h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It seems that the Australian definition (in slang) is different although not too dis-similiar. In the land of Oz "redneck" is indeed a comentary on a persons "over conservative, right wingish, biggotted and primative views" We still use "tags" like playing the Banjo and whatever, but it has nothing to do with ones economic status or lifestyle choice. In Oz, what you call "Rednecks" we simply call farmers.

MH
(I hope this makes me look like a little less of an a**hole)

Looks like you got away with that one MH Its been 11 hrs. and no one has jumped on you
I must admit the American way of voting confuses me? Im sure if I read up on it I would probably understand it better

Its how democracy works when you look at it close? I mean for example. Here in the UK one party can gain power with only 30% of the vote! Which means, to me any way? that 70% did not want them. Yet they say its democratic because they won the most votes??
Smudger.

I wondered about differencesI had a converstion with someone else about the definition. Theirs was somewhere between you and me.

I just read steves-missed his.
I am not even going try to challenge any of your wits on this
*tickled tired*

"I would say the rich southerners are far more likely to be Republicans not the laborers but (0) would know about union workers!"

I'm not really sure how *union* workers comes into this. In the current political climate, union members, who comprise far less than half the workforce of the United States, are a lot more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, even in the South. That's because Democratic politicians, for now, tend to be more pro-labor than Republicans, who have managed to push the "middle of the road" over to where the right shoulder of the road used to be.

The term "redneck" did indeed start life as an insult to white, rural, Southerner men in the US, who tend to work outdoors and have short hair, leading to sunburned necks.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the words meaning was expanded to include construction workers, then anyone who was politically conservative and specifically supported the war in Vietnam and had the "my country, right or wrong" attitude. It also implied an inability or unwillingness to think.

I think the word has now devolved into meaning "any political conservative who does not have a university degree."

0

Good explanation 0

I always thought a lot of beer or maybe some shine. ..
Not that there is anything wrong with beer!

The distinction for me after an amazing amount of thought is the harshness , there are a lot of quiet gentle country folks that are not so radically rightwinged. The Hispanics helped Bush get for sure. That is why the first debate had so much (good thing) Daddy Bush was the first to speak directly to the Spanish speaking citizens. I will never forget though......"we love the little brown ones too" was his big public declaration of love for the grandkids.I thought it was very odd thing for a grandpa to say.

Bushs' son-in-law is a strikingly good looking Latino man. Watch for him to be running! He had the crowds females swooning attentions last campaign - they kept him on the road a while. A 3rd Bush will look to be a President in the future The are a bit like the Kennedys in the grooming.

Jeb looked to be the best one to run a decade ago.

politians,i believe are now very rarely doing the work or job as laid down in job description thats if there is a job description.
Also you can bet your last copper/cent or what ever currency you use that any changes they vote for or against will be for there own good first and foremost, proportinal representation/democracy ect had no of polititans in parliement kept pace with no of residents represented
i wonder how many mps/senator/congesspersons(politicly correctness obseved)ect for instance countries population at the birth of parlement/congress say 1700 would have been maybe athird of today yet i can be sure no of reps has not kept pace.
unions are only as good as there active members and most of them are trainee polititans .far more accountabilty needs to be brought back into these areas if you take into account of the above its easy to see why 30% of electorate can gain power.

Modern democracy, like modern corporate business practices, is based on the illusion of control by the people. It was never intended to be controlled by the people but by interested parties, meaning the 30 percent or less who stand to benefit. Their participation is encouraged by configuring the political system specifically for them.

They complain that the rest of the people don't participate, but then why would those people bother given that the system is obviously skewed against them? However this bolsters the contention of those having an vested interest that their control is validated by general apathy.

One of the most pernicious practices in modern times relates to the empowerment of corporations through state sanctioned charters without expiration dates, no need to show a compelling public interest in their continued existence, and the rather ridiculous judicial ruling that corporations are persons under the law, thus affording them the protections of the 14th Amendment among others.

This sort of thing has allowed corporations to gain considerably more political power than any individual could gain, because they are in fact communities of interest, not individuals, and they do not wield authority with even the appearance of democracy, except on rare occasions when stockholders actually attempt to replace the current board of directors. Therefore, the entire corporate community, with some few exceptions, can usually be brought to bear on the elected officials supposedly representing the rest of the population. Guess who usually wins in such encounters?

If you answered the corporations you've now also answered why things are more or less screwed up politically, morally, spiritually, et cetera.

Yes, so less than 30% of the population rules here too

nailed it steve.

You know that ruling that corporations are persons under law? You interested in knowing how it never happened the first time it happened?

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7603

"The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court -- a man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad -- wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that corporations are persons."

"And in so doing, he -- not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder -- inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis’s headnote, which had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists (including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote but not the decision."

0

Stunned

Stunned

That is how the government has wanted to label the native tribes - Analiese writes about that + link in her journal.

Not to worry chaps, soon enough only one will make the decisions for us all! Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! MWaaahahahahahahahahahahha!
ahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahha!
ahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahhahahahh!

MH
(Aah! I love a good maniacal laugh I do!)