LIBERAL INTOLERANCE (Yahoo!)

Post Reply New Topic

No, "ya'll" is never plural. "All ya'll" is plural.

Some of my kinfolk had a second person reference I never quite got and they never could explain to me:

"youferins" or "youferns"

"Wha'da youferins wont fer luhnch?"

Any ya'll ever hear a that one? Maybe it's derived from "you friends."

Actually, come to think of it, they'd say dinner. They didn't have lunch. Breakfast, dinner & supper.

Here in Minnesota they also say dinner instead of lunch. I'm from north Texas where lunch is lunch and supper is dinner.

But look, all this bad s**t theyr doing, it's not a purely "liberal" or "conservative" thing. The people behind it created both those labels, these big business tycoons run the world, they've got lobbyists buying off politicians (left and right).
Left and right wings to what? It's the same beast you see. It's all one system, different sides of the same coin. Look at all the bribes Hillary Clinton takes from lobbyists.
They've induced this child like high school-esque mentality among the people, where everyone has to be in a clique ("liberal" or "conservative"). It's a lot like high school you see, where people join a clique, lets say they become "punk".... That label then defines who they are as a person, they become restricted by this label, because they do not want to stray from the clique. So they'll defend anything their clique does, or anything their clique stands for, without really giving it any objective thought.
Often times, in a way, people abuse themselves by falling for these traps, a good number of conservatives will defend the patriot act, merely because a conservative politician put it out. So theyr willing to give up their rights rather than straying from their clique.
You've got to look at the good and the bad from all perspectives really. It's not a "liberal" thing, it's not a "conservative" thing either, it's a class thing.

Online and in the privacy of my own home, yes. In public, no.

You are correct. The conglomerate billionaires do control the democrats and republicans. They have been very successful in keeping out third party politicians, making us feel like we have to choose the lesser of two evils.

The media is owned by the conglomerates, allowing them to play both ends against the middle. The book 1984 has a few good examples of the games they play, but the book is to boring and abstract for the average person.

The red state / blue state thing drives me up a wall.
I remember the socialists were communists and their color was red.
The socialists always called themselves progressives and somehow thier color turned into blue.
The color for the blue blooded conservatives somehow turned Red in the news.

The media always makes sure to call corporations powerful and evil. They make it seem like corporations control the media and the politicians. They say corporations have no souls.
It is actually the giant conglomerates that control the politicians. The board members make billions a year. Corporations can be owned by the conglomerates, but most corporations are small businesses where the board members only make a couple hundred thousand a year.
Politicians pass all kinds of laws against the evil corporations, making it more and more difficult to do business without an army of lawyers. But the laws affecting conglomerates are always beneficial for their board members.

The media says free trade and shipping jobs overseas is good for our economies.
The only people free trade is good for is the conglomerate billionaires and their millionaire followers. As far as they are concerned, there are two classes of people, the rich and those who serve them.
The average person sees the gulf between rich and poor grow further apart. Average third world lives improve slightly each year, and average first world lives degrade slightly each year.
Eventually we will have a world with a thousands of corporate royals, with their retinues. The rest of the worlds population will be billions of serfs.

We need a third party to win and break this madness, or go back to the dark ages.
Learn from history, or repeat it.

The heart of the problem is the winner-take-all electoral system. If a party has 15% or 20% of the vote, they usually get 0% of the seats. Each district is divided up, given one representative, and the winner takes all.

If there was a proportional representation system, third parties would have a chance. That is the way things are done in many European countries - you vote for a party. Parties have an ordered list of candidates. If they get enough votes to get 8 representatives, the top 8 members on their list get seats in the parliament.

You can blame Bush. If he hadn't have chosen red for his color in 2000 (when Gore chose blue), then the Republican Party might not have gotten tied to the 600-700 nanometer range of the spectrum.