21 Ways to be a Better Democrat

[Wolf]

(Takes a bow.)

[Dante]

Truly funny comedy has an element of truth in it after all...

[GUNWOUNDS]

then you would be referring to "satire"  as that is the type of humor that has elements of truth in it.

[Dante]

Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject (individuals, organisations, states) often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. In Celtic societies, it was thought a bard's satire could have physical effects, similar to a curse. A satirist is one who satirizes.

Satire is not exclusive to any viewpoint. Parody is a form of satire that imitates another work of art in order to ridicule it.

There are several types of satire:

Diminution: Reduces the size of something in order that it may be made to appear ridiculous or in order to be examined closely and have its faults seen close up. For example, treating the Canadian Members of Parliament as a squabbling group of little boys is an example of diminution. Gulliver's Travels is a diminutive satire.

Inflation: A common technique of satire is to take a real-life situation and exaggerate it to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous and its faults can be seen, and thus satirical. For example, two boys arguing over a possession of a car can be inflated into an interstellar war. The Rape of the Lock is an example of inflation.

Juxtaposition: Places things of unequal importance side by side. It brings all the things down to the lowest level of importance on the list. For example, if a guy says his important subjects in school include Calculus, Computer Science, Physics, and girl-watching, he has managed to take away some of the importance of the first three. The Rape of the Lock is also an example of juxtaposition.

Parody: Imitates the techniques and style of some person, place, or thing. Parody is used for mocking or mocking its idea of the person, place, or thing. Monty Python is an example of parody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

[Edric O]

I'm still away on vacation, in case you're wondering. I'm just posting from an internet caf

[Edric O]

And, of course, there is the absolute stupidity of statement no.17, which I've decided to reply to separately:

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked

anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in

charge.

When Republicans talk about socialism, you never know what they mean - except that it's something they don't like.

First of all, Democrats are liberals, and they're center-right by international standards. They don't have a thing in hell to do with "socialism".

Second of all, have you been living under a rock for the past 100 years? ALL of today's most advanced countries have mixed economies, which contain varying degrees of socialism. Compared to the pure capitalism of the 19th century, what we have today is millions of times better for the average man. And the highest standards of living in the world are to be found in the Scandinavian countries - the countries with the greatest socialist influence in their mixed economies. So what part of socialism "hasn't worked", exactly? The minimum wage, which put an end to the quasi-slavery that 19th century workers lived under? The 8-hour work day, which put an end to sweatshops? Government regulation of businesses, which prevents your boss from firing you just because he doesn't like your face? Free healthcare, which prevents people from dying at the age of 30 from easily preventable diseases? Or perhaps free education, which gives poor children the ability to make something of themselves in life and prevents the monopolization of knowledge by the rich?

Third of all, if you're talking about proper socialism - as opposed to socialist elements found in all mixed economies - then allow me to direct you toward this topic. As I have already stated there, a socialist system can be characterized by 3 main features:

1. A planned economy (i.e. public ownership over the means of production)

2. A democratic state (i.e. the state must be the tool of the people)

3. Certain basic standards of living (food, drinking water, housing, healthcare and education) guaranteed freely and equally to all citizens.

And as you can plainly see from history, no such system has ever existed in stable conditions for any significant period of time.

In the case of the Soviet Union, that particular experiment didn't fail because "the wrong people" were in charge. It failed because the people in charge were not accountable to the general population. It failed because it had a weak and underdeveloped democratic system, which allowed Stalin to come to power and put an end to Soviet socialism.

Basically, the Soviet Union failed for pretty much the same reasons why the Weimar Republic failed.

[GUNWOUNDS]

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony

activists from Seattle do.

It's reasonable to assume that people who have fun killing something don't care about that something.

i didnt mind your other retorts

[danielsh]

"You're wrong.  You must be a foreigner."  Probably the greatest retort ever.

i didnt mind your other retorts

[nemafakei]

Dan, there's not all that much wrong with the sentence, to be honest. It just needs a few commas, a capital letter, an apostrophe, and changing "their" to "hunters'". And the meaning's clear enough in any case.

But I won't comment on the logic of it.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dan, there's not all that much wrong with the sentence, to be honest. It just needs a few commas, a capital letter, an apostrophe, and changing "their" to "hunters'". And the meaning's clear enough in any case.

But I won't comment on the logic of it.

thanks nema ...

as for the logic

[danielsh]

I wouldnt expect the engraged sputterer from the gay and nature thread the understand such higher level thinking.

It's the gay.  My obsessive and voluntarily-chosen lust for members of the same sex keeps me from understanding the intricacies of right-wing thought.

Or maybe it's my frontal lobe that does that.  I can never tell.