend paid health care to the elderly, then I wish to see---for moral reasons---it extended to everyone. Food stamps for the poor-----then I want it more inclusice. Etc. Yes I am a socialist; unfortunately. There just doesn't seem like any other real hope----conservatives don't seem conservative in the least, imo.
• MisterGuy

  •

  15 years ago

  "There is no socialist, central planning type of government, whatever you want to call it, that has fostered a ny nation becoming the leading country in the world with the leading economy like the Uniterd States has achieved." The USA has one of the most successful types of economies the world over...a mixed economy, period. "They do have access to health care--they simply go to the emergency room" ...which is the most expensive place to get health care, and frequently they don't have the money to pay for it...so that cost gets shifted to the rest of us! "1. When faced with a real health crisis, Canadians come to the U.S. for their care because it takes to long to get something done in Canada." Nonsense, the Canadians would NEVER pick a system like the USA has, and the very small number of Canadians that do come down to the USA for elective surgeries is intentionally overblown by the Right-wing in this country. "2. When the super wealthy of the world need health care, they don't go to France for their socialized medicine, the come here." So what?? The "super wealthy of the world" can get whatever that they want, whenever that they want to...the rest of us aren't so lucky... "All 'Robin Hood' tendencies are foolish because they only penalize people who take risks, invest capatal and employ the rest of us." Yea, and "trickle-down" actually works...not... "And remember this, under socialized medicine/universal health care, strip clubs will likely be declared unhealthy because they promote bad behavior and will therefore lead to their mass closure by the government for the sake of better health and reducing costs." Wow, what utter nonsense...
• Dougster

  •

  15 years ago

  Did you guys know that the Bee Gees wrote a song about MisterGay? Yeah, it's called "How Short Is Your Bus?"