Metal Reviews

Seems to me like it might have something to do with the fact that liberals are generally more tolerant than conservatives. An example of this is immigration, which I think speaks for itself. Also, conservatives tend to be more of the people that deny that racism is a problem in America while liberals tend to say that it still is. I'm not really talking about politicians' beliefs but rather conservative/liberal people in general.

Also, it was relatively recently that Lyndon B. Johnson (democrat) signed the civil rights act in 1964, which could very well be affecting how blacks vote today, especially the older population.

So, knowing that half of white voters vote R, means that that half is racially aware.... hmmm. I guess that means the other half, the half that votes D, is racially unaware.
Care to back up that claim with some data?
And say it's true; what of it? It's alright for everybody but whites to be looking out for themselves? Whites are becoming minorities in their own lands as we speak. Should they not, then, be thinking and acting along racial lines?

Or could it be because some people view big government and big spending, along with a system which perpetuates dependence and eternal victimhood, a bad thing?

Yes, yes... thats all been covered already.

I said that's where it arises; not that it's a hard-and-fast rule. I'd go so far as to say, like Charles has been hinting at, that there are no left-wing parties in America, just two moderate-right ones that have different people in charge with different ideas on how to appeal to the populace.

And I disagree with this hysterical-sounding 'whites are becoming minorities' stuff, but you're probably aware of that... Let's leave that lying there, and agree to avoid it.

As for big government, well, we saw what lowered regulations did to wall street - governments should be more active economically and less in social matters, in my opinion (welfare falling under the former, obviously). Where some things - religion, marriage, etc are indeed none of the government’s business, others like the financial states of the citizens, are, and giving those with less opportunities help to get along is hardly eternal victimhood, although obviously there will always be people who spoil the system.

I can certainly understand the appeal of conservative values- i.e. self-sufficiency and individual responsibility etc. However, for me, conservative thought embraces these only in a shallow, rhetorical sense. Right-wing political parties have been the protectors of privelege in the past, and formulating this "individual responsibility" ideology seems to me to be a way of validating their becoming rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. They can say they deserve it.

I too value self-sufficiency, but in what is to me, a purer way. I believe in communities- be they in a workplace, or in a town, or wherever, making their own decisions about how they run their affairs, without having to rely on political leaders or employers telling them what to do. Maybe the libertarian end of conservative thought is good at the former- they want to get the government off your back, but to me this is not real freedom, and certainly not real self-sufficiency, unless this happens in the workplace too, which IMO is something that is completely missing from all conservative thought. If you are working 50 hours a week, doing everything your boss tells you to, so that he doesn't fire you, so you can afford to live, that is not self-sufficiency.

This is what the early trade union movement was about- people collectively running their own workplaces without the need for managers or employers. Because these things can really be just as despotic and authoritarian as the worst governments.

Forgot to mention that Republican doesn't necessarily mean right-wing, just as Democrat doesn't mean left-wing.

In other news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/no ... use-barack

if it's true.

I will only touch upon a few things here, as I am becoming bored with the whole subject.
Working a fifty hour job sucks, but it is still preferrable to not working at all.
Theres nothing wrong with hard work, though to me, living off the sweat of another mans brow is shameful.

And whoever said that the Dems / Reps are more like one party than two distinct partys: that's really the point, isn't it? The illusion of choice... though I disagree that they are both inclined towards conservativism (perhaps by Europrean standards, but not by American); rather the opposite: the Reps are neo-cons, which are a strange type of reformed Trotskyites... Bush and co. are hardly conservative; more spending, more government, more waste, unnecessary war, etc.

Discuss.

Well, they sold their private jets and shit, and they've decided to invest in the production of hybrid cars too, I think... I don't know, I don't really know enough to have an opinion.

But I'm showing my economics teacher that picture.

i'm not totally familiar with how the US treats its auto companies, but i know in other countries the government props up the auto industry quite a bit. eg. (i've heard that) in Japan you can't drive a car that's over a year old. that might be totally wrong though.

You can't just let the auto industry crash but those companies have been jerking off all the while they were crashing. Hopefully, they'll declare bankruptcy and re-negotiate their contract with the UAW. Hopefully if the bailout goes through, Congress makes them use the money wisely. It's a shitfest no matter what.

In other news, Cheney's a twat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de ... erboarding

He's unbelievable. You should go to youtube and find that clip where he's visiting New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and doing an interview, and someone walks by and says "Go fuck yourself, Mr. Cheney". He just laughs it off of course, since he couldn't give a single solitary fuck about the average citizen.

Seen it. Love the enormous gorilla/bodyguard next to him going into hunter/seeker mode and looking for the guy. Still, at least he's be out soon, and then we can all moan about Obama being a disappointment.

i think the executives have already promised to take salaries of $1 if the bailout is approved. while the businesses have been very badly run, the ripple effect their closure would cause would be devastating, so after firm terms are hammered out i think they should approve a bailout.

Yeah, there isn't much of a choice as I see it. Even though all three have shipped countless jobs overseas, their outright closure would eliminate a shitload of jobs here, where the economy already sucks, and at the various satellite locations they have abroad.

There needs to be some serious oversight for these companies. The whole "buy American" argument isn't worth shit anymore, since most of the foreign auto companies employ just as many in the US as the "Big Three", sometimes more. Hopefully, now they realize Americans won't buy shitty cars, regardless of where they come from, and start focusing on better quality and quit cutting corners. Save a dollar, lose a million.

The best video to show how big a douche Cheney is has to be the 1984 'starting a government in Iraq would be a quagmire due to the ensuing sectarian conflicts.' Something roughly like that.

I'm so glad he took his own words to heart.

interesting article in the Financial Times today:

Jaguar’s bailout
Peter Mandelson, Britain’s business secretary, is contemplating a bail-out of Jaguar Land Rover. It is hard to imagine a less deserving candidate. The luxury carmaker fails the public interest test on two key grounds. First, its products are of questionable social utility. For the government to allocate scarce funds to prop up the production of the 4.2 Litre V8 Petrol Supercharged Jaguar is a nonsense. It has a top speed of more than 150mph, emits 299g of carbon dioxide per kilometre and costs about three times the average annual wage. True, the UK car industry employs 190,000 people directly and supports several hundred thousand more once components and retailing are taken into account. But if Mr Mandelson wants the government to underwrite this £50bn industry, he should harness such public funds as are available to develop the green cars of the future, not pander to vested interests. The second reason Mr Mandelson should refuse to bail out JLR is that Tata Motors, the Indian company that paid $2.3bn for it, is capable of doing so itself, if it wishes. Tata Motors, let it not be forgotten, is a subsidiary of Tata Group, one of the wealthiest companies on the subcontinent, with revenues of $62.5bn and profits of $5.4bn last year. The argument that thousands of jobs are at stake is weak: sectors employing many more, such as retail, receive no special treatment. If job protection starts to drive government policy, then the UK would bar Tata Consulting Services, a sister company, from offering the type of business process outsourcing services that have sucked back-office jobs to India in their hundreds of thousands during the past decade. But that would be nutty. Manufacturers are now leaner precisely because they now manage their inventory, process warranty claims and order spare parts through TCS’s offshore centres. The simple truth is that Tata Motors overpaid for a trophy asset with poor prospects. It must sort it out itself.

http://specials.ft.com/vtf_pdf/191208_BACK1_EUR.pdf
("Jaguar's Bail-out")

this made me think: in turn, Chrysler is 80% owned by Cerberus, a massive private equity firm! why don't they take the hit on THEIR crappy investment?
ignoring the ripple effect of a bankruptcy, Cerberus would maybe be better off just letting go than trying to get Chrysler back on its feet. admittedly i don't know what is the best option Cerberus that could take from their own point of view and how far the company is responsible for keeping the rest of the supply chain up.
a bail-out would come in Cerberus's interest and still help prop up Chrysler and companies that depend on it for business.

Mandleson's a twat.

In other news, Polly Toynbee ist krieg.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... s-humanism

And the Pope ist an idiot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de ... -sexuality

The pope sounds as if he is afraid all men will undergo sex change operations and everyone will start having gay sex as in the South Park "Took our jobs" episode.