If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Why I'm a Republican   (npr.org) divider line 592
    More: Unlikely, GOP, Community Rules  
•       •       •

9886 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2012 at 12:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



592 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-02 09:43:16 AM  
i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.
 
2012-09-02 09:47:33 AM  
Screw you, I got mine (that I or my ancestors used the public infrastructure to help acquire)?

I'm not a big fan of gay people (or insert other minority/minorities here)?

I don't want to pay not stinking taxes to help anyone else (or even myself as I'm too short sighted to see the point of taxes in the bigger picture)!?

I ain't got a pot to piss in, but one day when I've made my millions off what I built without using any public infrastructure, I'm not gonna wanna give it all away to the govment in taxes?

Jesus!?

Obama and the Democrats are after my guns!?

Because Socialism!?

Muslims are out to establish their religious laws in 'Merica and make us Muslim, and someone has to stop them (and I totally don't understand why people are opposed to using the Bible as the basis for our laws in 'Merica)!?

I'm against government run health care and other socialisms (but don't touch my Medicare or Social Security!)?
 
2012-09-02 10:04:10 AM  

WorldCitizen: Screw you, I got mine (that I or my ancestors used the public infrastructure to help acquire)?

I'm not a big fan of gay people (or insert other minority/minorities here)?

I don't want to pay not stinking taxes to help anyone else (or even myself as I'm too short sighted to see the point of taxes in the bigger picture)!?

I ain't got a pot to piss in, but one day when I've made my millions off what I built without using any public infrastructure, I'm not gonna wanna give it all away to the govment in taxes?

Jesus!?

Obama and the Democrats are after my guns!?

Because Socialism!?

Muslims are out to establish their religious laws in 'Merica and make us Muslim, and someone has to stop them (and I totally don't understand why people are opposed to using the Bible as the basis for our laws in 'Merica)!?

I'm against government run health care and other socialisms (but don't touch my Medicare or Social Security!)?


The president's a blah person.
 
2012-09-02 10:08:57 AM  
There's only two REAL reasons to be Republican today:

either wealthy sociopath or ignorant/delusional.

It's pretty damn scary when you think about just how many Americans are willing to swallow obvious lies and vote against the best interests of themselves, their country, and world. And you can FORGET about reasoning pretty much any of them out of it-- their faith in The GOP is very similar to religious faith. You might as well try to reason the average Southren Baptist out of Christianity.

Yes, most of the Democratic leadership is corrupt too, but they aren't trying to lock-step the nation into some kind of bankrupt, theocratic third-world hellhole.
 
2012-09-02 10:09:43 AM  
Because those Democrats want to take all my money and give it to big-city welfare queens so they can buy $200 sneakers for their 14 kids who sell drugs all day instead of attending school. And don't even get me started on the queers. Bunch of filthy heathens.
 
2012-09-02 10:14:51 AM  

WorldCitizen: Screw you, I got mine (that I or my ancestors used the public infrastructure to help acquire)?

I'm not a big fan of gay people (or insert other minority/minorities here)?

I don't want to pay not stinking taxes to help anyone else (or even myself as I'm too short sighted to see the point of taxes in the bigger picture)!?

I ain't got a pot to piss in, but one day when I've made my millions off what I built without using any public infrastructure, I'm not gonna wanna give it all away to the govment in taxes?

Jesus!?

Obama and the Democrats are after my guns!?

Because Socialism!?

Muslims are out to establish their religious laws in 'Merica and make us Muslim, and someone has to stop them (and I totally don't understand why people are opposed to using the Bible as the basis for our laws in 'Merica)!?

I'm against government run health care and other socialisms (but don't touch my Medicare or Social Security!)?


Because I'm an asshole.
 
2012-09-02 10:31:19 AM  

Riche: either wealthy sociopath or ignorant/delusional.


There's no reason they can't be both. So many are.
 
2012-09-02 10:32:47 AM  
You misspelled Rapeublican, Subby.
 
2012-09-02 10:36:17 AM  
freeversephotography.com
/not going to read through all of them, but I assume this is in there
 
2012-09-02 11:03:41 AM  
Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.
 
2012-09-02 11:05:47 AM  
Alexander Reber

21, alternate delegate from Virginia, head of University of Virginia student legislature.


"It was because of [Virginia Gov.] Bob McDonnell. I met him at an event, and he was focused on higher education, transportation, smaller government. All the things I'm interested in."


Guess you're very disappointed.
 
2012-09-02 11:06:46 AM  

EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.


.02789365148/10
 
2012-09-02 11:14:39 AM  

EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.


That's quite a projection complex you have there. Counseling can help. And there's medication too, if you can afford it.
 
2012-09-02 11:23:43 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.

That's quite a projection complex you have there. Counseling can help. And there's medication too, if you can afford it.


Thanks to health care reform, he's got a better chance.
 
2012-09-02 11:24:39 AM  
FTA: "My parents taught me individual responsibility. You have to rely on yourself to get you anywhere."

Because democrat's parents taught them to suckle from the government teat? Or did his parents throw him out in the woods as a child and tell him "Survive you pussy, enough of this handholding."

Ridiculous, and no you didn't build that no matter how much work you do on your own. The human species is ill equipped to survive alone. It's a social animal that thrives in groups and builds off of our shared creativity. We have nothing as individuals. We most likely die of exposure or hunger when left to our own bootstrappiness. So while it's fantastic that they believe in accountability for the self, it's also ridiculous to insinuate they are anything without the benefit of a government structure that provides a platform for people to be successful.
 
2012-09-02 11:49:17 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: Because those Democrats want to take all my money and give it to big-city welfare queens so they can buy $200 sneakers for their 14 kids who sell drugs all day instead of attending school. And don't even get me started on the queers. Bunch of filthy heathens.


[prettysureyourejokingbut]

I'd rather my taxes went up so that every black person in American can use food stamps to buy steaks and Champagne, than to have one more penny of it go to the richest assholes that will move it offshore to avoid paying taxes.
 
2012-09-02 11:49:49 AM  

SilentStrider: Marcus Aurelius: EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.

That's quite a projection complex you have there. Counseling can help. And there's medication too, if you can afford it.

Thanks to health care reform, he's got a better chance.


I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.
 
2012-09-02 11:57:10 AM  

Weaver95: i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.


Either that or Virchow-Seckle Syndrome.
 
2012-09-02 11:59:02 AM  

EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.


Sounding less bootstrappy by the minute.
 
2012-09-02 12:11:12 PM  

EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.


You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.
 
2012-09-02 12:11:44 PM  
I saw two black people. Can't tell me that diversity isn't present.
 
2012-09-02 12:11:57 PM  
My party has failed me. It's been infiltrated by idiots and assholes. This November I'm voting for zombie Reagan.
 
2012-09-02 12:14:12 PM  

WorldCitizen:
Because Socialism!?

Are you a socialist?
 
2012-09-02 12:14:27 PM  
Because Saul Alinksy?
 
2012-09-02 12:14:58 PM  
Because Obama bad.
 
2012-09-02 12:15:08 PM  

EnviroDude: SilentStrider: Marcus Aurelius: EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.

That's quite a projection complex you have there. Counseling can help. And there's medication too, if you can afford it.

Thanks to health care reform, he's got a better chance.

I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.


So you're cool with the medical industry wasting public money?
 
2012-09-02 12:15:13 PM  

MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.


This is what Democrats call tolerance.
 
2012-09-02 12:16:49 PM  
why I'm not a Republican:

Stumping on abortion as a major platform issue.
Christianity in government

Gimme a call after you've backed away from those two things, no promises but I'll reconsider.
 
2012-09-02 12:16:55 PM  

Vindibudd: MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.

This is what Democrats call tolerance.


No, it's the truth.

When the reason you're against health care reform is because more people will get insured which will mean longer waits for the doctor, then that's just being a selfish asshole.
 
2012-09-02 12:17:00 PM  

Vindibudd: MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.

This is what Democrats call tolerance.


Right, because Republican tolerance involves repeated usage of words like Libtard, Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan Muslim Usurper, America Hater, Liberal Scum, etc.

You have no argument there, Vin boy...seriously.
 
2012-09-02 12:18:42 PM  

zappaisfrank: Vindibudd: MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.

This is what Democrats call tolerance.

Right, because Republican tolerance involves repeated usage of words like Libtard, Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan Muslim Usurper, America Hater, Liberal Scum, etc.

You have no argument there, Vin boy...seriously.


He doesn't care that he has no argument, he cares that you care enough to respond.
 
2012-09-02 12:18:52 PM  
I used to be a republican because I believe in small government and individual rights. Unfortunately the republican party no longer agrees with me.
 
2012-09-02 12:18:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.

You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.


When the sitting president of the United States says it, it is more than a talking point. Keep trying. A for effort
 
2012-09-02 12:19:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.

You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.


Actually the ability of all the EnviroDudes out there to see the Kenyan witch doctor Obama hallucination is exactly what gives "their team" a chance to exploit them some more
 
2012-09-02 12:19:31 PM  

ghare: zappaisfrank: Vindibudd: MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.

This is what Democrats call tolerance.

Right, because Republican tolerance involves repeated usage of words like Libtard, Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan Muslim Usurper, America Hater, Liberal Scum, etc.

You have no argument there, Vin boy...seriously.

He doesn't care that he has no argument, he cares that you care enough to respond.


I see..another troll from Rightwingistan...got it.
 
2012-09-02 12:20:04 PM  
"Because rich people are Republicans and I always wanted to be rich." - my mother.

/facepalm
 
2012-09-02 12:20:22 PM  

EnviroDude: cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.

You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.

When the sitting president of the United States says it, it is more than a talking point. Keep trying. A for effort


I would love to see a citation where he said something like that.

/not holding my breath
 
2012-09-02 12:20:46 PM  

EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.


Poe's law?
 
2012-09-02 12:22:05 PM  

DarwiOdrade: "Because rich people are Republicans and I always wanted to be rich." - my mother.


Have you ever mentioned Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to her?
 
2012-09-02 12:22:42 PM  
www.politifake.org
 
2012-09-02 12:22:55 PM  
Slight mental retardation?
 
2012-09-02 12:23:05 PM  

EnviroDude: cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.

You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.

When the sitting president of the United States says it, it is more than a talking point. Keep trying. A for effort


Except he didn't say it. Try and keep up. Maybe look up the actual quote for once.
 
2012-09-02 12:25:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.

You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.

When the sitting president of the United States says it, it is more than a talking point. Keep trying. A for effort

Except he didn't say it. Try and keep up. Maybe look up the actual quote for once.


Just more bullshiat from "Pretend Obama Land". It would be funnier if it weren't so farkin' pathetic.
 
2012-09-02 12:25:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.

You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.

When the sitting president of the United States says it, it is more than a talking point. Keep trying. A for effort

Except he didn't say it. Try and keep up. Maybe look up the actual quote for once.


Here, let me help you with that
 
2012-09-02 12:26:06 PM  

zappaisfrank: Just more bullshiat from "Pretend Obama Land". It would be funnier if it weren't so farkin' pathetic.


They really are running against an Obama that only they can see
 
2012-09-02 12:27:06 PM  
Because f*ck you, that's why.
 
2012-09-02 12:28:05 PM  
Weaver95: 'Stockholm' syndrome.

this is exactly what I've told my brother when he shows support for the GOP
 
2012-09-02 12:28:18 PM  

zappaisfrank: cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.

You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.

When the sitting president of the United States says it, it is more than a talking point. Keep trying. A for effort

Except he didn't say it. Try and keep up. Maybe look up the actual quote for once.

Just more bullshiat from "Pretend Obama Land". It would be funnier if it weren't so farkin' pathetic effective.


It works on people here who have factual rebuttals presented constantly, imagine all the freeperland, fox viewer types that never even peek out of the bubble.
 
2012-09-02 12:28:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: zappaisfrank: Just more bullshiat from "Pretend Obama Land". It would be funnier if it weren't so farkin' pathetic.

They really are running against an Obama that only they can see



"I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -Adlai Stevenson
 
2012-09-02 12:29:45 PM  
A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint
 
2012-09-02 12:31:01 PM  

skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint


Don't worry princess, I'm sure they'll post something stupid from something like TownHall or American Thinker to suit your tastes.
 
2012-09-02 12:31:06 PM  

skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint


We thank you for your contribution.
 
2012-09-02 12:31:20 PM  

skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint


It got you to come out from under your bridge, so I guess it was effective in that regard!
 
2012-09-02 12:31:38 PM  
The answer is 'because I have a weird face, got picked on during my school years, and never farking go over it.'
 
2012-09-02 12:34:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint
e
Don't worry princess, I'm sure they'll post something stupid from something like TownHall or American Thinker to suit your tastes.


Nah..not a fan of american thinker. Town hall is hit or miss. I'm just surprised you guys haven't taken off with this. the best so far is the normal "fark you i got mine" stuff...you guys are off your game.
 
2012-09-02 12:34:59 PM  
Why I'm NOT a Republican:

-I believe in a homosexual's right to marriage/civil unions and to receive all the rights and benefits therein
-I believe in the social safety net
-I believe in responsible management of natural resources, not raped-earth glutinous frenzies as proposed by Romney-Ryan
-I believe in a woman's inalienable right to choice and birth control
-I believe in equal pay for equal work
-I'm against shooting wolves from airplanes for sport
-I'm against rabid deregulation
-I believe in Keynesian economics
-I'm not afraid of Shariah Law and nor do I believe it's a threat to American law
-I'm against racial profiling
-I have a sense of humor
 
2012-09-02 12:35:35 PM  

skipjack: Nah..not a fan of american thinker. Town hall is hit or miss. I'm just surprised you guys haven't taken off with this. the best so far is the normal "fark you i got mine" stuff...you guys are off your game.


Two posts and this is all you can come up with? You might as well go back to bed.
 
2012-09-02 12:36:20 PM  
i49.tinypic.com

"... So I vote for the party that explicitly shoots down tax cuts for small business owners, and picked a Presidential candidate who made his fortune gutting businesses, raping their assets, and leaving them to pick up the tab for loans he used to give himself bonuses. I'm an idiot."
 
2012-09-02 12:36:24 PM  

valar_morghulis: Why I'm NOT a Republican:

-I believe in a homosexual's right to marriage/civil unions and to receive all the rights and benefits therein
-I believe in the social safety net
-I believe in responsible management of natural resources, not raped-earth glutinous frenzies as proposed by Romney-Ryan
-I believe in a woman's inalienable right to choice and birth control
-I believe in equal pay for equal work
-I'm against shooting wolves from airplanes for sport
-I'm against rabid deregulation
-I believe in Keynesian economics
-I'm not afraid of Shariah Law and nor do I believe it's a threat to American law
-I'm against racial profiling
-I have a sense of humor


THIS X 1000!!!
 
2012-09-02 12:36:29 PM  

zappaisfrank: skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint

It got you to come out from under your bridge, so I guess it was effective in that regard!


Yes yes....i'm a troll because I dare point out the obvious.

At least you didn't do the typical troll bit because I dared to disagree with you...so plus a million interwebs for you.
 
2012-09-02 12:37:09 PM  

skipjack: Yes yes....i'm a troll because I dare point out the obvious.


You're a troll because you called a thread a circle-jerk and didn't contribute anything to the thread.
 
2012-09-02 12:37:14 PM  
There's no excuse for it anymore. Republicans are cultists, of the worst sort. Completely dishonest, delusional, and full of malice.
 
2012-09-02 12:37:21 PM  

WhyteRaven74: DarwiOdrade: "Because rich people are Republicans and I always wanted to be rich." - my mother.

Have you ever mentioned Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to her?


Of course. If she were rational, she wouldn't be Republican, now would she?
 
2012-09-02 12:37:45 PM  
Because giving more money to the rich and taking money away from the poor will make America strong again!
 
2012-09-02 12:38:09 PM  
The TL/DR version from the FTFA:

Casey Pick - Because Jesus
Dan Bognino - Fark IndependentTM
Dave Myers - Delusional
Nikki Haley - Delusional (Republicans aren't going to make decisiona for you and your family - seriously?)
Herman Cain - I have mine so fark you
Mitch McConnell - The Federal Government is scary and oppressive - be very afraid
Mary Burke-Russell - Genetics
Scott Thomas - I'm going to have mine, so fark you
Tony O'Donnell - Because Reagan
Ron Morrell - Fark IndepndentTM
Alexander Reber - I have a man crush on [Virginia Gov.] Bob McDonnell. Otherwise, my spending priorities align with Democrats.
Michael Carr - Delusional Libertarian
Betty Heinamen - Social conservative
JoAnn Fisher - I hate Mexicans
April Bengivenga - Because Reagan and scary Black Man
 
2012-09-02 12:38:25 PM  

maxwellton: Because giving more money to the rich and taking money away from the poor will make America strong again!


It worked last decade!

/oh wait
 
2012-09-02 12:38:50 PM  
Having read that, each person says basically one of three things:

I'm a libertarian, and I like being tied down to a party that only tangentially follows my beliefs

Ronald Reagan, or some other person, inspired me to be a Republican

I completely fail to understand the issues, and think both parties do the opposite of what they actually do.
 
2012-09-02 12:38:54 PM  
Because you're rich or you're a farking idiot, or both, that's why.
 
2012-09-02 12:38:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Two posts and this is all you can come up with? You might as well go back to bed.


What's funny is there are plenty of conservatives who've given up on the GOP. People like Jon Huntsman Jr, yeah he was running for President a year ago, but I wouldn't exactly expect him to have much good to say about the GOP. Hell he pretty much admitted he's done with the GOP until it changes in some pretty substantial ways when he was on The Colbert Report the other night.
 
2012-09-02 12:39:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: Nah..not a fan of american thinker. Town hall is hit or miss. I'm just surprised you guys haven't taken off with this. the best so far is the normal "fark you i got mine" stuff...you guys are off your game.

Two posts and this is all you can come up with? You might as well go back to bed.


I plan on taking a nap this afternoon...will that count?

If you'll notice, at least guntram tried something different.

do you have something better than the typical "fark you, I got mine"?
 
2012-09-02 12:40:17 PM  

skipjack: do you have something better than the typical "fark you, I got mine"?


It's the truth though. Tell me it's not.
 
2012-09-02 12:40:19 PM  

skipjack: cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: Nah..not a fan of american thinker. Town hall is hit or miss. I'm just surprised you guys haven't taken off with this. the best so far is the normal "fark you i got mine" stuff...you guys are off your game.

Two posts and this is all you can come up with? You might as well go back to bed.

I plan on taking a nap this afternoon...will that count?

If you'll notice, at least guntram tried something different.

do you have something better than the typical "fark you, I got mine"?


Not really, no. You haven't offered any good reason to be a Republican, and neither did the guys in TFA
 
2012-09-02 12:41:33 PM  
i45.tinypic.com

"A B-list actor who intentionally stalled the release of the Iranian hostages as President? So dreamy!!! Black people scare me, because they want to steal from me."
 
2012-09-02 12:41:34 PM  

valar_morghulis: -I'm against shooting wolves from airplanes for sport


We appreciate that.
 
2012-09-02 12:41:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: Yes yes....i'm a troll because I dare point out the obvious.

You're a troll because you called a thread a circle-jerk and didn't contribute anything to the thread.


So..this thread is worthy of contributing something to when it's an obvious dump thread for folks like you?

Stop the thread folks...we're about to fix the world economy..that's how important this thread just became.
 
2012-09-02 12:41:59 PM  

Mrtraveler01: valar_morghulis: Why I'm NOT a Republican:

-I believe in a homosexual's right to marriage/civil unions and to receive all the rights and benefits therein
-I believe in the social safety net
-I believe in responsible management of natural resources, not raped-earth glutinous frenzies as proposed by Romney-Ryan
-I believe in a woman's inalienable right to choice and birth control
-I believe in equal pay for equal work
-I'm against shooting wolves from airplanes for sport
-I'm against rabid deregulation
-I believe in Keynesian economics
-I'm not afraid of Shariah Law and nor do I believe it's a threat to American law
-I'm against racial profiling
-I have a sense of humor

THIS X 1000!!!


Oh, and I forgot a few:

-I don't categorize rape as ANYTHING other than "rape."
 
2012-09-02 12:42:17 PM  

skipjack: cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: Yes yes....i'm a troll because I dare point out the obvious.

You're a troll because you called a thread a circle-jerk and didn't contribute anything to the thread.

So..this thread is worthy of contributing something to when it's an obvious dump thread for folks like you?

Stop the thread folks...we're about to fix the world economy..that's how important this thread just became.


You could've offered your reasons to be a Republican, or at least why YOU are a Republican. But no, you decided that we're all conspiring against you.
 
2012-09-02 12:43:10 PM  
www.npr.org 

This has potential
 
2012-09-02 12:43:51 PM  

Weaver95: i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.


Dunning-Kruger.
 
2012-09-02 12:44:10 PM  
i46.tinypic.com

"I've been trained to hate myself."
 
2012-09-02 12:44:33 PM  
culebra
Because you're rich or you're a farking idiot, or both, that's why.

There are also many believers in the "just-world" fallacy in the republican party.
 
2012-09-02 12:45:07 PM  

EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.


And if you think the Republicans are gonna save you, think again. Then again, it's not like y'all actually think.

ignatius_crumbcake: I used to be a republican because I believe in small government and individual rights. Unfortunately the republican party no longer agrees with me.


Same here. They wouldn't know liberty, freedom and pursuit of happiness if it bit them on their retarded asses.
 
2012-09-02 12:45:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: skipjack: do you have something better than the typical "fark you, I got mine"?

It's the truth though. Tell me it's not.


It's the truth for some of the GOP'ers, not for others. Stereotypes break down eventually.

However, the answer to my question should have been no...you don't have anything better.
 
2012-09-02 12:45:07 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Of course. If she were rational, she wouldn't be Republican, now would she?


good point
 
2012-09-02 12:45:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: Yes yes....i'm a troll because I dare point out the obvious.

You're a troll because you called a thread a circle-jerk and didn't contribute anything to the thread.


What he said. All you did was drop in and throw out an insult, thinking you were cute and clever by doing so. You weren't. If you wish to debate the merits of the article and the discussion at hand, I'm all ears, but if all you're going to do is threadshiat, then whine how you're being picked on when you get called on it, you deserve what you get.
 
2012-09-02 12:45:14 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i49.tinypic.com image 639x439]

"... So I vote for the party that explicitly shoots down tax cuts for small business owners, and picked a Presidential candidate who made his fortune gutting businesses, raping their assets, and leaving them to pick up the tab for loans he used to give himself bonuses. I'm an idiot."


"and I vote for a candidate who along with his rich friends sent their money to overseas banks where it could never be lent out by banks in the US as small business loans and lines of credit"
 
2012-09-02 12:45:49 PM  

skipjack: Mrtraveler01: skipjack: do you have something better than the typical "fark you, I got mine"?

It's the truth though. Tell me it's not.

It's the truth for some of the GOP'ers, not for others. Stereotypes break down eventually.

However, the answer to my question should have been no...you don't have anything better.


It's because you haven't given any better reasons to be a Republican. And do you know why? There aren't any.
 
2012-09-02 12:45:52 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i46.tinypic.com image 639x439]

"I've been trained to hate myself."


Why isn't she just a Libertarian then.

Then she can be gay all she wants without having to feel awkward about being part of a movement that wants to treat gays like second-class citizens.
 
2012-09-02 12:46:11 PM  

SuperTramp: There are also many believers in the "just-world" fallacy in the republican party.


Ayup.

...that only two things really drive conservative morality: is us versus them, and punishment and reward. Worship of free markets, psychological dependence on dualistic religious schemes of heaven and hell, and even their apparent mass lack of empathy is really all about punishment and reward. If you didn't get rich enough with the right job, you deserve to be poor and die of untreated medical conditions. If you didn't keep your legs crossed, you deserve to be forced into childbirth. If you did anything to bring yourself under government suspicion, you deserve to be subject to police brutality and torture. The rest of the racial and religious aggression and resentment is just a function of tribal us versus them mentality. Sanctity, loyalty and authority aren't core values of the conservative mind, but simply functions of the principles of punishment and reward, and us versus them. Link
 
2012-09-02 12:46:44 PM  
Gotta admit, it truly amazes me that anyone making less than 250K a year would vote for Romney.

But hey, it's America.
 
2012-09-02 12:47:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: Yes yes....i'm a troll because I dare point out the obvious.

You're a troll because you called a thread a circle-jerk and didn't contribute anything to the thread.

So..this thread is worthy of contributing something to when it's an obvious dump thread for folks like you?

Stop the thread folks...we're about to fix the world economy..that's how important this thread just became.

You could've offered your reasons to be a Republican, or at least why YOU are a Republican. But no, you decided that we're all conspiring against you.


you can't have it both ways.
Did he give a reason or not?
 
2012-09-02 12:47:50 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i49.tinypic.com image 639x439]

"... So I vote for the party that explicitly shoots down tax cuts for small business owners, and picked a Presidential candidate who made his fortune gutting businesses, raping their assets, and leaving them to pick up the tab for loans he used to give himself bonuses. I'm an idiot."


That and the GOP is going to extreme lengths to shut out the libertarian-wing of the party from participating in anything.

I mean it's fine if you want to be a libertarian, but being a libertarian in the GOP makes no farking sense to me.
 
2012-09-02 12:47:53 PM  
Because I'm too farking lazy to change my party affiliation.
/Not too lazy to vote- I never miss one (including local issues only ones)
//Took perverse pleasure in voting for Frothy in the primary... and damned if we didn't get close
///Will not vote for any R for a real position of power based on their behavior over the past decade
 
2012-09-02 12:48:00 PM  

AnEvilGuest: you can't have it both ways.
Did he give a reason or not?


Can't have what both ways? No, he didn't give a reason.
 
2012-09-02 12:48:17 PM  
I was a Republican for many years, most of my time on Fark actually, up until the point that the party abandoned anything looking like Conservative thought--that is responsive tax policy, responsive spending policy, responsive domestic policy, and responsive foreign policy based on actual conditions, as opposed to the whims of a 12 year old who didn't want to share.

I still consider myself fairly Conservative. I still believe in the Constitution--which means church and state don't meld, that we deliver on free speech, the freedom of assembly, and that pesky equality under the law. I don't care what your churches want to do in their own confines, but I do draw the line against mandating that for the rest of the populace. Sadly, what passes for "Conservative" thought nowadays, only seems to like bits and pieces, and wants to take a pupu platter approach wherein the Second Amendment seems to trounce all the others, and the First is just an impediment, as is the Fifth and the 12th and the 14th.

The radicalism on the Right has soured me on the Party. And that is really what the RNC Convention highlighted, was the radicalism that the party has taken to heart. It is no longer the "Conservative" party, although it likes to style itself as such, to cloak the radicalism at its heart. "Social Conservatives" are anything but social in that they don't really like their neighbors all that much, and embrace a radical vision of the nation and law, while "Fiscal Conservatives" have taken "tax breaks" to their core, while abandoning anything like intelligent and considered spending policy.

That the party has abandoned Conservatism, for a rebranding of their radicalized agenda to be called as such is what turned me from her ranks. Intelligent and considered thought was what drew me to the party. Considered and intelligent like Snowe of Maine, like William Cohen whom she replaced. Like Margaret Chase Smith. And that saddens me a great deal, because careful and considered thought should be the hallmarks of the Republican party traditionally. As well as for standing by and for the continuance of the republic--and at this point, we have secessionists entrenched within the party itself.

Policy cannot be set into stone, save in the defense of said republic. To strive to deliver the promises of said republic. And the GOP lost her way some time ago, and the voices to bring her back to sanity seem lost in a sea of DERP at this point, and that is what turned me from her entirely. Not because I changed, but because the party has abandoned the defense of the republic and her people, to instead play nothing but politics as a team sport, with peoples' lives as pieces in the game.

If that means that I have to vote for Conservative candidates who happen to be Libertarians, that is what I will do. If that means that the Democrat on the slate is more in line with the policy that continues the promise of the republic, that is what I will vote for. Lately, the Republican candidates, in very few races, have been that voice, and that is what saddens me, because party affiliation at this point means towing a line that is increasingly militant, increasingly radicalized, and increasingly a bad choice for communities and state and nation.

It may take folks like myself leaving the party, and voting against the entrenched interests that have skewed the party towards this sort of "anything to win" strategy that has cost the party its heart and soul. WE did this to ourselves, as a party. We took money, and allowed it to skew the agenda, as a party. We equated cash with voice, and that we cannot blame anyone else for. That so many seem to now equate the team over the ideas, and leap to defend "their" party, even against their interests is particularly damning, because it shows a lack of depth of understanding of fundamental issues, as well as the history of the party.

Right now, we have Republicans looking to slice rights from citizens. The party of Lincoln is looking to disenfranchise millions. By dint of drug policy, by dint of "tough on crime" policies, by dint of immigration "reform" that will limit citizenry, by dint of "voter fraud" protections, and looking to excise the rights of citizens to choose their own path in matters of religion and to assemble even. This is not what I can support, and so long as the party stands in this fashion, I can't support her with my membership, nor can I support candidates who tow this line for the RNC.

Get sane again, and I'll come back, but at this point, the party may have to die a lingering and bitter death before something can rise from its ashes...
 
2012-09-02 12:48:24 PM  

Vindibudd: MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.

This is what Democrats call tolerance.


Is this the "you're intolerant of my intolerance" defense?
 
2012-09-02 12:48:29 PM  
i50.tinypic.com

"... Close enough? I don't know. Thinking is hard."
 
2012-09-02 12:48:45 PM  
I question NPR's sampling methods.

6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?
 
2012-09-02 12:49:43 PM  
I'm not a Republican because I care about my daughters.
 
2012-09-02 12:49:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: .

You could've offered your reasons to be a Republican, or at least why YOU are a Republican. But no, you decided that we're all conspiring against you.


I've not said anyone is "conspiring" against me, I did expressed my disappointment that I expected much funnier replies.

I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with. I'm not a car salesman and if you want a more convincing "why", you're not getting it.
 
2012-09-02 12:49:55 PM  

poot_rootbeer: 6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?


Not from watching the shots of the crowd during the RNC.
 
2012-09-02 12:50:18 PM  

skipjack: I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with. I'm not a car salesman and if you want a more convincing "why", you're not getting it.


I didn't ask why you were a conservative. I asked why you were a Republican.
 
2012-09-02 12:50:30 PM  
Why do republicans always have some sort of "Origin Story" like a farking superhero.

/I was bitten by a Reganoactive spider.
 
2012-09-02 12:50:58 PM  
I'm a Republican because my party's candidate isn't an uppity Negro who has the audacity to talk when White folks are present.

(I joke, but you'd be surprised how many people are voting for that reason, subconsciously or not.)
 
2012-09-02 12:51:06 PM  

poot_rootbeer: I question NPR's sampling methods.

6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?


Sounds about right.
 
2012-09-02 12:51:18 PM  

theorellior: poot_rootbeer: 6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?

Not from watching the shots of the crowd during the RNC.


What are you talking about? I saw 2 black people at the RNC. Now that's diversity!
 
2012-09-02 12:51:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: AnEvilGuest: you can't have it both ways.
Did he give a reason or not?

Can't have what both ways? No, he didn't give a reason.


Irrational paranoia is a reason and probably a common one.
 
2012-09-02 12:52:09 PM  

zappaisfrank: cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: Yes yes....i'm a troll because I dare point out the obvious.

You're a troll because you called a thread a circle-jerk and didn't contribute anything to the thread.

What he said. All you did was drop in and throw out an insult, thinking you were cute and clever by doing so. You weren't. If you wish to debate the merits of the article and the discussion at hand, I'm all ears, but if all you're going to do is threadshiat, then whine how you're being picked on when you get called on it, you deserve what you get.


Oh...I didn't think it was clever, or cute.

There is no discussion at hand except for the non sequiturs most of the replies are. Now..run along and look up what a non sequitur is.
 
2012-09-02 12:52:49 PM  

poot_rootbeer: I question NPR's sampling methods.

6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?


NPR bends over backwards in order not to appear biased.
 
2012-09-02 12:53:16 PM  

skipjack: I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with. I'm not a car salesman and if you want a more convincing "why", you're not getting it.


Taking your ball and going home?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-02 12:53:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with. I'm not a car salesman and if you want a more convincing "why", you're not getting it.

I didn't ask why you were a conservative. I asked why you were a Republican.


And you got two answers for the price of one....but one answer went over your head.
 
2012-09-02 12:53:53 PM  

skipjack: There is no discussion at hand except for the non sequiturs most of the replies are. Now..run along and look up what a non sequitur is.


Jokes about reasons why people would be Republicans are considered non sequiturs in a thread that is about people saying why they are Republicans?

Maybe YOU need to look up what "non-sequitur" means.
 
2012-09-02 12:53:56 PM  
hubiestubert
I was a Republican for many years, most of my time on Fark actually....

I remember. Man, do I remember.
 
2012-09-02 12:54:32 PM  

Fart_Machine: poot_rootbeer: I question NPR's sampling methods.

6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?

NPR bends over backwards in order not to appear biased.


All a futile attempt because the retards in the GOP still think NPR is the US equivalent of Pravda.
 
2012-09-02 12:54:46 PM  
i45.tinypic.com

"So what I'm saying is that I support the party that wants to destroy the social safety net so people who have more money than they could possibly spend in their lifetime will have a little more. I mean, if I, the white male child of a stable upper-middle-class family can make it on my own, why can't unemployed people just work at their dad's company until he can line them up with a job somewhere else? Freeloaders."
 
2012-09-02 12:54:55 PM  

skipjack: cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with. I'm not a car salesman and if you want a more convincing "why", you're not getting it.

I didn't ask why you were a conservative. I asked why you were a Republican.

And you got two answers for the price of one....but one answer went over your head.


Why are you a Republican? Republicans aren't a conservative party. Over the last 30 years they've been anything but fiscally conservative. They've been anything but socially conservative as well. Why are you a Republican?
 
2012-09-02 12:54:59 PM  
There are things to dislike, even to hate, in the Democratic party. The only way I can see most people being a Republican nowadays is to focus only on what they hate in the Democratic party while being blind to their own.
 
2012-09-02 12:55:04 PM  
the Republican party has to put on a puppet show and bullsh*t its members so that its members will vote republican, like a car commercial would convince you to buy X brand car.

and like a car commercial, sell you an illusion. when you buy the car and keep it a few years, you discover things you didn't know about the car.

and if you're smart, you change parties.

and if you're wealthy, you stay with the republicans because they are there to protect you and your money. at least, that is their commercial.
 
2012-09-02 12:55:25 PM  

skipjack: There is no discussion at hand except for the non sequiturs most of the replies are. Now..run along and look up what a non sequitur is.


FFS. I thought we'd found a true right-winger when all we'd found was a Socratic troll.

I haz a sad.
 
2012-09-02 12:55:55 PM  
www.npr.org


"Because I farkin' LOVE Ronald Reagan...A B-list actor who began his campaign at a racially segregated southern university, whooped up public frenzy by lying about the Panama Canal treaty and was even called on it personally by arch Conservative tough guy John Wayne, who listened to the completely fabricated findings of a think tank called "Team B" who pulled things out of their ass about Russia because he was still living in 1950 when COMMIES were actually a minor but totally overblown threat, who created a racially stereotype called the "welfare queen" to draw bigoted whites with a persecution complex under the tent, who invaded Grenada without Congressional approval to rescue students who didn't need rescuing to puff up his crusade to get the public behind his military programs, who also tripled the military budget, took away interest deductions for student loans, funded terrorists while looking the other way as tons of cocaine poured into California, traded arms for hostages, and thought foreign policy was a movie script".
 
2012-09-02 12:56:01 PM  

skipjack: cameroncrazy1984: .

You could've offered your reasons to be a Republican, or at least why YOU are a Republican. But no, you decided that we're all conspiring against you.

I've not said anyone is "conspiring" against me, I did expressed my disappointment that I expected much funnier replies.

I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with. I'm not a car salesman and if you want a more convincing "why", you're not getting it.


Being conservative has nothing to do with being a republican today. The modern GOP is closer to a fascist theocratic party than anything.
 
2012-09-02 12:56:06 PM  

theorellior: Weaver95: i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.

Dunning-Kruger.


Hanlon's Razor
 
2012-09-02 12:56:50 PM  

theorellior: skipjack: There is no discussion at hand except for the non sequiturs most of the replies are. Now..run along and look up what a non sequitur is.

FFS. I thought we'd found a true right-winger when all we'd found was a Socratic troll.

I haz a sad.


If you guys were truly wanting an engagement of why someone is a republican..guess what your first action would be?

/go be sad somewhere else.
 
2012-09-02 12:56:53 PM  
Lou, you're hilarious (and spot-on, I bet.)
 
2012-09-02 12:57:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with. I'm not a car salesman and if you want a more convincing "why", you're not getting it.

I didn't ask why you were a conservative. I asked why you were a Republican.

And you got two answers for the price of one....but one answer went over your head.

Why are you a Republican? Republicans aren't a conservative party. Over the last 30 years they've been anything but fiscally conservative. They've been anything but socially conservative as well. Why are you a Republican?


Why do you bother with the obvious threadshaitters.
 
2012-09-02 12:57:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: There is no discussion at hand except for the non sequiturs most of the replies are. Now..run along and look up what a non sequitur is.

Jokes about reasons why people would be Republicans are considered non sequiturs in a thread that is about people saying why they are Republicans?

Maybe YOU need to look up what "non-sequitur" means.


img.21food.com
RIP
 
2012-09-02 12:57:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Why are you a Republican? Republicans aren't a conservative party. Over the last 30 years they've been anything but fiscally conservative. They've been anything but socially conservative as well. Why are you a Republican?


You mean like this?

blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2012-09-02 12:57:41 PM  

skipjack: If you guys were truly wanting an engagement of why someone is a republican..guess what your first action would be?


To post in a thread about why people are Republicans?
 
2012-09-02 12:58:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984:

Why are you a Republican? Republicans aren't a conservative party. Over the last 30 years they've been anything but fiscally conservative. They've been anything but socially conservative as well. Why are you a Republican?


Again..I answered that..just in a more subtle way than you are able to decipher.
 
2012-09-02 12:58:17 PM  
$$$$
 
2012-09-02 12:58:25 PM  

poot_rootbeer: I question NPR's sampling methods.

6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?


I think we already know why old white guys vote Republican.
 
2012-09-02 12:58:57 PM  

poot_rootbeer: I question NPR's sampling methods.

6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?


It's representative of who gets the attention in the Republican Party. It's unofficial affirmative action!
 
2012-09-02 12:59:11 PM  

skipjack: zappaisfrank: cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: Yes yes....i'm a troll because I dare point out the obvious.

You're a troll because you called a thread a circle-jerk and didn't contribute anything to the thread.

What he said. All you did was drop in and throw out an insult, thinking you were cute and clever by doing so. You weren't. If you wish to debate the merits of the article and the discussion at hand, I'm all ears, but if all you're going to do is threadshiat, then whine how you're being picked on when you get called on it, you deserve what you get.

Oh...I didn't think it was clever, or cute.

There is no discussion at hand except for the non sequiturs most of the replies are. Now..run along and look up what a non sequitur is.


I know what a non sequitur is, Junior. Any more condescending remarks to make yourself feel smarter or more superior?
 
2012-09-02 12:59:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: If you guys were truly wanting an engagement of why someone is a republican..guess what your first action would be?

To post in a thread about why people are Republicans?


And, that Boobies would obviously be hyperbolic stereotypes..right? Because that's how honest discussion happens.
 
2012-09-02 12:59:26 PM  

skipjack: cameroncrazy1984:

Why are you a Republican? Republicans aren't a conservative party. Over the last 30 years they've been anything but fiscally conservative. They've been anything but socially conservative as well. Why are you a Republican?

Again..I answered that..just in a more subtle way than you are able to decipher.


You're a Republican because you agree with the conservative ideology, which is in no way represented by the Republican party. Got it.
 
2012-09-02 01:00:20 PM  

skipjack: cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: If you guys were truly wanting an engagement of why someone is a republican..guess what your first action would be?

To post in a thread about why people are Republicans?

And, that Boobies would obviously be hyperbolic stereotypes..right? Because that's how honest discussion happens.


Given your posts in this thread, they haven't been too hyperbolic, no. Maybe you ought to look that one up too?
 
2012-09-02 01:00:20 PM  
i46.tinypic.com

"Awwwww SHUCKEY DUCKEY! Remember to buy my book."
 
2012-09-02 01:03:13 PM  
I've been an entrepreneur for as long as I can remember; I ran three or four different businesses in grammar school. The ideas that are exposed by the Libertarian Party and the libertarian part of the Republican [Party] really reinforce that Republican spirit.


Translation:


"I'm full of shiat and I like the part of this party that really belongs to another party."
 
2012-09-02 01:03:50 PM  

theorellior: cameroncrazy1984: Why are you a Republican? Republicans aren't a conservative party. Over the last 30 years they've been anything but fiscally conservative. They've been anything but socially conservative as well. Why are you a Republican?

You mean like this?

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 377x252]


The reason Obama is the slowest spending is because all of those patriotic Americuns who voted in the 2010 Congress to STOP Obama's spending sprees and they did! Don't you see?..Any success Obama had was because of Republicans!

/can't believe I typed that with a straight face..I feel dirty now.
//Love to hear Republicans crow about 2010 midterms..especially since that Congress is polling at 16 percent approval and has for months!
 
2012-09-02 01:04:07 PM  
i49.tinypic.com

"I wasn't accepted to college."
 
2012-09-02 01:05:34 PM  
Republicans want less government for the same reason criminals want less cops.
 
2012-09-02 01:06:21 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i49.tinypic.com image 639x440]

"I wasn't accepted to college."


I would love to know how much money he makes at 22 to justify being pissed off about taxes.
 
2012-09-02 01:06:36 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i49.tinypic.com image 639x440]

"I wasn't accepted to college."


That and I'm out of college and pay taxes.

I just find it ludicrous that it's our god-given duty as Americans to pay for shiny new toys the Defense Department doesn't even want but it's a sign of the Republic dying when people get health insurance.

In other words, I don't mind paying taxes for services as long as their effective, which the GOP seems to be going to great lengths to prevent from happening in order to reinforce their morally bankrupt ideology.
 
2012-09-02 01:06:41 PM  
www.npr.org

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
 
2012-09-02 01:08:52 PM  
Jesus, Jesus, Bootstraps, Bootstrap, Jesus, Bootstraps, Jesus, Jesus ......... and so on.

Bloody hell you yanks have some retarded politics. I mean my country also has retarded politics, but its not that bad. Not by a long shot and quite frankly you deserve better.
 
2012-09-02 01:10:19 PM  

Rishathra: Jesus, Jesus, Bootstraps, Bootstrap, Jesus, Bootstraps, Jesus, Jesus ......... and so on.

Bloody hell you yanks have some retarded politics. I mean my country also has retarded politics, but its not that bad. Not by a long shot and quite frankly you deserve better.


No farking way

/USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-09-02 01:11:49 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i50.tinypic.com image 639x439]

"... Close enough? I don't know. Thinking is hard."


I have to say, none of them are really defending their reasons for being a Republican very well; that's not even counting those espousing beliefs that are completely counter to what the current Republican platform is!
 
2012-09-02 01:12:03 PM  

EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.


The Envirodude troll really has the "B" team working for it lately. What happened? Is this considered pre-season?
 
2012-09-02 01:12:12 PM  
When I think about embracing my sexuality, I think of Republicans too.
 
2012-09-02 01:12:45 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i49.tinypic.com image 639x440]

"I wasn't accepted to college."


Or he went to college and didn't learn any critical thinking. I can't imagine what he spent his time doing instead though, judging from his classy sombrero. He's the kind of guy that hears "tax cuts" and doesn't bother to think what else that effects, or even if they apply to him.
 
2012-09-02 01:13:32 PM  
I don't care what anybody has to say when it starts with "Why I'm A...."

I don't care if it's Republican, or Democrat, or Christian, or atheist (please feel free to post your own definition of what this means! this should happen in every thread! at least 500 times!) or baseball fan or gay or straight or farking whatever.

But especially when it's "Why I'm a Republican," in this derptastic, up-is-down, cutting-taxes-lowers-debt, ignorance-is-strength, mission-accomplished, war-was-justified, job-creators-are-taxed-to-death, no-true-racists hall of mirrors world we live in.

I just don't care why anybody is anything, but I especially don't care why anybody is on board with the likes of Rmoney and Rayn and Dubya and Cheney and Rice and Rove and Lardbaugh and the whole steal-it-all-now crowd that farked everything up so completely last time.
 
2012-09-02 01:14:20 PM  

hubiestubert: I was a Republican for many years, most of my time on Fark actually, up until the point that the party abandoned anything looking like Conservative thought--that is responsive tax policy, responsive spending policy, responsive domestic policy, and responsive foreign policy based on actual conditions, as opposed to the whims of a 12 year old who didn't want to share.

I still consider myself fairly Conservative. I still believe in the Constitution--which means church and state don't meld, that we deliver on free speech, the freedom of assembly, and that pesky equality under the law. I don't care what your churches want to do in their own confines, but I do draw the line against mandating that for the rest of the populace. Sadly, what passes for "Conservative" thought nowadays, only seems to like bits and pieces, and wants to take a pupu platter approach wherein the Second Amendment seems to trounce all the others, and the First is just an impediment, as is the Fifth and the 12th and the 14th.

The radicalism on the Right has soured me on the Party. And that is really what the RNC Convention highlighted, was the radicalism that the party has taken to heart. It is no longer the "Conservative" party, although it likes to style itself as such, to cloak the radicalism at its heart. "Social Conservatives" are anything but social in that they don't really like their neighbors all that much, and embrace a radical vision of the nation and law, while "Fiscal Conservatives" have taken "tax breaks" to their core, while abandoning anything like intelligent and considered spending policy.

That the party has abandoned Conservatism, for a rebranding of their radicalized agenda to be called as such is what turned me from her ranks. Intelligent and considered thought was what drew me to the party. Considered and intelligent like Snowe of Maine, like William Cohen whom she replaced. Like Margaret Chase Smith. And that saddens me a great deal, because careful and considered thought sho ...


Rino ;)
 
2012-09-02 01:14:33 PM  

zappaisfrank: [www.politifake.org image 640x511]


Just for the record, everybody could see Hobbes. It's just that everyone but Calvin saw a stuffed tiger.
 
2012-09-02 01:15:41 PM  

Cheesus: Or he went to college and didn't learn any critical thinking. I can't imagine what he spent his time doing instead though, judging from his classy sombrero. He's the kind of guy that hears "tax cuts" and doesn't bother to think what else that effects, or even if they apply to him.


He went to college. He was just that annoying shiat on your floor who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time and needed to tell you about his revelation every time you hung out with him. He also never chipped in for beer or weed money, but drank and smoked more than anyone else.
 
2012-09-02 01:15:47 PM  

skipjack: I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with.


I'm impressed by the careful introspection that has led you to your current ideological position, and by the clarity with which you articulate the intellectual journey that brought you to this point. You're clearly a master of dialectic.
 
2012-09-02 01:16:55 PM  
A lot of people deluding themselves in those explanations...
 
2012-09-02 01:19:01 PM  

skipjack: I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with.


No one asked why you were a conservative, they asked why you were a Republican. Big difference.

If you really are a conservative, then why the hell are you still a Republican.
 
2012-09-02 01:19:30 PM  
Why I'm a Democrat

 
2012-09-02 01:20:50 PM  

Mrtraveler01: skipjack: I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with.

No one asked why you were a conservative, they asked why you were a Republican. Big difference.

If you really are a conservative, then why the hell are you still a Republican.


I asked him the same question, but he appears to have run off.
 
2012-09-02 01:21:19 PM  
Why I'm a Democrat

i208.photobucket.com



ftfm
 
2012-09-02 01:22:58 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i49.tinypic.com image 639x440]

"I wasn't accepted to college."


Can someone please tell me, is there some significance to wearing a hat made from a Yuengling box?
 
2012-09-02 01:24:17 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Cheesus: Or he went to college and didn't learn any critical thinking. I can't imagine what he spent his time doing instead though, judging from his classy sombrero. He's the kind of guy that hears "tax cuts" and doesn't bother to think what else that effects, or even if they apply to him.

He went to college. He was just that annoying shiat on your floor who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time and needed to tell you about his revelation every time you hung out with him. He also never chipped in for beer or weed money, but drank and smoked more than anyone else.


Hell, I'd be happy with a republican who actually read it. All the people I've heard spout off about how great Rand is don't have any farking idea what she was trying to say.
 
2012-09-02 01:24:20 PM  
I'd like to see everyone have what I had, and the benefits we've had.

If you want people to have access to the same public services and educational system you enjoyed then why in holy fark would you vote republican. They have stated time and time again they would like to strip away those services and reduce the role of the government to a level not seen since the Victorian era.

WHAT THE fark IS WRONG WITH 45% to 50% OF YOUR POPULATION AMERICA. HOW CAN YOU PUT A PROBE ON MARS AND STILL BE THIS DUMB.
 
2012-09-02 01:26:30 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Cheesus: Or he went to college and didn't learn any critical thinking. I can't imagine what he spent his time doing instead though, judging from his classy sombrero. He's the kind of guy that hears "tax cuts" and doesn't bother to think what else that effects, or even if they apply to him.

He went to college. He was just that annoying shiat on your floor who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time and needed to tell you about his revelation every time you hung out with him. He also never chipped in for beer or weed money, but drank and smoked more than anyone else.

Hell, I'd be happy with a republican who actually read it. All the people I've heard spout off about how great Rand is don't have any farking idea what she was trying to say.


Like Paul Ryan?
 
2012-09-02 01:27:35 PM  
My parents taught me individual responsibility. You have to rely on yourself to get you anywhere. And I became a Republican because I truly believe that we are giving people the tools to build a successful life and really be a part of the American dream.

what tools have recent republicans given people to build a successful life and be part of the american dream?
 
2012-09-02 01:28:31 PM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay

That smarmy dickbag doesn't know shiat. I know there are plenty of capable, mature, and experienced 23-year-olds, but I'll put money on this guy having minimal exposure to the real world.
 
2012-09-02 01:28:59 PM  

Im_Gumby: poot_rootbeer: I question NPR's sampling methods.

6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?

Sounds about right.


I'm pretty sure the GOP isn't 15% black
 
2012-09-02 01:29:08 PM  

thomps: My parents taught me individual responsibility. You have to rely on yourself to get you anywhere. And I became a Republican because I truly believe that we are giving people the tools to build a successful life and really be a part of the American dream.

what tools have recent republicans given people to build a successful life and be part of the american dream?


Tax cuts clearly.
 
2012-09-02 01:29:20 PM  
So has anyone in this thread yet actually provided actual reasons to be a modern Republican? I saw the one who said something like "I believe in conservative ideology" which is a total non-answer. Anyone going to defend the modern Republican Party?
 
2012-09-02 01:30:23 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Im_Gumby: poot_rootbeer: I question NPR's sampling methods.

6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?

Sounds about right.

I'm pretty sure the GOP isn't 15% black


Party of Jesus and prejudice against gays. I can believe it.
 
2012-09-02 01:30:37 PM  
SuperTramp: Can someone please tell me, is there some significance to wearing a hat made from a Yuengling box?

because it's a Pennsylvania brewery and he's a PA delegate. Also, he's an attention whore.
 
2012-09-02 01:33:36 PM  
I have a few sane, intelligent friends who still vote Republican and I'm baffled by it. They aren't rich, socially conservative or racist.

The only explanation I can come up with is that the GOP has done a masterful job of creating an illusory Republican party to challenge an imaginary Obama. In the echo chamber of Fox News (and to a lesser extent the mainstream press - in the interest of "fairness"), the Republicans are the conservative party of small government and small business, of personal responsibility and fiscal sanity. Democrats, by contrast, are the party led by a scary Black man that wants to take away your freedom, and turn the US into Sweden and your sons into queens. It's a bit harder to maintain the Republican illusion in the face of genuine GOP politicians - hence the reason "Generic Republican" frequently polls better than the actual candidate.

No amount of factual evidence to the contrary - such as demonstrating that Democrats have been better stewards of the economy over the last 40 or proving that Obama's politics are aligned with Eisenhower rather than Stalin - will change these people's minds, and I've given up trying.
 
2012-09-02 01:33:47 PM  
SuperTramp: Can someone please tell me, is there some significance to wearing a hat made from a Yuengling box?

ultraholland because it's a Pennsylvania brewery and he's a PA delegate. Also, he's an attention whore.

thanks.
 
2012-09-02 01:35:41 PM  

Cheesus: Hobodeluxe: Im_Gumby: poot_rootbeer: I question NPR's sampling methods.

6 of the 15 are women, and 2 of 15 are black. Does that sound representative of the GOP as a whole?

Sounds about right.

I'm pretty sure the GOP isn't 15% black

Party of Jesus and prejudice against gays. I can believe it.


you'd think they poll above 0% then wouldn't you?
 
2012-09-02 01:35:44 PM  

thomps: My parents taught me individual responsibility. You have to rely on yourself to get you anywhere. And I became a Republican because I truly believe that we are giving people the tools to build a successful life and really be a part of the American dream.

what tools have recent republicans given people to build a successful life and be part of the american dream?


Well if you had watched the GOP primaries they gave us plenty of tools... for great comedy.
 
2012-09-02 01:37:25 PM  
Mitt Romneys Tax Return

I have a few sane, intelligent friends who still vote Republican and I'm baffled by it. They aren't rich, socially conservative or racist.

The only explanation I can come up with is that the GOP has done a masterful job of creating an illusory Republican party to challenge an imaginary Obama. In the echo chamber of Fox News (and to a lesser extent the mainstream press - in the interest of "fairness"), the Republicans are the conservative party of small government and small business, of personal responsibility and fiscal sanity. Democrats, by contrast, are the party led by a scary Black man that wants to take away your freedom, and turn the US into Sweden and your sons into queens. It's a bit harder to maintain the Republican illusion in the face of genuine GOP politicians - hence the reason "Generic Republican" frequently polls better than the actual candidate.

No amount of factual evidence to the contrary - such as demonstrating that Democrats have been better stewards of the economy over the last 40 or proving that Obama's politics are aligned with Eisenhower rather than Stalin - will change these people's minds, and I've given up trying.


I sent this to a friend who votes R, and he actually got it, decided he's a Progressive, after all.

/no hard in trying
 
2012-09-02 01:37:59 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: hence the reason "Generic Republican" frequently polls better than the actual candidate.


Their 2016 nominee will be Clint Eastwood's empty chair and a footstool.
 
2012-09-02 01:38:24 PM  
/harm

heh.
 
2012-09-02 01:42:22 PM  
I'm a Republican because... (check one)

A. I'm rich, want to get richer, and don't give a shiat about anyone else.
B. I'm not rich, but I'm an idiot who votes for people who will make life worse for me and my family.
 
2012-09-02 01:43:57 PM  

DeltaPunch: I'd rather my taxes went up so that every black person in America can use food stamps to buy steaks and Champagne, than to have one more penny of it go to the richest assholes that will move it offshore to avoid paying taxes.


I appreciate your hyperbole and agree with your sentiment. An economic variation on "it's better for 9 guilty men to be mistakenly declared innocent than for one 1 innocent man to be mistakenly declared guilty."
 
2012-09-02 01:44:24 PM  
You throw enough money at the problem you can convince people to jump in a volcano. Look at Jim Jones, all he had was the power of belonging and he caused a massacre.
 
2012-09-02 01:47:29 PM  

Vindibudd: MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.

This is what Democrats call tolerance.


No, I'm pretty sure that's what they call intolerance. Much like opinions, not all people are tolerable. Being an asshole is a choice.
 
2012-09-02 01:47:44 PM  

MayoSlather: Well if you had watched the GOP primaries they gave us plenty of tools... for great comedy.


i151.photobucket.com

Q&D
 
2012-09-02 01:52:58 PM  
As opposed to:
"I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Seems the stocks of Kool-Aid have gone up dramatically.
 
2012-09-02 01:54:29 PM  

tony41454: As opposed to:
"I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Seems the stocks of Kool-Aid have gone up dramatically.


i agree, and what's the deal with democrats always raising taxes on our strawmen!
 
2012-09-02 01:54:37 PM  

tony41454: As opposed to:
"I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Seems the stocks of Kool-Aid have gone up dramatically.


-10/10 

A fart would've been more enlightening than this post.
 
2012-09-02 01:55:37 PM  

tony41454: "I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."


I thought it was the other way around.
 
2012-09-02 01:56:12 PM  

WorldCitizen: So has anyone in this thread yet actually provided actual reasons to be a modern Republican? I saw the one who said something like "I believe in conservative ideology" which is a total non-answer. Anyone going to defend the modern Republican Party?


I can think of reasons...single issue voters who believe abortion is evil and needs to be stopped. people who want a 'family values' candidate. People who (for whatever reason) think the GOP is a 'pro-business' party. we might not agree with their reasons, but to them it's valid enough to support Romney with their time, money and votes. personally I think the GOP is playing single issue voters off one another to forge an uneasy alliance that they hope will be strong enough to stand up to Obama. that's why the party doesn't have a coherent message - they can't be coherent without losing a significant portion of their voter base. it's a balancing act that they have to get just right or everything will explode around 'em.

Now if you want to discuss all the reasons why the GOP factionalism is going to kill them come November, that's perfectly fine with me. But you have to concede the point that to the rank and file GOP voters, their reasons for supporting the Republican party are good enough for them. ain't no law says you can't vote for a bunch of religious pro-business nutballs.
 
2012-09-02 01:56:38 PM  

LarryDan43: LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i49.tinypic.com image 639x439]

"... So I vote for the party that explicitly shoots down tax cuts for small business owners, and picked a Presidential candidate who made his fortune gutting businesses, raping their assets, and leaving them to pick up the tab for loans he used to give himself bonuses. I'm an idiot."

"and I vote for a candidate who along with his rich friends sent their money to overseas banks where it could never be lent out by banks in the US as small business loans and lines of credit"


"and I vote for (and run for election in) a party that would just as soon pitch me into the fires of hell than recognize that I have the right to be married to the person I love" (link)
 
2012-09-02 01:57:33 PM  

tony41454: "I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."


Republicans do that too.

Granted they're babies in foreign nations but still the same premise...
 
2012-09-02 01:59:24 PM  
I can't think of a single good reason for self identifying as a Republican and/or voting GOP this election.

Not one.

/Meh, neither can Skipjack apparently.
 
2012-09-02 02:02:13 PM  
why do Republican shills always use the same tactics?

article: 'here's a bunch of facts about Republicans liars and why they lie.'
GOP shill: 'but the DEMOCRATS!? liberals!? OMG SOCIALISMS!'
fark thread: 'um dude...we're discussing the Republicans. don't change the subject.'
GOP shill: 'well...you are all just a bunch of LIBERALS! and you...you...liberal all over the liberal place with your liberal liberals and your gay liberals in the liberals!'
fark thread: 'well ok then. thanks for posting'.


seriously. this happens all the damn time. it's a discussion about the lies of Republicans, or a discussion on Republican policies and sure enough - some idiot shows up and starts screaming about liberals or the democrats. I wouldn't think it was so difficult to stay focused on the discussion at hand. are our local GOP folks all ADHD or something?
 
2012-09-02 02:02:31 PM  

valar_morghulis: Why I'm NOT a Republican:

-I believe in a homosexual's right to marriage/civil unions and to receive all the rights and benefits therein
-I believe in the social safety net
-I believe in responsible management of natural resources, not raped-earth glutinous frenzies as proposed by Romney-Ryan
-I believe in a woman's inalienable right to choice and birth control
-I believe in equal pay for equal work
-I'm against shooting wolves from airplanes for sport
-I'm against rabid deregulation
-I believe in Keynesian economics
-I'm not afraid of Shariah Law and nor do I believe it's a threat to American law
-I'm against racial profiling
-I have a sense of humor



Agree with your points (and more), but can't hold my tongue on this: the word you probably wanted to use is "gluttonous."

/ While I'm at it: less critical, but worth mentioning. Using some words as nouns (as "homosexual," above) can be subtly dehumanizing.
 
2012-09-02 02:03:14 PM  
tony41454: "I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."


Welp, looks like you've got us all figured out.
 
2012-09-02 02:05:31 PM  

ultraholland: tony41454: "I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Welp, looks like you've got us all figured out.


speak for yourself, i hate black people but i can't fight the white guilt that has been ingrained into my very soul by years and years of liberal education.
 
2012-09-02 02:05:49 PM  
I would hate to be a Republican.

But, I would love to do a Republican:

media.tumblr.com 

And I hate myself for it. 

/DoBeDoBeDo...
 
2012-09-02 02:09:16 PM  
Most of those answers can be summed up thus:

"I'm a Republican because I've lived a privileged life, whether I realize it or not. I'm comfortable assuming that because I had the tools to be successful at my disposal, they must be just as accessible to everyone else, and people who aren't as successful as me just didn't try hard enough. I'm a Republican because I don't believe in the government controlling my life, but I believe in it controlling the lives of people who are not like me. I am Republican because I enjoy the advantage of being a white Christian, and I am a Republican because I want that to continue."
 
2012-09-02 02:13:02 PM  

EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.


Everything about you, right down to you handle, is a troll.
 
2012-09-02 02:17:29 PM  

Weaver95: seriously. this happens all the damn time. it's a discussion about the lies of Republicans, or a discussion on Republican policies and sure enough - some idiot shows up and starts screaming about liberals or the democrats. I wouldn't think it was so difficult to stay focused on the discussion at hand. are our local GOP folks all ADHD or something?


See also: the Kansas City Shuffle, "Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain".
 
2012-09-02 02:18:42 PM  

violetvolume: Most of those answers can be summed up thus:

"I'm a Republican because I've lived a privileged life, whether I realize it or not. I'm comfortable assuming that because I had the tools to be successful at my disposal, they must be just as accessible to everyone else, and people who aren't as successful as me just didn't try hard enough. I'm a Republican because I don't believe in the government controlling my life, but I believe in it controlling the lives of people who are not like me. I am Republican because I enjoy the advantage of being a white Christian, and I am a Republican because I want that to continue."


I'm so stealing that.
 
2012-09-02 02:20:28 PM  

tony41454: As opposed to:
"I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Seems the stocks of Kool-Aid have gone up dramatically.


Welcome to the world of Republitard pink, or what Drew likes to call purple 3.
 
2012-09-02 02:25:01 PM  

violetvolume: . I am Republican because I enjoy the advantage of being a white Christian, and I am a Republican because I want that to continue."


This is basically it. Thread over.
 
2012-09-02 02:31:13 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: I used to be a republican because I believe in small government and individual rights. Unfortunately the republican party no longer agrees with me.


Same here. Then I became libertarian.
 
2012-09-02 02:33:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Vindibudd: MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.

This is what Democrats call tolerance.

No, it's the truth.

When the reason you're against health care reform is because more people will get insured which will mean longer waits for the doctor, then that's just being a selfish asshole.


Longer waiting periods are fine with me. I already have to wait 3 months for the regular doc and 6+ months for the dentist. Doesn't get much worse then that.

/free clinic waiting periods are a biatch
 
2012-09-02 02:34:15 PM  

hubiestubert: I was a Republican for many years, most of my time on Fark actually, up until the point that the party abandoned anything looking like Conservative thought--that is responsive tax policy, responsive spending policy, responsive domestic policy, and responsive foreign policy based on actual conditions, as opposed to the whims of a 12 year old who didn't want to share.

I still consider myself fairly Conservative. I still believe in the Constitution--which means church and state don't meld, that we deliver on free speech, the freedom of assembly, and that pesky equality under the law. I don't care what your churches want to do in their own confines, but I do draw the line against mandating that for the rest of the populace. Sadly, what passes for "Conservative" thought nowadays, only seems to like bits and pieces, and wants to take a pupu platter approach wherein the Second Amendment seems to trounce all the others, and the First is just an impediment, as is the Fifth and the 12th and the 14th.

The radicalism on the Right has soured me on the Party. And that is really what the RNC Convention highlighted, was the radicalism that the party has taken to heart. It is no longer the "Conservative" party, although it likes to style itself as such, to cloak the radicalism at its heart. "Social Conservatives" are anything but social in that they don't really like their neighbors all that much, and embrace a radical vision of the nation and law, while "Fiscal Conservatives" have taken "tax breaks" to their core, while abandoning anything like intelligent and considered spending policy.

That the party has abandoned Conservatism, for a rebranding of their radicalized agenda to be called as such is what turned me from her ranks. Intelligent and considered thought was what drew me to the party. Considered and intelligent like Snowe of Maine, like William Cohen whom she replaced. Like Margaret Chase Smith. And that saddens me a great deal, because careful and considered thought sho ...


That caused me to favorite you as a "sane conservative" - in red of course. ;)

I have always considered myself a liberal independent, but some of my views are pretty conservative, and I wanted to be able to vote for Huntsman. Since the radicals of the right took that choice away from me, and since the last 5 choices of the R's were all anywhere from batshiat insane to ah-fark-no, I am left voting Obama, if for no other reason than to keep Romney out of office. That said, I plan to vote for the Republican gubernatorial candidate here in Washington.

/That is what real independents do - weigh the merits of each candidate on their own
//damn hard to do with the cultist GOP though right now
 
2012-09-02 02:35:28 PM  
Dave Myers, 23, Maryland delegate

"My parents taught me individual responsibility. You have to rely on yourself to get you anywhere."


upload.wikimedia.org

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

 
2012-09-02 02:40:14 PM  

Rann Xerox: Dave Myers, 23, Maryland delegate

"My parents taught me individual responsibility. You have to rely on yourself to get you anywhere."


No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.


As if that guy would know John Donne or how to read.
 
2012-09-02 02:43:20 PM  

Rishathra: Jesus, Jesus, Bootstraps, Bootstrap, Jesus, Bootstraps, Jesus, Jesus ......... and so on.

Bloody hell you yanks have some retarded politics. I mean my country also has retarded politics, but its not that bad. Not by a long shot and quite frankly you deserve better.


You're right, we do. Sadly I only get one vote. Thanks for playing.
 
2012-09-02 02:44:35 PM  

SusanCreature: why I'm not a Republican:

Stumping on abortion as a major platform issue.
Christianity in government

Gimme a call after you've backed away from those two things, no promises but I'll reconsider.


I agree with this and add Gay Rights to Marriage.
 
2012-09-02 02:45:02 PM  

tony41454: As opposed to:
"I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Seems the stocks of Kool-Aid have gone up dramatically.


And here is a big reason I'm not a republcan. They have people like this scumbag, who has a history of praying for the death of people, and thinks its justified and noble. Someone who goes out of his way to maliciously post personal information of other farkers, including phone numbers and addresses, because they disagreed with him.

I'm still baffled why this asshole hasn't been banned yet.
 
2012-09-02 02:49:26 PM  

hubiestubert: I was a Republican for many years, most of my time on Fark actually, up until the point that the party abandoned anything looking like Conservative thought--that is responsive tax policy, responsive spending policy, responsive domestic policy, and responsive foreign policy based on actual conditions, as opposed to the whims of a 12 year old who didn't want to share. (...)


Hubie, even when you identified as a Conservative, I always found your posts to be insightful and intelligent, which is why you are currently my only favorited person here. I'm awfully glad you *are* here, because you help provide a reasonable perspective on things. Personally, I'm registered as "no party affiliation", and wish I were half as eloquent as you in saying what I think. Most times you do say what I think, and I appreciate that. I'm not licking anyone's ass here, but I think credit should be given when due.
 
2012-09-02 02:50:38 PM  
Can we all just agree that the debates are going to be edge-of-your-seat, popcorn at the ready, beer in tow excitement this year? Hell I may even request a 3D broadcast for when Romneybot's head explodes on live TV.
 
2012-09-02 02:51:50 PM  

buckler: hubiestubert: I was a Republican for many years, most of my time on Fark actually, up until the point that the party abandoned anything looking like Conservative thought--that is responsive tax policy, responsive spending policy, responsive domestic policy, and responsive foreign policy based on actual conditions, as opposed to the whims of a 12 year old who didn't want to share. (...)

Hubie, even when you identified as a Conservative, I always found your posts to be insightful and intelligent, which is why you are currently my only favorited person here. I'm awfully glad you *are* here, because you help provide a reasonable perspective on things. Personally, I'm registered as "no party affiliation", and wish I were half as eloquent as you in saying what I think. Most times you do say what I think, and I appreciate that. I'm not licking anyone's ass here, but I think credit should be given when due.


And for every decent conservative like him, there's usually 1-2 cancerous hatemongers like tony. Sad how the party as a whole tolerates and at times even endorses them.
 
2012-09-02 02:52:30 PM  

Veloram: Can we all just agree that the debates are going to be edge-of-your-seat, popcorn at the ready, beer in tow excitement this year? Hell I may even request a 3D broadcast for when Romneybot's head explodes on live TV.


Well that and the VP debates where Paul Ryan will complain that he's being unfairly treated and try to spin the BS he spews as fact...which for him would mean whining throughout the whole debate.
 
2012-09-02 02:53:22 PM  

Veloram: Can we all just agree that the debates are going to be edge-of-your-seat, popcorn at the ready, beer in tow excitement this year? Hell I may even request a 3D broadcast for when Romneybot's head explodes on live TV.


I wonder if Romney will ditch the debates?
 
2012-09-02 02:53:56 PM  

bglove25: violetvolume: . I am Republican because I enjoy the advantage of being a white Christian, and I am a Republican because I want that to continue."

This is basically it. Thread over.


Like that's ever going away.
 
2012-09-02 02:54:57 PM  

Weaver95: Veloram: Can we all just agree that the debates are going to be edge-of-your-seat, popcorn at the ready, beer in tow excitement this year? Hell I may even request a 3D broadcast for when Romneybot's head explodes on live TV.

I wonder if Romney will ditch the debates?


It wouldn't be surprising. Maybe he insists on only doing one.
 
2012-09-02 02:55:49 PM  

Bill Murray said I was weird: buckler: hubiestubert: I was a Republican for many years, most of my time on Fark actually, up until the point that the party abandoned anything looking like Conservative thought--that is responsive tax policy, responsive spending policy, responsive domestic policy, and responsive foreign policy based on actual conditions, as opposed to the whims of a 12 year old who didn't want to share. (...)

Hubie, even when you identified as a Conservative, I always found your posts to be insightful and intelligent, which is why you are currently my only favorited person here. I'm awfully glad you *are* here, because you help provide a reasonable perspective on things. Personally, I'm registered as "no party affiliation", and wish I were half as eloquent as you in saying what I think. Most times you do say what I think, and I appreciate that. I'm not licking anyone's ass here, but I think credit should be given when due.

And for every decent conservative like him, there's usually 1-2 cancerous hatemongers like tony. Sad how the party as a whole tolerates and at times even endorses them.


It's not like there's room for some kind of sane moderate party. Green Party doesn't count. I disagree with some of their stances. I wish someone would make one.
 
2012-09-02 02:56:09 PM  

thamike: Weaver95: Veloram: Can we all just agree that the debates are going to be edge-of-your-seat, popcorn at the ready, beer in tow excitement this year? Hell I may even request a 3D broadcast for when Romneybot's head explodes on live TV.

I wonder if Romney will ditch the debates?

It wouldn't be surprising. Maybe he insists on only doing one.


Romney probably wants to ditch them completely...but limiting them down to just one debate with an exceptionally controlled format is probably his second best choice.
 
2012-09-02 02:57:24 PM  

Bill Murray said I was weird: I'm still baffled why this asshole hasn't been banned yet.


Four legs good, two legs better.

Drew wants to send his son to a "good" college.
 
2012-09-02 02:59:09 PM  

my lip balm addiction: Rishathra: Jesus, Jesus, Bootstraps, Bootstrap, Jesus, Bootstraps, Jesus, Jesus ......... and so on.

Bloody hell you yanks have some retarded politics. I mean my country also has retarded politics, but its not that bad. Not by a long shot and quite frankly you deserve better.

You're right, we do. Sadly I only get one vote. Thanks for playing.


Video - Language NSFW
 
2012-09-02 03:01:06 PM  

Rishathra: quite frankly you deserve better


Do we? I don't think so.
 
2012-09-02 03:06:05 PM  

bglove25: Rann Xerox: Dave Myers, 23, Maryland delegate

"My parents taught me individual responsibility. You have to rely on yourself to get you anywhere."


No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

As if that guy would know John Donne or how to read.


It's not meant for him because he is a lost cause. Perhaps the metaphysical meaning of the poem can serve as a lifeline for someone else who is on the verge of sharing his way of thinking.
 
2012-09-02 03:06:06 PM  
I was looking around for a Carlin quote for another thread, and I realized that I'm a Republican because we co-opt the words of dead liberals and put them in a context completely counter to their actual political beliefs.

Worse, we pretend they were saying them about Obama even though they were dead before he became president.
 
2012-09-02 03:08:28 PM  

Riche: There's only two REAL reasons to be Republican today:

either wealthy sociopath or ignorant/delusional.

It's pretty damn scary when you think about just how many Americans are willing to swallow obvious lies and vote against the best interests of themselves, their country, and world. And you can FORGET about reasoning pretty much any of them out of it-- their faith in The GOP is very similar to religious faith. You might as well try to reason the average Southren Baptist out of Christianity.

Yes, most of the Democratic leadership is corrupt too, but they aren't trying to lock-step the nation into some kind of bankrupt, theocratic third-world hellhole.


You know, demonizing and writing off (respectively) those who oppose you is exactly what the Republicans are doing to the Democrats.

Christ. You're right to some extent, but really, really, REALLY oversimplifying things. For example: where does Condi Rice fit in? Susan Collins? Rick Snyder?

I work for a non-profit and a good % of our supporters are polling for Romney. Not a majority, and I don't have the numbers in front of me.

Even though his "positions" (like he actually has any freaking policy proposals on the table) would roll back things that a) we've worked for for years and years and b) that our supporters agree are important, enough to get involved with donations or other types of support.

Reasons I've figured from talking to people:

1. Too damn busy trying to put food on the table and/or too overwhelmed with information to pay attention... rough time, and these people usually say "I'm unsure... maybe Romney" by default.

2. Born and raised Republican, slightly better than middle class, but not 100% comfortable by any means. Even if the numbers say that Obama is a better choice for their bottom line, they see things like ACA as things that will cost them more. And they aren't 100% secure, especially with seeing retirement portfolios crash, so they'd rather not "subsidize" others even if it would help them in the long run. This isn't entirely ignorance, it's more just a showing of where their values lie.

3. A few liberals and libertarians here and there pissed off at Obama generally about things pretty damn trivial in the long run, often that happened because his hands were tied (Guantanamo) or cleanup after Dubya (bailouts). I'll admit both could be handled better, but for some stupid reason these people focus on those over the big picture.

4. Eisenhower honest fiscal conservative Republicans who probably don't vote straight ticket anymore, and who probably switched to Obama last election because even they couldn't stomach Palin. They're also "maybe Romney", but in smaller races like state house I've had them wholeheartedly support the Democratic candidate if the Republican one is too crazy even for them. They pretty much have nowhere else to go. Although I have met people who had last straws and finally switched to Dem or Independent - ran across two waves of this, one with Palin, one with Akin. They couldn't ignore the crazy anymore.

And then, yes, the wealthy and the willfully stupid. Often what you're labeling as "willfully stupid" are just one issue voters. But some of them are just idiots.

I have a feeling that the debates, depending on how much Obama actually pins down Romney on not having f--king substance behind his "lofty" ideals, will switch over a good # of them.

/my two cents
 
2012-09-02 03:13:44 PM  

Snark Shark II: Bill Murray said I was weird: buckler: hubiestubert: I was a Republican for many years, most of my time on Fark actually, up until the point that the party abandoned anything looking like Conservative thought--that is responsive tax policy, responsive spending policy, responsive domestic policy, and responsive foreign policy based on actual conditions, as opposed to the whims of a 12 year old who didn't want to share. (...)

Hubie, even when you identified as a Conservative, I always found your posts to be insightful and intelligent, which is why you are currently my only favorited person here. I'm awfully glad you *are* here, because you help provide a reasonable perspective on things. Personally, I'm registered as "no party affiliation", and wish I were half as eloquent as you in saying what I think. Most times you do say what I think, and I appreciate that. I'm not licking anyone's ass here, but I think credit should be given when due.

And for every decent conservative like him, there's usually 1-2 cancerous hatemongers like tony. Sad how the party as a whole tolerates and at times even endorses them.

It's not like there's room for some kind of sane moderate party. Green Party doesn't count. I disagree with some of their stances. I wish someone would make one.


I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but their momentum was stymied by the TEA Party, sadly.

We do need a functional Conservative party in this country. At this point, the Democrats are the ones seeping to the Center Right, and the Republicans have gone to the Far Right, and the leadership has decided to back the most malleable and radical elements.
 
2012-09-02 03:14:20 PM  
No one blindly follows their team quite like Republicans. You could do an entire psych study on these people.
 
2012-09-02 03:16:12 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tony41454: As opposed to:
"I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Seems the stocks of Kool-Aid have gone up dramatically.

-10/10 

A fart would've been more enlightening than this post.


He was trolling?!? I thought he was mocking Republicans by lampooning their most obnoxious talking points.
 
2012-09-02 03:16:25 PM  

justtray: No one blindly follows their team quite like Republicans. You could do an entire psych study on these people.


Somebody already did.
 
2012-09-02 03:16:55 PM  
Also remember people being interviewed are zealous enough to go to the convention in the first place.

That said, the Samantha Bee and John Oliver/Jason Jones segments with convention attendees were effing AWESOME. I feel like Bee has lead people into the "it's my choice" contradiction before, but it was still executed wonderfully. Made me laugh and become completely depressed all at once...
 
2012-09-02 03:17:20 PM  

DeltaPunch: Mrtraveler01: tony41454: As opposed to:
"I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Seems the stocks of Kool-Aid have gone up dramatically.

-10/10 

A fart would've been more enlightening than this post.

He was trolling?!? I thought he was mocking Republicans by lampooning their most obnoxious talking points.


If that was really the case, then I would have that much more faith in humanity again.
 
2012-09-02 03:17:24 PM  
Jesus said to love thy neighbor. Seems to me that Democrats give more love than Republicans.

And don't give me "yeah, with other people's money" or else I'll break out the [red-state-socialism.jpg]
 
2012-09-02 03:19:18 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: That said, the Samantha Bee and John Oliver/Jason Jones segments with convention attendees were effing AWESOME. I feel like Bee has lead people into the "it's my choice" contradiction before, but it was still executed wonderfully. Made me laugh and become completely depressed all at once...


They're pros at making people contradict themselves. Always amazes me that people still fall for it every time.
 
2012-09-02 03:19:48 PM  

hubiestubert: We do need a functional Conservative party in this country


We have a functional conservative party in this country - it's called the Democratic Party. What we don't have - and what we need - is a functional liberal party in this country.
 
2012-09-02 03:19:59 PM  
Never let it be said that liberals will ever waste a chance to spew hate and misconceptions. There's a reason that when asked to accurately state liberals positions on things, conservatives can, and when asked to accurately state conservatives positions on things, liberals can't. That would be because conservatives don't have to lie to themselves or to each other about what liberals believe in so that their own ideas sound better.

Yes, we DID build that, including all the roads and bridges and infrastructure. All of those things are dependent on American business in order to come to fruition, not the other way around. Without successful hard working people to pay taxes, you don't get to have those nice things. I'm a Republican because I don't believe that being beholden to the government is a good thing. I'm a Republican because I believe it's primarily my own responsibility to take care of me and I don't hold out my hand demanding that anybody who made more than me pay my way too.

I'm a Republican because anyone who is paying attention can plainly see that Democrats maintain and continue to buy their way in to power by finding new and interesting ways to write government checks to as many people as possible and if the country goes broke in the process that's just fine because long term success or failure never mattered to a liberal anyway, only intentions.
 
2012-09-02 03:21:41 PM  
If you have to ask yourself that question you are already well on your way to being the libbiest lib that ever libbed.
 
2012-09-02 03:22:15 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: hence the reason "Generic Republican" frequently polls better than the actual candidate.

Their 2016 nominee will be Clint Eastwood's empty chair and a footstool.


I am not looking forward to primary fight.
 
2012-09-02 03:22:35 PM  

randomjsa: There's a reason that when asked to accurately state liberals positions on things, conservatives can, and when asked to accurately state conservatives positions on things, liberals can't. That would be because conservatives don't have to lie to themselves or to each other about what liberals believe in so that their own ideas sound better.


That is the funniest thing I've seen you post. Now I KNOW you are just trolling because no one can seriously be stupid enough to believe a steaming load of BS like that!

Thank you for making me laugh.
 
2012-09-02 03:22:50 PM  

hubiestubert: I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but their momentum was stymied by the TEA Party, sadly.

We do need a functional Conservative party in this country. At this point, the Democrats are the ones seeping to the Center Right, and the Republicans have gone to the Far Right, and the leadership has decided to back the most malleable and radical elements.


Start working on it. We need rational debate and compromise again. The difference in the last 6 or so years is depressing as hell - work is non-partisan, even if we lean liberal. Six years ago we could work with Republicans - not all of them, but a good # - and find compromises to move things forward, esp. since a good % of our supporters were (and still do) identified as Republicans. Now - nothing. A tiny, small fraction who are secure enough in their seats will still help find common ground, but that's it.

I know you know this (and IIRC you're a bit burned out). But damn, find somewhere to start. Take the damn party back, somehow. And I'll sincerely wish you the best. And keep voting for the few sane Republicans standing in primaries when I can (yay independent registration).

/please
//thanks
 
2012-09-02 03:23:03 PM  

BMulligan: hubiestubert: We do need a functional Conservative party in this country

We have a functional conservative party in this country - it's called the Democratic Party. What we don't have - and what we need - is a functional liberal party in this country.


Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?
 
2012-09-02 03:24:46 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: hubiestubert: I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but their momentum was stymied by the TEA Party, sadly.

We do need a functional Conservative party in this country. At this point, the Democrats are the ones seeping to the Center Right, and the Republicans have gone to the Far Right, and the leadership has decided to back the most malleable and radical elements.

Start working on it. We need rational debate and compromise again. The difference in the last 6 or so years is depressing as hell - work is non-partisan, even if we lean liberal. Six years ago we could work with Republicans - not all of them, but a good # - and find compromises to move things forward, esp. since a good % of our supporters were (and still do) identified as Republicans. Now - nothing. A tiny, small fraction who are secure enough in their seats will still help find common ground, but that's it.

I know you know this (and IIRC you're a bit burned out). But damn, find somewhere to start. Take the damn party back, somehow. And I'll sincerely wish you the best. And keep voting for the few sane Republicans standing in primaries when I can (yay independent registration).

/please
//thanks


this
 
2012-09-02 03:25:28 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: hubiestubert: I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but their momentum was stymied by the TEA Party, sadly.

We do need a functional Conservative party in this country. At this point, the Democrats are the ones seeping to the Center Right, and the Republicans have gone to the Far Right, and the leadership has decided to back the most malleable and radical elements.

Start working on it. We need rational debate and compromise again. The difference in the last 6 or so years is depressing as hell - work is non-partisan, even if we lean liberal. Six years ago we could work with Republicans - not all of them, but a good # - and find compromises to move things forward, esp. since a good % of our supporters were (and still do) identified as Republicans. Now - nothing. A tiny, small fraction who are secure enough in their seats will still help find common ground, but that's it.

I know you know this (and IIRC you're a bit burned out). But damn, find somewhere to start. Take the damn party back, somehow. And I'll sincerely wish you the best. And keep voting for the few sane Republicans standing in primaries when I can (yay independent registration).

/please
//thanks


Liberal-leaning as I am, I can second this. It's a good idea, and who better to start than you, eh?
 
2012-09-02 03:26:19 PM  

randomjsa: Without successful hard working people to pay taxes, you don't get to have those nice things.


So if you take away the taxes, isn't the result exactly the f--king same?

There's something to be said for being prudent in spending choices. However, a certain Republican openly mocked volcano monitoring as 'wasteful', money that would be better kept in your hard working pocket. IIRC, he was in the news recently again. I'm not sure if it was the same person, though, since that one was asking the President to hand over a blank check for another type of looming natural disaster.
 
2012-09-02 03:26:25 PM  
I tend to favor the Republican ideals over the Democratic ideals. At this point, however, it feels like both parties have lost their way. I've not come across anything that says one party is better than the other, and am very skeptical of anyone who evangelizes one party or candidate over another. I also do not believe that anyone understands the complexity of our socioeconomic system well enough to definitively state whether or not a given policy or dirction is beneficial or not. It's all a metter of perspective, I guess.
 
2012-09-02 03:26:33 PM  

DeltaPunch: Mrtraveler01: tony41454: As opposed to:
"I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Seems the stocks of Kool-Aid have gone up dramatically.

-10/10 

A fart would've been more enlightening than this post.

He was trolling?!? I thought he was mocking Republicans by lampooning their most obnoxious talking points.


Tony is a vile creature. It means it.
 
2012-09-02 03:26:44 PM  

BMulligan: functional liberal party


farm4.static.flickr.com

They're all over the place.
 
2012-09-02 03:26:54 PM  
randomjsa: I'm a Republican because anyone who is paying attention can plainly see that Democrats maintain and continue to buy their way in to power by finding new and interesting ways to write government checks to as many people as possible and if the country goes broke in the process that's just fine because long term success or failure never mattered to a liberal anyway, only intentions.

Rather than the convoluted Democrat check-writing, I prefer the straight-forward Republican approach of just losing pallets of cash in war-torn countries.
 
2012-09-02 03:27:32 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: So if you take away the taxes, isn't the result exactly the f--king same?


Conservatives are REALLY bad at math.
 
2012-09-02 03:28:27 PM  

Snark Shark II: Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?


If both parties aren't the same, that means people with vague yet non-negotiable dogma will have to pick one.
 
2012-09-02 03:30:42 PM  

randomjsa: Never let it be said that liberals will ever waste a chance to spew hate and misconceptions. There's a reason that when asked to accurately state liberals positions on things, conservatives can, and when asked to accurately state conservatives positions on things, liberals can't. That would be because conservatives don't have to lie to themselves or to each other about what liberals believe in so that their own ideas sound better.

Yes, we DID build that, including all the roads and bridges and infrastructure. All of those things are dependent on American business in order to come to fruition, not the other way around. Without successful hard working people to pay taxes, you don't get to have those nice things. I'm a Republican because I don't believe that being beholden to the government is a good thing. I'm a Republican because I believe it's primarily my own responsibility to take care of me and I don't hold out my hand demanding that anybody who made more than me pay my way too.

I'm a Republican because anyone who is paying attention can plainly see that Democrats maintain and continue to buy their way in to power by finding new and interesting ways to write government checks to as many people as possible and if the country goes broke in the process that's just fine because long term success or failure never mattered to a liberal anyway, only intentions.


Two things are obvious to me after reading your post (which, the middle paragraph at least, I do not disagree with):

1. You don't understand the platform of the current democratic party.

2. You don't understand the platform of the current republican party.

Stop parroting what the conservative outrage machine is selling you and do some critical thinking on your own.
 
2012-09-02 03:32:57 PM  

the.swartz: I tend to favor the Republican ideals over the Democratic ideals. At this point, however, it feels like both parties have lost their way. I've not come across anything that says one party is better than the other, and am very skeptical of anyone who evangelizes one party or candidate over another. I also do not believe that anyone understands the complexity of our socioeconomic system well enough to definitively state whether or not a given policy or dirction is beneficial or not. It's all a metter of perspective, I guess.


Again, I have no party, but tend to lean left. I do think that if we are to have a two-party system, each party needs to temper the other with opposing viewpoints to come to a happy medium. As it is, we're just getting a bunch of yahoos screaming at each other, and trying to silence each other. That's not the way it's supposed to work. I think this is why the Founders came out as opposed to political parties in the first place.
 
2012-09-02 03:33:32 PM  

thamike: Snark Shark II: Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?

If both parties aren't the same, that means people with vague yet non-negotiable dogma will have to pick one.


yes, it means we have to sacrifice some of our beliefs and ideals for what party we more strongly identify with. People forget that not everyone agrees with everything on a party platform. For moderates like me, it's just case-by-case basis regardless of party. Who is the lesser evil, that kind of thing. That's what it's come down to because both parties have embraced their extremists the last 10 years.
 
2012-09-02 03:33:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: zappaisfrank: Just more bullshiat from "Pretend Obama Land". It would be funnier if it weren't so farkin' pathetic.

They really are running against an Obama that only they can see


Check this out for a bizarre example. Where do they get the idea that Obama is thin skinned?

Warning free republic
 
2012-09-02 03:33:55 PM  

skipjack: cameroncrazy1984: .

You could've offered your reasons to be a Republican, or at least why YOU are a Republican. But no, you decided that we're all conspiring against you.

I've not said anyone is "conspiring" against me, I did expressed my disappointment that I expected much funnier replies.

I'm conservative because that's the political ideology I agree with. I'm not a car salesman and if you want a more convincing "why", you're not getting it.


Well, there goes my shot at getting into the mind of a conservative. *eyeroll*
 
2012-09-02 03:34:10 PM  

Riche: It's pretty damn scary when you think about just how many Americans are willing to swallow obvious lies and vote against the best interests of themselves, their country, and world.


someone show me a party that has my best interests at heart and I'll vote for them.

I'm not an illegal alien that just got a work permit from obama. in fact I'm in the age group that will compete with those 1.2 million he just legalized for jobs.
I'm not Chrysler UAW worker that got a government bailout, in fact I'm much more likely to be someone who would have been a private holder of Chrysler the bonds that got f*cked over by the administration so they could pay off the UAW.
I'm not a teacher, your knee jerk resistance to school choice can only hurt me and the larger society, not help me in anyway.
I'm not a minority so your support of outright racial discrimination through affirmative action will if anything cause me and my family to be a victim of government sponsored racial discrimination, not most likely only hurt me and my kids, not help me in anyway.
I'm not a healthcare provider charging exorbitant fees and using government patronage to artificially limit supply, nor am I an HCA or Insurance shareholder, so the obamacare corporate welfare bill is very unlikely to help me and will only exacerbate our problems over the long term because it does everything to avoid dealing with inflation. in fact I like my catastrophic healthplan, and the new regulations prohibit my purchase of this type of plan after 2014.
above all I believe in personal autonomy over statism, and in different but equally insidious ways the democratic party is just as bad if not worse on that front as the republicans. for instance, your retarded president thought it prudent to push through a bill that abolished habaes corpus for every single one of us.
your party has no interest whatsoever in altering our foreign policy of hyper aggressive military intervention (and has in fact ramped up intervention in many arenas), so I and the rest of the world am screwed by you in more ways than I even want to think about.
your party is dedicated to ensuring low capital gains rates for the rich and massive immigration which floods the labor market with workers and allows the ultra rich to keep ever more of what would have been labor costs or government taxes as profit.
I'm not a policeman, so your uncritical support of public unions helps ensure that I will under a hyper militarized security state where the LEOs are brutal and unaccountable.
I'm not a defense lawyer or prison union official, so your uncritical support of asinine drug laws can only harm me and my family and put us in increased danger.
I'm not a green energy ceo or a shareholder of Chinese industrial concerns, your asinine carbon policies from everything from ethanol to the carbon tax can only increase my costs.

if you can point out any evidence whatsoever that any party in this country has my interests at heart or even one that at least has the interests of the body politic as a whole over special interests and I'll be interested in listening to it. it does not exist.
 
2012-09-02 03:35:13 PM  
"Because Jebus, and racism"
 
2012-09-02 03:35:33 PM  
LOL, I have a neighbor who is a retired Army Colonel who just loves broadcasting his right wing views in our predominantly liberal university neighborhood.

He lives in this huge 1800s Victorian he keeps immaculately maintained. And then, he owns the two houses on either side and which he's surrounded with an 8 ft ornate wrought iron fence...nobody around here has their front yards fenced off.

And then he has this 40 ft aluminum flag pole he flies the Stars and Stripes on top, then the Texas flag, and the Confederate flag on the bottom. He also has a hideous gargoyle mounted on the peak of the eaves projecting from the porch to greet visitors.

Then, during the republican primaries this year he had the biggest Herman Cain yard sign I ever saw. The dude is the most awesome partisan troll ever. 

Been meaning to get some pics of it all. I think you farkers would get a kick out of it.
 
2012-09-02 03:36:23 PM  
MacEnvy

Because I'm an asshole


Link

Don't know why they don't play this song at the RNC gatherings.
 
2012-09-02 03:36:37 PM  

tony41454: As opposed to:
"I am a Democrat 'cuz Obamah gives me free stuff."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe in Utopia on Earth where Iranians kiss Jews and trees and snail darters are more important than people."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz I believe we have the right to kill babies."
"I am a Democrat 'cuz de President is ah BLACK man."

Seems the stocks of Kool-Aid have gone up dramatically.


"I am a Democrat because I'm not in denial and know that everyone pays taxes and that tax money is used for things that are beneficial to all. You didn't pay for the road, I didn't pay for the road, we all paid for the road through taxes and it benefits all of us."
"I am a Democrat because a Democrat killed Osama Bin Laden and kills Al Qaeda #2's with drones"
"I am a Democrat because as much as I hate abortion, the government's place is not in a woman's uterus, and Democrats actually try to prevent unwanted pregnancies"
"I am a Democrat because the President cares about more than just the top 1%"
 
2012-09-02 03:37:34 PM  

Degenz: LOL, I have a neighbor who is a retired Army Colonel who just loves broadcasting his right wing views in our predominantly liberal university neighborhood.

He lives in this huge 1800s Victorian he keeps immaculately maintained. And then, he owns the two houses on either side and which he's surrounded with an 8 ft ornate wrought iron fence...nobody around here has their front yards fenced off.

And then he has this 40 ft aluminum flag pole he flies the Stars and Stripes on top, then the Texas flag, and the Confederate flag on the bottom. He also has a hideous gargoyle mounted on the peak of the eaves projecting from the porch to greet visitors.

Then, during the republican primaries this year he had the biggest Herman Cain yard sign I ever saw. The dude is the most awesome partisan troll ever. 

Been meaning to get some pics of it all. I think you farkers would get a kick out of it.


Sounds like the Circus is in town every day of the year for you.
 
2012-09-02 03:37:45 PM  

Snark Shark II: BMulligan: hubiestubert: We do need a functional Conservative party in this country

We have a functional conservative party in this country - it's called the Democratic Party. What we don't have - and what we need - is a functional liberal party in this country.

Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?


Have you seen the Democratic Party work to have investment income taxed at the same rate as wages? Have you seen the Democratic Party insist that defense budgets be slashed and the money invested in food, education, and health care? Have you seen the Democratic Party demand an immediate end to the "War on Drugs?" Have you seen the Democratic Party say Fark all about the evils of capitalism and the necessity of reeling in the corporate superstate? Have you even seen the Democratic Party mention the horror that is capital punishment?

When you see the Democratic Party endorse these positions, you'll see them behaving like liberals.
 
2012-09-02 03:39:07 PM  

relcec: I'm not an illegal alien that just got a work permit from obama. in fact I'm in the age group that will compete with those 1.2 million he just legalized for jobs.


Is there some new work visa program I missed hearing?

relcec: I'm not Chrysler UAW worker that got a government bailout, in fact I'm much more likely to be someone who would have been a private holder of Chrysler the bonds that got f*cked over by the administration so they could pay off the UAW.


The bonds that were near worthless already because Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy?

relcec: I'm not a teacher, your knee jerk resistance to school choice can only hurt me and the larger society, not help me in anyway.


School choice as in subsidizing religious schools by using "school choice" as a cover?

Sorry but after the first couple, the rest of your overdramatic spiel just sounded way too derpy for my tastes.
 
2012-09-02 03:39:18 PM  

hubiestubert: I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but their momentum was stymied by the TEA Party, sadly.


verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-02 03:39:49 PM  

BMulligan: Snark Shark II: BMulligan: hubiestubert: We do need a functional Conservative party in this country

We have a functional conservative party in this country - it's called the Democratic Party. What we don't have - and what we need - is a functional liberal party in this country.

Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?

Have you seen the Democratic Party work to have investment income taxed at the same rate as wages? Have you seen the Democratic Party insist that defense budgets be slashed and the money invested in food, education, and health care? Have you seen the Democratic Party demand an immediate end to the "War on Drugs?" Have you seen the Democratic Party say Fark all about the evils of capitalism and the necessity of reeling in the corporate superstate? Have you even seen the Democratic Party mention the horror that is capital punishment?

When you see the Democratic Party endorse these positions, you'll see them behaving like liberals.


but there are some members of the Democratic party that are like that. Fringe maybe, but they exist as much as tea-party people.
 
2012-09-02 03:41:09 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: Jesus said to love thy neighbor. Seems to me that Democrats give more love than Republicans.

And don't give me "yeah, with other people's money" or else I'll break out the [red-state-socialism.jpg]


Hold on a second there pinko. That was commie Jesus not good old American supply side Jesus.
 
2012-09-02 03:41:25 PM  

Snark Shark II: Degenz: LOL, I have a neighbor who is a retired Army Colonel who just loves broadcasting his right wing views in our predominantly liberal university neighborhood.

He lives in this huge 1800s Victorian he keeps immaculately maintained. And then, he owns the two houses on either side and which he's surrounded with an 8 ft ornate wrought iron fence...nobody around here has their front yards fenced off.

And then he has this 40 ft aluminum flag pole he flies the Stars and Stripes on top, then the Texas flag, and the Confederate flag on the bottom. He also has a hideous gargoyle mounted on the peak of the eaves projecting from the porch to greet visitors.

Then, during the republican primaries this year he had the biggest Herman Cain yard sign I ever saw. The dude is the most awesome partisan troll ever. 

Been meaning to get some pics of it all. I think you farkers would get a kick out of it.

Sounds like the Circus is in town every day of the year for you.


Sorry, but I just got the mental scene of calliope music as he hoists the flags each morning.
 
2012-09-02 03:41:29 PM  

the.swartz: I tend to favor the Republican ideals over the Democratic ideals.


What are the Republican ideals and what are the Democratic ideals?

Or, rather, I should ask: what do you imagine Republican ideals are and what do you imagine Democratic ideals are?
 
2012-09-02 03:42:02 PM  

BMulligan: Snark Shark II: BMulligan: hubiestubert: We do need a functional Conservative party in this country

We have a functional conservative party in this country - it's called the Democratic Party. What we don't have - and what we need - is a functional liberal party in this country.

Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?

Have you seen the Democratic Party work to have investment income taxed at the same rate as wages? Have you seen the Democratic Party insist that defense budgets be slashed and the money invested in food, education, and health care? Have you seen the Democratic Party demand an immediate end to the "War on Drugs?" Have you seen the Democratic Party say Fark all about the evils of capitalism and the necessity of reeling in the corporate superstate? Have you even seen the Democratic Party mention the horror that is capital punishment?

When you see the Democratic Party endorse these positions, you'll see them behaving like liberals.


This. The DNC is going to be protested by real liberals. Whenever a republican accuses the democratic party of being liberal you know they lack reasoning skills. The current democratic party is a centrist party.
 
2012-09-02 03:43:11 PM  
I am a Republican because I was a dirty hippie in college but quickly discovered the liberals had no idea what they were taking about. My years of experience in the real world has only buffered this perception. Neither side is always right, but on balance the GOP gets it right far more than the Democrats. Intellectually I'm more of a libertarian, but the Republicans get the fiscal and world issues right more than the Democrats IMHO.
 
2012-09-02 03:43:34 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: This. The DNC is going to be protested by real liberals. Whenever a republican accuses the democratic party of being liberal you know they lack reasoning skills. The current democratic party is a centrist party.


Ayup. They wouldn't know what to do with a real liberal if they found one.
 
2012-09-02 03:44:23 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: BMulligan: Snark Shark II: BMulligan: hubiestubert: We do need a functional Conservative party in this country

We have a functional conservative party in this country - it's called the Democratic Party. What we don't have - and what we need - is a functional liberal party in this country.

Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?

Have you seen the Democratic Party work to have investment income taxed at the same rate as wages? Have you seen the Democratic Party insist that defense budgets be slashed and the money invested in food, education, and health care? Have you seen the Democratic Party demand an immediate end to the "War on Drugs?" Have you seen the Democratic Party say Fark all about the evils of capitalism and the necessity of reeling in the corporate superstate? Have you even seen the Democratic Party mention the horror that is capital punishment?

When you see the Democratic Party endorse these positions, you'll see them behaving like liberals.

This. The DNC is going to be protested by real liberals. Whenever a republican accuses the democratic party of being liberal you know they lack reasoning skills. The current democratic party is a centrist party.


ah, I see. My mistake.
 
2012-09-02 03:44:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: relcec: I'm not a teacher, your knee jerk resistance to school choice can only hurt me and the larger society, not help me in anyway.

School choice as in subsidizing religious schools by using "school choice" as a cover?


Seriously, this one just gets on my nerves.

All the time we hear conservatives whine about government subsidizing everything else other the sun but when it comes to funding private religious school, that's the one thing they don't want to cut funding for.

Makes the whole bootstraps talking point seem so farking stupid.

"I don't like the school I go to and can't afford anything else"
-GOP response: Well the clear solution is to offer more choices by subsidizing religious schools.

"I don't like the health insurance plan I have and can't afford anything else."
-GOP response: TS, you just need to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and find a way to pay this excessive costs off.
 
2012-09-02 03:45:23 PM  

parkthebus: but the Republicans get the fiscal and world issues right more than the Democrats IMHO.


Republicans drive us deeper into debt and into more wars than Democrats.

What the fark do they get right?
 
2012-09-02 03:47:02 PM  
Is anyone else bothered by just how young those delegates are?
 
2012-09-02 03:51:09 PM  

parkthebus: I'm more of a libertarian, but the Republicans get the fiscal and world issues right more than the Democrats IMHO.


You do realize that the Republican party is pretty much wholly responsible for the fiscal mess our country is currently in, don't you.

If Al Gore had been elected instead of George Bush, this country would probably be in pretty good fiscal shape. But, because of unfunded wars, unfunded new entitlements and massive tax cuts enacted during the Bush years, the country has seen $1 trillion+ deficits for the last several years. And, we'll probably be seeing large deficits for years to come.

The financial crisis would probably still have happened though, since Democrats joined Republicans in ending the handful of regulations on Big Finance that had stabilized that sector since the Great Depression.

www.motherjones.com
 
2012-09-02 03:53:22 PM  

IrateShadow: Is anyone else bothered by just how young those delegates are?


The GOP has invested serious resources into recruitment of young people for some time now.
 
2012-09-02 03:53:29 PM  
Actually, it's more like:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-02 03:53:43 PM  

Snark Shark II: Degenz: LOL, I have a neighbor who is a retired Army Colonel who just loves broadcasting his right wing views in our predominantly liberal university neighborhood.

He lives in this huge 1800s Victorian he keeps immaculately maintained. And then, he owns the two houses on either side and which he's surrounded with an 8 ft ornate wrought iron fence...nobody around here has their front yards fenced off.

And then he has this 40 ft aluminum flag pole he flies the Stars and Stripes on top, then the Texas flag, and the Confederate flag on the bottom. He also has a hideous gargoyle mounted on the peak of the eaves projecting from the porch to greet visitors.

Then, during the republican primaries this year he had the biggest Herman Cain yard sign I ever saw. The dude is the most awesome partisan troll ever. 

Been meaning to get some pics of it all. I think you farkers would get a kick out of it.

Sounds like the Circus is in town every day of the year for you.


Meh, it doesn't bother me anymore. I just wish I could talk to that guy, but he's all bunkered in. I bet he has some stories to tell.
 
2012-09-02 03:54:47 PM  

enforcerpsu: My party has failed me. It's been infiltrated by idiots and assholes. This November I'm voting for zombie Reagan.


It's Zombie Mondale for me. Wait, that guy's still alive? Yowsa. Okay, Zombie Carter, then.
No way, really? Alive? What the hell.
 
2012-09-02 03:54:50 PM  
Because women re-learn that their sole purpose is to be used as breeding stock.
 
2012-09-02 03:55:29 PM  

the.swartz: I tend to favor the Republican ideals over the Democratic ideals. At this point, however, it feels like both parties have lost their way. I've not come across anything that says one party is better than the other, and am very skeptical of anyone who evangelizes one party or candidate over another. I also do not believe that anyone understands the complexity of our socioeconomic system well enough to definitively state whether or not a given policy or dirction is beneficial or not. It's all a metter of perspective, I guess.


You believe that really, truly the republican party is going to start being fiscally conservative, now, really this time, for reals? Or that the money is going to start trickling down now, soon, really, really soon, really? Or what? The deficit is important? Really,now it's important! Really! And it will be even with a Republican in office! Really, this time we swear!!!
 
2012-09-02 03:55:56 PM  

randomjsa: Yes, we DID build that,


Exactly. We.
 
2012-09-02 04:02:11 PM  

12349876: "I am a Democrat because I'm not in denial and know that everyone pays taxes and that tax money is used for things that are beneficial to all. You didn't pay for the road, I didn't pay for the road, we all paid for the road through taxes and it benefits all of us."



you are in denial, or your remarkably ignorant of history.



Jimmy Carter
Lowered Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 39.875% - 28%1&2

1. http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes - 193734550--abc-news.html

1. The United States Revenue Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95-600, 92 Stat. 2763, enacted November 6, 1978, amended the Internal Revenue Code by reducing individual income taxes (widening tax brackets and reducing the number of tax rates), increasing the personal exemption from $750 to $1,000, reducing corporate tax rates (the top rate falling from 48 percent to 46 percent), increasing the standard deduction from $3,200 to $3,400 (joint returns), increasing the capital gains exclusion from 50 percent to 60 percent (from an effective rate of 39% to 28%), and repealing the non-business exemption for state and local gasoline taxes.

The Act was passed by the 95th Congress (D) and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on November 6, 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1978


2. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Pub.L. 105-34, H.R. 2014, 111 Stat. 787, enacted August 5, 1997) reduced several federal taxes in the United States. Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997

The bill was passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton

In those two bills Democrats cut the taxes of the superich 50%.
Between that and saturating the labor market with cheap foreign laborers the Democrats have done more to devalue the labor of the working class and expand the profits of the ultrarich than anyone.
 
2012-09-02 04:03:45 PM  

MayoSlather: randomjsa: Yes, we DID build that,

Exactly. We.



Yes, government and private sector working together. And contrary to what randomjsa stated before, Democrats don't want people beholden to government. They want the government beholden to the people, whom it represents. Republicans want government as weak as possible so as to clear aware regulations and enforcement which prevent rapacious business from screwing everyone and everything else in pursuit of the almighty dollar for their stockholders.
 
2012-09-02 04:04:21 PM  

relcec: I'm a herpin' and a-derpin'


Could you stop lying if you wanted to? I know, I know. No.
 
2012-09-02 04:04:31 PM  
"...clear away regulations..."
 
2012-09-02 04:05:37 PM  

randomjsa: I'm a Republican because anyone who is paying attention can plainly see that Democrats maintain and continue to buy their way in to power by finding new and interesting ways to write government checks to as many people as possible and if the country goes broke in the process that's just fine because long term success or failure never mattered to a liberal anyway, only intentions.


Like defense contractors?
 
2012-09-02 04:06:22 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i49.tinypic.com image 639x440]

"I wasn't accepted to college."


That's funny, I graduated from college, pay taxes, and I'm damn near a socialist. Funny that.
 
2012-09-02 04:08:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: relcec: I'm not Chrysler UAW worker that got a government bailout, in fact I'm much more likely to be someone who would have been a private holder of Chrysler the bonds that got f*cked over by the administration so they could pay off the UAW.

The bonds that were near worthless already because Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy?



the uaw pension fund didn't need to be made whole to bailout chrysler. taxpayer money was used to make the UAW pension fund whole, why not the bond holders who too the same chances put their retirement funds in the hands of chrysler? because the UAW is obama's political patron. my taxes are going to pay off the democrtatic parties political debts owed to extremely insular special interests. it reeks.
 
2012-09-02 04:09:47 PM  
randomjsa: I'm a Republican because anyone who is paying attention can plainly see that Democrats maintain and continue to buy their way in to power by finding new and interesting ways to write government checks to as many people as possible and if the country goes broke in the process that's just fine because long term success or failure never mattered to a liberal anyway, only intentions.

As opposed to writing checks to bankers who, after using it to leverage actual wealth out of the hands of the working class, turn it into derivatives, the derivatives into confetti and then - after getting "free money" from we the people to replace it - promptly shove it up their asses? I think sammiches and bus passes are cheaper and more useful. Thanks.
 
2012-09-02 04:13:31 PM  

Snark Shark II: BMulligan: hubiestubert: We do need a functional Conservative party in this country

We have a functional conservative party in this country - it's called the Democratic Party. What we don't have - and what we need - is a functional liberal party in this country.

Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?


That's easy.

1) Pay any attention to other, established, Western style, developed democracies (say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria...). Pay any attention to their mainstream political parties and politics.
2) Compare them to the US political parties and politics.
3) Note that the positions of the US Democrats would be the mainstream center right party's positions in pretty much all of these other developed, Western democracies, and the the US Republicans would be way to the right of the political spectrum of the rest of the Western democracies.
 
2012-09-02 04:15:46 PM  
if the democratic party just once actually took a political position that was an unadulterated progressive policy I might be forced to admit that party has some actual interests that square with those of the entire body politic, if not me in particular, more than with some political patron getting a fat government handout.
it has become so diseased with special interest political patronage that everything it touches turns to nonsensical and counterproductive dogshiat. not that the republicans are almost ever any better.
 
2012-09-02 04:17:17 PM  

relcec: 12349876: "I am a Democrat because I'm not in denial and know that everyone pays taxes and that tax money is used for things that are beneficial to all. You didn't pay for the road, I didn't pay for the road, we all paid for the road through taxes and it benefits all of us."


you are in denial, or your remarkably ignorant of history.



Jimmy Carter
Lowered Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 39.875% - 28%1&2

1. http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes - 193734550--abc-news.html

1. The United States Revenue Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95-600, 92 Stat. 2763, enacted November 6, 1978, amended the Internal Revenue Code by reducing individual income taxes (widening tax brackets and reducing the number of tax rates), increasing the personal exemption from $750 to $1,000, reducing corporate tax rates (the top rate falling from 48 percent to 46 percent), increasing the standard deduction from $3,200 to $3,400 (joint returns), increasing the capital gains exclusion from 50 percent to 60 percent (from an effective rate of 39% to 28%), and repealing the non-business exemption for state and local gasoline taxes.

The Act was passed by the 95th Congress (D) and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on November 6, 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1978


2. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Pub.L. 105-34, H.R. 2014, 111 Stat. 787, enacted August 5, 1997) reduced several federal taxes in the United States. Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997

The bill was passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton

In those two bills Democrats cut the taxes of the superich 50%.
Between that and saturating the labor market with cheap foreign laborers the Democrats have done more to devalue the labor of the working class and expand the profits of the ultrarich than anyone.


So vote for the folks who want to completely eliminate Capital gains taxes.
 
2012-09-02 04:18:37 PM  

WorldCitizen: Snark Shark II: BMulligan: hubiestubert: We do need a functional Conservative party in this country

We have a functional conservative party in this country - it's called the Democratic Party. What we don't have - and what we need - is a functional liberal party in this country.

Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?

That's easy.

1) Pay any attention to other, established, Western style, developed democracies (say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria...). Pay any attention to their mainstream political parties and politics.
2) Compare them to the US political parties and politics.
3) Note that the positions of the US Democrats would be the mainstream center right party's positions in pretty much all of these other developed, Western democracies, and the the US Republicans would be way to the right of the political spectrum of the rest of the Western democracies.


yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.
 
2012-09-02 04:18:42 PM  

relcec: [The Democratic Party] has become so diseased with special interest political patronage that everything it touches turns to nonsensical and counterproductive dogshiat. not that the republicans are almost ever never any better ^and, usually, quite a bit worse.


FTFY.
 
2012-09-02 04:19:53 PM  

WorldCitizen: Snark Shark II: BMulligan: hubiestubert: We do need a functional Conservative party in this country

We have a functional conservative party in this country - it's called the Democratic Party. What we don't have - and what we need - is a functional liberal party in this country.

Explain how Democrats are conservative again, please?

That's easy.

1) Pay any attention to other, established, Western style, developed democracies (say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria...). Pay any attention to their mainstream political parties and politics.
2) Compare them to the US political parties and politics.
3) Note that the positions of the US Democrats would be the mainstream center right party's positions in pretty much all of these other developed, Western democracies, and the the US Republicans would be way to the right of the political spectrum of the rest of the Western democracies.


I've had this discussion before.

The excuse the right uses is basically "well that's for other countries, but here in America, they're the libbiest libs to ever libbed".

And then when you tell them the political spectrum doesn't allow you to choose what is liberal and what is conservative, they just ignore you.
 
2012-09-02 04:20:13 PM  

buckler: Snark Shark II: Degenz: LOL, I have a neighbor who is a retired Army Colonel who just loves broadcasting his right wing views in our predominantly liberal university neighborhood.

He lives in this huge 1800s Victorian he keeps immaculately maintained. And then, he owns the two houses on either side and which he's surrounded with an 8 ft ornate wrought iron fence...nobody around here has their front yards fenced off.

And then he has this 40 ft aluminum flag pole he flies the Stars and Stripes on top, then the Texas flag, and the Confederate flag on the bottom. He also has a hideous gargoyle mounted on the peak of the eaves projecting from the porch to greet visitors.

Then, during the republican primaries this year he had the biggest Herman Cain yard sign I ever saw. The dude is the most awesome partisan troll ever. 

Been meaning to get some pics of it all. I think you farkers would get a kick out of it.

Sounds like the Circus is in town every day of the year for you.

Sorry, but I just got the mental scene of calliope music as he hoists the flags each morning.


I've got someone like that a couple miles down the road from my house. They fly the Confederate flag above the US flag....which is a big no-no, and then there's someone a few houses down from them that flies the American flag upside down.

I live in the heart of Teabaggerville, in the wonderful state of North Derpolina.
 
2012-09-02 04:20:15 PM  

Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.


Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?
 
2012-09-02 04:22:05 PM  

eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?


farther right than right of center
 
2012-09-02 04:22:25 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I've got someone like that a couple miles down the road from my house. They fly the Confederate flag above the US flag....which is a big no-no, and then there's someone a few houses down from them that flies the American flag upside down.

I live in the heart of Teabaggerville, in the wonderful state of North Derpolina.


*headsmack*
 
2012-09-02 04:22:36 PM  

relcec: In those two bills Democrats cut the taxes of the superich 50%.
Between that and saturating the labor market with cheap foreign laborers the Democrats have done more to devalue the labor of the working class and expand the profits of the ultrarich than anyone.


You're right. Thanks for enlightening me. I'm going to vote for the guy who wants to completely eliminate capital gains taxes
 
2012-09-02 04:25:16 PM  

Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?

farther right than right of center


That's still a meaningless definition. What does "right" mean? And, who's the arbiter of what's "right" and what isn't?
 
2012-09-02 04:25:53 PM  

eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?


I'm pretty sure it means "Throw the poor who are too old or crippled to work into lime pits, kill the brown people, give all the money to the beneficent wealthy, bomb everybody in those dime store countries until they're free and privatize everything we can no longer afford to build or maintain, due to the rich paying no taxes, and then charge to use them." I could be wrong. Language has gotten a bit abstruse up in here, lately.
 
2012-09-02 04:26:21 PM  

Snark Shark II: That's what it's come down to because both parties have embraced their extremists the last 10 years.


No, now that's just moving the meter over to "both parties are bad." This is another thing the "both parties are the same" crowd try to do to make their simplistic yet non-negotiable and incomplete paradigm seem not just valid, but superior. Both parties might not be ideal for everybody, but for very different reasons. Both parties might wind up being less than effective in the end, but for very different reasons. America might wind up in the right of center after all is said and done, but it isn't because one party won and the results are indecipherable from the expected results of the other party winning.

Face it. Both parties are different, and it has been a few years since they have been as starkly different as they are now. But it is not, in any way shape or form, because the Democrats have gone to the extreme left to counterbalance an extreme right shift by the GOP. This is a fantastical conclusion, and a strangely complex one at that, considering it is coming from an almost clinically lazy form of philosophical egalitarianism.
 
2012-09-02 04:28:09 PM  
This view, of course, discounts the notion that those who should have every advantage will get old and crippled and die, too, eventually. It's sort of a zero sum game, kids.
 
2012-09-02 04:29:00 PM  

eraser8: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?

farther right than right of center

That's still a meaningless definition. What does "right" mean? And, who's the arbiter of what's "right" and what isn't?


Then we'd have to go into shades of conservative and go over issues. I don't have the desire to do that. We both know what Right is when we see it though.
 
2012-09-02 04:30:14 PM  

Snark Shark II: Then we'd have to go into shades of conservative and go over issues. I don't have the desire to do that. We both know what Right is when we see it though.


So "right" is anything we want it to be?

Awesome! 

Universal health care is now a conservative issue.
 
2012-09-02 04:31:23 PM  

relcec: if the democratic party just once actually took a political position that was an unadulterated progressive policy I might be forced to admit that party has some actual interests that square with those of the entire body politic


American progressives tend to advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system.

I won't hold my breath.
 
2012-09-02 04:31:23 PM  

DarwiOdrade: "Because rich people are Republicans and I always wanted to be rich." - my mother.

/facepalm


All [singing]: TO THE RIGHT! EVER TO THE RIGHT! NEVER TO THE LEFT! FOREVER TO THE RIGHT!!
 
2012-09-02 04:32:02 PM  

runcible spork: Yes, government and private sector working together. And contrary to what randomjsa stated before, Democrats don't want people beholden to government. They want the government beholden to the people, whom it represents. Republicans want government as weak as possible so as to clear aware regulations and enforcement which prevent rapacious business from screwing everyone and everything else in pursuit of the almighty dollar for their stockholders.


Politics as football:

Conservatives would like to remove rules until the sport is survival of the fittest:

i.imgur.com

Liberals would like to see rules put in place and followed fairly to minimize the chances of this:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-02 04:33:30 PM  

thamike: Snark Shark II: That's what it's come down to because both parties have embraced their extremists the last 10 years.

No, now that's just moving the meter over to "both parties are bad." This is another thing the "both parties are the same" crowd try to do to make their simplistic yet non-negotiable and incomplete paradigm seem not just valid, but superior. Both parties might not be ideal for everybody, but for very different reasons. Both parties might wind up being less than effective in the end, but for very different reasons. America might wind up in the right of center after all is said and done, but it isn't because one party won and the results are indecipherable from the expected results of the other party winning.

Face it. Both parties are different, and it has been a few years since they have been as starkly different as they are now. But it is not, in any way shape or form, because the Democrats have gone to the extreme left to counterbalance an extreme right shift by the GOP. This is a fantastical conclusion, and a strangely complex one at that, considering it is coming from an almost clinically lazy form of philosophical egalitarianism.


Sure, the Right has gone further Right than the Left. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. There are extremists in both parties and sometimes they do take center-stage. They haven't as much on the Left lately. Anyway, I don't owe my allegiance to a party or a side. I think it's better to be moderate and determine things on a case-by-case basis rather than always say Republicans are bad, Democrats are good and vice versa. To do so is to decide based on blind ideology rather than what is best for the country.
 
2012-09-02 04:34:13 PM  
only the green and libertarian parties have any platform positions of significance that are decent. both are for ending aggressive foreign policy and abolishing the drug war. I also agree with the green party about capital controls to discourage outsourcing. they both suck on immigration. but at least they have those two big winners. unfortunately neither even move the dial.

democrats and republicans are just too slightly different flavors of corporatism, statism in general and this new type of security-statism in particular, perpetual aggressive war, and special interest pandering that run counter to the interests of the rest of the universe.
 
2012-09-02 04:34:21 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Snark Shark II: Then we'd have to go into shades of conservative and go over issues. I don't have the desire to do that. We both know what Right is when we see it though.

So "right" is anything we want it to be?

Awesome! 

Universal health care is now a conservative issue.


it's a moderate issue and left of center.
 
2012-09-02 04:36:42 PM  

Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?

farther right than right of center

That's still a meaningless definition. What does "right" mean? And, who's the arbiter of what's "right" and what isn't?

Then we'd have to go into shades of conservative and go over issues. I don't have the desire to do that. We both know what Right is when we see it though.


I disagree. Take the Affordable Care Act. Since it was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the 1980s, the individual mandate has been considered "conservative." Newt Gingrich was pushing the idea as recently as 2009. But, when the Democrats decided to implement it, the whole idea suddenly became left/liberal/socialism, a government takeover of healthcare.

If "right" or "conservative" had any sort of stable meaning, the ACA would be seen as a conservative victory. Newt Gingrich and Romney would be applauding it instead of advocating for its repeal. 

So, exactly, are we supposed to "know" the "right" when we see it?
 
2012-09-02 04:39:46 PM  

Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?

farther right than right of center

That's still a meaningless definition. What does "right" mean? And, who's the arbiter of what's "right" and what isn't?

Then we'd have to go into shades of conservative and go over issues. I don't have the desire to do that. We both know what Right is when we see it though.


Apparently, we don't. You've been asked what you consider Conservative positions. Right of center isn't a definition. What positions do you consider Conservative. You've provide a non-answer, and now you want to end the conversation, which is essentially throwing in the towel. Thanks for wasting our time...
 
2012-09-02 04:40:03 PM  

DarwiOdrade: "Because rich people are Republicans and I always wanted to be rich." - my mother.

/facepalm


And that... in a nutshell,

is the con.

"If you play along, there's room for you in the getaway car." *nudge* *wink* And we still lap it up like a thirsty dog.
 
2012-09-02 04:40:22 PM  

eraser8: If "right" or "conservative" had any sort of stable meaning, the ACA would be seen as a conservative victory. Newt Gingrich and Romney would be applauding it instead of advocating for its repeal.


Sad thing is, if they'd done so from the beginning, all the baggers would've come along too.

Would've been called Conservacare and applauded for sticking it to Obama and his single-payer.
 
2012-09-02 04:40:48 PM  
I vote Republican so I can vote for the moderates in a futile attempt to keep the extreme right wing fundamentalists from destroying my state.

/it's not going well at the moment.
 
2012-09-02 04:43:45 PM  

chuggernaught: I vote Republican so I can vote for the moderates in a futile attempt to keep the extreme right wing fundamentalists from destroying my state.

/it's not going well at the moment.


How does rewarding the extreme right wing stifle the extreme right-wing?
 
2012-09-02 04:44:32 PM  

eraser8: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?

farther right than right of center

That's still a meaningless definition. What does "right" mean? And, who's the arbiter of what's "right" and what isn't?

Then we'd have to go into shades of conservative and go over issues. I don't have the desire to do that. We both know what Right is when we see it though.

I disagree. Take the Affordable Care Act. Since it was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the 1980s, the individual mandate has been considered "conservative." Newt Gingrich was pushing the idea as recently as 2009. But, when the Democrats decided to implement it, the whole idea suddenly became left/liberal/socialism, a government takeover of healthcare.

If "right" or "conservative" had any sort of stable meaning, the ACA would be seen as a conservative victory. Newt Gingrich and Romney would be applauding it instead of advocating for its repeal. 

So, exactly, are we supposed to "know" the "right" when we see it?


I see your point. Sometimes they become subjective designations based on the time and the culture of the nation and the beliefs of the individual.
 
2012-09-02 04:44:39 PM  

buckler: Coco LaFemme: I've got someone like that a couple miles down the road from my house. They fly the Confederate flag above the US flag....which is a big no-no, and then there's someone a few houses down from them that flies the American flag upside down.

I live in the heart of Teabaggerville, in the wonderful state of North Derpolina.

*headsmack*


It's great. It's like seeing a real-life dinosaur or something. My boyfriend wanted to stop by and say hi once, but I reminded him he's a Jew dating an atheist, and they'd probably shoot him.
 
2012-09-02 04:45:15 PM  
dtdstudios.com
 
2012-09-02 04:47:12 PM  

hubiestubert: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?

farther right than right of center

That's still a meaningless definition. What does "right" mean? And, who's the arbiter of what's "right" and what isn't?

Then we'd have to go into shades of conservative and go over issues. I don't have the desire to do that. We both know what Right is when we see it though.

Apparently, we don't. You've been asked what you consider Conservative positions. Right of center isn't a definition. What positions do you consider Conservative. You've provide a non-answer, and now you want to end the conversation, which is essentially throwing in the towel. Thanks for wasting our time...


Well what do YOU consider conservative? There is a general idea of conservative that is shared by most people. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not providing a non-answer, it's just that you're asking something so specific that I would have to go down a list of issues. That's not needed to know what conservative is.
 
2012-09-02 04:48:56 PM  

Coco LaFemme: buckler: Coco LaFemme: I've got someone like that a couple miles down the road from my house. They fly the Confederate flag above the US flag....which is a big no-no, and then there's someone a few houses down from them that flies the American flag upside down.

I live in the heart of Teabaggerville, in the wonderful state of North Derpolina.

*headsmack*

It's great. It's like seeing a real-life dinosaur or something. My boyfriend wanted to stop by and say hi once, but I reminded him he's a Jew dating an atheist, and they'd probably shoot him.


There aren't many times when I literally LOL, but that did it.
 
2012-09-02 04:50:57 PM  
Lemme try and sum up this whole tab.

www.rightsideweekly.com

"WE'LL FIX EVERYTHING!"

4.bp.blogspot.com

"No, YOUR side sucks!"

images.stanzapub.com

"Excellent."

www.bmwblog.com

"To the club, Jeeves." 



Suckers.
 
2012-09-02 04:51:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: cameroncrazy1984: skipjack: If you guys were truly wanting an engagement of why someone is a republican..guess what your first action would be?

To post in a thread about why people are Republicans?

And, that Boobies would obviously be hyperbolic stereotypes..right? Because that's how honest discussion happens.

Given your posts in this thread, they haven't been too hyperbolic, no. Maybe you ought to look that one up too?


Yes, and on purpose...because this thread is serious business.

/francis....you need to lighten up.
 
2012-09-02 04:54:08 PM  

zappaisfrank:
I know what a non sequitur is, Junior. Any more condescending remarks to make yourself feel smarter or more superior?

 

Does the irony every hit folks like you...or do you just blissfully skip along in life?

/i'm guessing the second
 
2012-09-02 04:55:58 PM  
If you pay any attention to the world at all and consider yourself a Republican in this day and age, you are a sociopath pure and simple.

/"Good Republican" have had over 30 years to come to their senses
 
2012-09-02 04:56:02 PM  

Snark Shark II: hubiestubert: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?

farther right than right of center

That's still a meaningless definition. What does "right" mean? And, who's the arbiter of what's "right" and what isn't?

Then we'd have to go into shades of conservative and go over issues. I don't have the desire to do that. We both know what Right is when we see it though.

Apparently, we don't. You've been asked what you consider Conservative positions. Right of center isn't a definition. What positions do you consider Conservative. You've provide a non-answer, and now you want to end the conversation, which is essentially throwing in the towel. Thanks for wasting our time...

Well what do YOU consider conservative? There is a general idea of conservative that is shared by most people. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not providing a non-answer, it's just that you're asking something so specific that I would have to go down a list of issues. That's not needed to know what conservative is.


Except it is. The Republican Party IS its issues. There is no "general idea" of conservatism without some "specific ideas" to hang the general concept on.

Is it someone who wants to limit government spending? or only wants to limit military spending? or only wants to limit social services spending?

Is it someone who wants to reform welfare? or only wants to reform the amount spent? or only wants to completely terminate all welfare spending?

Is it someone who wants to limit abortions? or wants to redefine personhood? or wants every baby conceived to be born regardless of any other factors?

Is it someone who wants more limited government? or who wants to relax regulatory oversight? or who supports States' Rights?

A "conservative" nowadays is someone who wants to terminate social services, end welfare, make abortion illegal and let each state be a nation unto itself (except when they need money). That is the "general idea" of a conservative today. It didn't used to be that way; so I guess that's why people think there is some kind of overall conservative position that meets Potter Stewart's definition of knowing when we see it. But you better be aware that what YOU think is a "general idea of a conservative" isn't what EVERYONE thinks of when they think of a conservative.
 
2012-09-02 04:59:37 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Snark Shark II: hubiestubert: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: eraser8: Snark Shark II: yeah, that was my mistake. I wasn't comparing the Democratic Party to other parties in other countries.

Okay, you asked how the Democratic Party is conservative.

But, to get a reasonable answer, you need to offer a definition of what "conservative" means.

So, what do you imagine that "conservative" means?

farther right than right of center

That's still a meaningless definition. What does "right" mean? And, who's the arbiter of what's "right" and what isn't?

Then we'd have to go into shades of conservative and go over issues. I don't have the desire to do that. We both know what Right is when we see it though.

Apparently, we don't. You've been asked what you consider Conservative positions. Right of center isn't a definition. What positions do you consider Conservative. You've provide a non-answer, and now you want to end the conversation, which is essentially throwing in the towel. Thanks for wasting our time...

Well what do YOU consider conservative? There is a general idea of conservative that is shared by most people. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not providing a non-answer, it's just that you're asking something so specific that I would have to go down a list of issues. That's not needed to know what conservative is.

Except it is. The Republican Party IS its issues. There is no "general idea" of conservatism without some "specific ideas" to hang the general concept on.

Is it someone who wants to limit government spending? or only wants to limit military spending? or only wants to limit social services spending?

Is it someone who wants to reform welfare? or only wants to reform the amount spent? or only wants to completely terminate all welfare spending?

Is it someone who wants to limit abortions? or wants to redefine personhood? or wants every baby conceived to be born regardless of any other factors?

Is it someone who wants more limited governme ...



allright, makes sense. Geez, everybody jumping down my throat. I get it, you guys don't like people who won't commit to a party.
 
2012-09-02 05:01:49 PM  

Mrtraveler01:

No one asked why you were a conservative, they asked why you were a Republican. Big difference.

If you really are a conservative, then why the hell are you still a Republican.


Yes, because the only alternative is either I'm a republican or not.
 
2012-09-02 05:02:41 PM  

relcec: only the green and libertarian parties have any platform positions of significance that are decent. both are for ending aggressive foreign policy and abolishing the drug war. I also agree with the green party about capital controls to discourage outsourcing. they both suck on immigration. but at least they have those two big winners. unfortunately neither even move the dial.

democrats and republicans are just too slightly different flavors of corporatism, statism in general and this new type of security-statism in particular, perpetual aggressive war, and special interest pandering that run counter to the interests of the rest of the universe.


My understanding of libertarianism though is a laissez faire approach to government regulation on business. It's a big fark you to the environment and would let corporations essentially make wage slaves of us all. It also doesn't help the poor...It says let them die hungry instead of spending a cent of government money to help them.

I do like most of the philosophy of the green party though.
 
2012-09-02 05:03:45 PM  

skipjack: Mrtraveler01:

No one asked why you were a conservative, they asked why you were a Republican. Big difference.

If you really are a conservative, then why the hell are you still a Republican.

Yes, because the only alternative is either I'm a republican or not.


Right. There are plenty of conservative democrats and independents. Just because you're conservative doesn't mean you agree with the Republican platform. It also doesn't mean you'll vote Republican every election.
 
2012-09-02 05:08:21 PM  
One of my goals in life is to become rich enough where voting Republican actually makes sense.

Until then I just don't see the point.
 
2012-09-02 05:11:19 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: [i46.tinypic.com image 639x439]

"I've been trained to hate myself."


Any time someone responds to why they belong to a certain political party and begins that response with religion...well fark them. You dumb biatch, you were asked why you belong to a political party. Do you have any political reasons for that decision? This isn't a farking theocracy as much as you'd like it to be.

Farking "Log Cabin Republicans." Other than the uber rich, is there ANY subset of Republican voters that doesn't vote against its own interests by voting Republican?
 
2012-09-02 05:15:08 PM  
I'm going to go with spite. It's spite, isn't it?
 
2012-09-02 05:17:52 PM  
I have a serious question as I read these. Most of them are all about the government interfering in their lives, and wanting to have the ability to make their own decisions. As I was initially led to believe, Republicans are the party of "small government." Then why on EARTH are they trying to interfere in a woman's RIGHT to make her own decisions (birth control/abortions), a person's RIGHT to marry who they love (gay marriage), and many others. I honestly don't understand how they can merge these beliefs together. They don't want their rights oppressed, but it is alright for the government to interfere when it is something they don't agree with?
 
2012-09-02 05:18:56 PM  

valar_morghulis: Why I'm NOT a Republican:

-I believe in a homosexual's right to marriage/civil unions and to receive all the rights and benefits therein
-I believe in the social safety net
-I believe in responsible management of natural resources, not raped-earth glutinous frenzies as proposed by Romney-Ryan
-I believe in a woman's inalienable right to choice and birth control
-I believe in equal pay for equal work
-I'm against shooting wolves from airplanes for sport
-I'm against rabid deregulation
-I believe in Keynesian economics
-I'm not afraid of Shariah Law and nor do I believe it's a threat to American law
-I'm against racial profiling
-I have a sense of humor


Thank you!

This, this THIS!
 
2012-09-02 05:21:24 PM  

gold6: I have a serious question as I read these. Most of them are all about the government interfering in their lives, and wanting to have the ability to make their own decisions. As I was initially led to believe, Republicans are the party of "small government." Then why on EARTH are they trying to interfere in a woman's RIGHT to make her own decisions (birth control/abortions), a person's RIGHT to marry who they love (gay marriage), and many others. I honestly don't understand how they can merge these beliefs together. They don't want their rights oppressed, but it is alright for the government to interfere when it is something they don't agree with?



Because they're sanctimonious hypocrites.
 
2012-09-02 05:22:29 PM  

Weaver95: i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.


I don't want to ever see you complaining about idiocy in the politics tab.

It wasn't hard to click on the the dozen or so profiles and see what they had to say, but you couldn't do that, and you started off a thread off putting it right in the trash.

Worse, given your own background many of these people probably believe what you espoused not that long ago.

I disagree with these people but I won't insult them, or any of us, by merely rotely, and cheaply, insisting they are stupid, irrational, greedy, brain-washed, corrupt. And I don't think you advance anything, either discourse, or liberal politics, or any of your political goals by doing the same.

This is a farked up thread -- NPR gave us the opportunity to listen and learn and you and the rest just spit in that.

So thank you for ensuring many more farked up stupid politics tab threads.
 
2012-09-02 05:25:51 PM  
After Obama wins, will this finally become the turning point where the gop wakes up to the nightmare of it's own making and casts out the loonies from the party? The cranks, kooks, and nutbags can go form their own party which would be completely is in lock-step with their, uhhhh........ values.

They can even name it something that describes their agenda, like "WAAGAGAAGHAHAHHHH!! AGGGGGH! GUH!" or something.

/ Vote "WAAGAGAAGHAHAHHHH!! AGGGGGH! GUH!" 2016!!
 
2012-09-02 05:27:38 PM  

TV's Vinnie: After Obama wins, will this finally become the turning point where the gop wakes up to the nightmare of it's own making and casts out the loonies from the party? The cranks, kooks, and nutbags can go form their own party which would be completely is in lock-step with their, uhhhh........ values.

They can even name it something that describes their agenda, like "WAAGAGAAGHAHAHHHH!! AGGGGGH! GUH!" or something.

/ Vote "WAAGAGAAGHAHAHHHH!! AGGGGGH! GUH!" 2016!!


Or just double down and put, by the 2012 campaign, the next in line on the ticket in 2016: Santorum.
 
2012-09-02 05:29:20 PM  

RoyBatty: Weaver95: i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.

I don't want to ever see you complaining about idiocy in the politics tab.

It wasn't hard to click on the the dozen or so profiles and see what they had to say, but you couldn't do that, and you started off a thread off putting it right in the trash


I did click on those profiles...and I saw a lot of denial and no awareness of the lies told by Team Romney. dude - this convention went WAY beyond the norm for political campaigns. this convention was almost pure fiction. very little reality invaded the convention floor.
 
2012-09-02 05:29:45 PM  

RoyBatty: Weaver95: i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.

I don't want to ever see you complaining about idiocy in the politics tab.

It wasn't hard to click on the the dozen or so profiles and see what they had to say, but you couldn't do that, and you started off a thread off putting it right in the trash.

Worse, given your own background many of these people probably believe what you espoused not that long ago.

I disagree with these people but I won't insult them, or any of us, by merely rotely, and cheaply, insisting they are stupid, irrational, greedy, brain-washed, corrupt. And I don't think you advance anything, either discourse, or liberal politics, or any of your political goals by doing the same.

This is a farked up thread -- NPR gave us the opportunity to listen and learn and you and the rest just spit in that.

So thank you for ensuring many more farked up stupid politics tab threads.


To be fair all of the examples I read were complete BS; either religious, cultural or outright bullshiat. Very little had anything to do with actual government and if it did it was the usual hypocritical derp.

The days of two equally footed major political parties is over. The GOP went off the deep end. Sorry to break it to you.
 
2012-09-02 05:38:27 PM  

RoyBatty: Weaver95: i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.

I don't want to ever see you complaining about idiocy in the politics tab.

It wasn't hard to click on the the dozen or so profiles and see what they had to say, but you couldn't do that, and you started off a thread off putting it right in the trash.

Worse, given your own background many of these people probably believe what you espoused not that long ago.

I disagree with these people but I won't insult them, or any of us, by merely rotely, and cheaply, insisting they are stupid, irrational, greedy, brain-washed, corrupt. And I don't think you advance anything, either discourse, or liberal politics, or any of your political goals by doing the same.

This is a farked up thread -- NPR gave us the opportunity to listen and learn and you and the rest just spit in that.

So thank you for ensuring many more farked up stupid politics tab threads.


home.roadrunner.com

7/10?
 
2012-09-02 05:39:28 PM  

eraser8: swartz


Republican ideal: Abe Lincoln being the first Republican president is a good place to start. Take a look at the Kansas Nebraska Act. I also believe, if any sort of history is correct, that this party tends to be more business-minded, and less about sticking noses in personal choices.

Democratic ideal: Great place to start, for sure. Absolutely the best thing going at the time. Tends to be a little more like "the government will provide you with what you need" which tends to come with "and we will keep a close eye on you as part of the deal."

Not saying that anyone represents this today, or that these ideals still survivie. I suspect there are those in both parties that believe in something close to the original ideals. Anyway, hope that answers your question.
 
2012-09-02 05:40:00 PM  

Weaver95: RoyBatty: Weaver95: i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.

I don't want to ever see you complaining about idiocy in the politics tab.

It wasn't hard to click on the the dozen or so profiles and see what they had to say, but you couldn't do that, and you started off a thread off putting it right in the trash

I did click on those profiles...and I saw a lot of denial and no awareness of the lies told by Team Romney. dude - this convention went WAY beyond the norm for political campaigns. this convention was almost pure fiction. very little reality invaded the convention floor.


Which is pretty much the opposite of good Conservatism.

Reasoned, careful, and measured response to conditions. Fulfilling the needs of the republic, and preserving said republic. That means, those pesky national parks, our shared resources, and looking towards the future with investment into the nation and those futures.

Not tax breaks. Not railing against marriage equality. Not sending rafts of cash overseas. The entire platform at this point is pretty much the opposite of anything remotely looking like good Conservatism. The radicals have taken the party, and branded it as such.
 
2012-09-02 05:45:13 PM  

MikeMc: Because women re-learn that their sole purpose is to be used as breeding stock.


i46.tinypic.com

Ain't no bull gonna approach this cow. Best send her off to slaughter.
 
2012-09-02 05:46:20 PM  

ghare: the.swartz: I tend to favor the Republican ideals over the Democratic ideals. At this point, however, it feels like both parties have lost their way. I've not come across anything that says one party is better than the other, and am very skeptical of anyone who evangelizes one party or candidate over another. I also do not believe that anyone understands the complexity of our socioeconomic system well enough to definitively state whether or not a given policy or dirction is beneficial or not. It's all a metter of perspective, I guess.

You believe that really, truly the republican party is going to start being fiscally conservative, now, really this time, for reals? Or that the money is going to start trickling down now, soon, really, really soon, really? Or what? The deficit is important? Really,now it's important! Really! And it will be even with a Republican in office! Really, this time we swear!!!


Huh? For your convenience, I brought my original statement into this here post. Take a moment to re-read it, and then see if you can produce a derp-free sentence or two.
 
2012-09-02 05:47:58 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: Farking "Log Cabin Republicans." Other than the uber rich, is there ANY subset of Republican voters that doesn't vote against its own interests by voting Republican?


Yep:

1) Bankers, wall street gamblers, and the crooks in the health insurance scamindustry, because GOP policies make it easier for them to dip their straws in people's savings.
2) People working in the fossil fuel sector, because the wealth really does trickle down to them.
3) People who really, really, really hate the US of A.

The rest are retards.
 
2012-09-02 05:49:29 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: I used to be a republican because I believe in small government and individual rights. Unfortunately the republican party no longer agrees with me.


that's kinda where i am. i got older and got tired of my party screwing over folks just because they could. i got tired of being told that i didn't count because i wasn't in lock step with them on social issues and only by bringing the bible into every aspect of government would we be ok. btw these same folks have been railing against "shria law" for some time completely failing to distinguish between government being run by their religious law and someone elses. i got tired of a party that disenfranchised blacks, latinos, the LGBT folks and anyone else who wasn't like them. and all that time they are ranting and raving about the founding fathers values. well when they aren't patting themselves on the back for being "Christian". 

dammit all i voted for Goldwater. do you hear me GOLDWATER. and you assholes have driven me from the party.

that i hated LBJ with a white hot passion had nothing to do with that goldwater thing.
 
2012-09-02 05:51:29 PM  

Vindibudd: MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.

This is what Democrats call tolerance.


Oh, we don't begrudge you your right to be alive and free. Like you would with women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans persons, blacks, Latinos, Muslims, intellectuals, scientists, the poor, and oh yes, Democrats.

But when a petulant child is smearing shiat on my walls, I reserve the right to call it a petulant child and, ideally, send it to its room until it grows the hell up.

Or, in shorter words you might know: 1/10 for effort, and welcome to my ignore list.
 
2012-09-02 05:54:38 PM  

EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.


1 lie.

EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.


2 lies.

EnviroDude: When the sitting president of the United States says it, it is more than a talking point.


3 lies.

Ah, ah, ah.
 
2012-09-02 05:54:39 PM  

DarwiOdrade: www.npr.org

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

 

static.themetapicture.com
 
2012-09-02 05:54:47 PM  
I'm not a Republican, so I can't say why I am. I can say why one of my FB friends is though. He is racist. And I don't mean he thinks Obama is a bad president. I mean he outright said, and I quote, "[H]e got elected for one reason only. He is black." You have no idea how much I wish I was kidding.
 
2012-09-02 05:55:47 PM  
Hey Fark! Can you allow animated .gifs of moderate size to be posted? It's not 1998 anymore. Spring for a little more bandwidth, wouldapleeze?
 
2012-09-02 05:56:38 PM  

TV's Vinnie: DarwiOdrade: [www.npr.org image 485x485]

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." 

[static.themetapicture.com image 1x1]


BECAUSE FARK FILTERS SUCK!:

http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-gif-tortoise-faceplant.g i f
 
2012-09-02 05:56:45 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: I used to be a republican because I believe in small government and individual rights. Unfortunately the republican party no longer agrees with me.


So you went with the party that will NEVER believe in small government and individual rights?

/seems legit
 
2012-09-02 06:01:34 PM  

Riche: There's only two REAL reasons to be Republican today:

either wealthy sociopath or ignorant/delusional.

It's pretty damn scary when you think about just how many Americans are willing to swallow obvious lies and vote against the best interests of themselves, their country, and world. And you can FORGET about reasoning pretty much any of them out of it-- their faith in The GOP is very similar to religious faith. You might as well try to reason the average Southren Baptist out of Christianity.

Yes, most of the Democratic leadership is corrupt too, but they aren't trying to lock-step the nation into some kind of bankrupt, theocratic third-world hellhole.


So you are basically pigeonholing half of the population as either mentally unstable and/or stupid. How compassionate of you.
 
2012-09-02 06:02:39 PM  
Democrat masturbation thread?

why yes, yes it is.
 
2012-09-02 06:05:06 PM  

hubiestubert: Weaver95: RoyBatty: Weaver95: i'm gonna guess....a mix of 'battered wife' and 'Stockholm' syndrome.

I don't want to ever see you complaining about idiocy in the politics tab.

It wasn't hard to click on the the dozen or so profiles and see what they had to say, but you couldn't do that, and you started off a thread off putting it right in the trash

I did click on those profiles...and I saw a lot of denial and no awareness of the lies told by Team Romney. dude - this convention went WAY beyond the norm for political campaigns. this convention was almost pure fiction. very little reality invaded the convention floor.

Which is pretty much the opposite of good Conservatism.

Reasoned, careful, and measured response to conditions. Fulfilling the needs of the republic, and preserving said republic. That means, those pesky national parks, our shared resources, and looking towards the future with investment into the nation and those futures.

Not tax breaks. Not railing against marriage equality. Not sending rafts of cash overseas. The entire platform at this point is pretty much the opposite of anything remotely looking like good Conservatism. The radicals have taken the party, and branded it as such.


hubiestubert 2016.
 
2012-09-02 06:10:10 PM  

the.swartz: Republican ideal: Abe Lincoln being the first Republican president is a good place to start.


Well, then maybe Thomas Jefferson being the first Democratic president is a good place to start, too, eh?

Or, maybe referring back to 19th Century presidents to understand the principles of a 21st Century party isn't very smart.

the.swartz: I also believe, if any sort of history is correct, that this party tends to be more business-minded, and less about sticking noses in personal choices.


That may have been true at one time. It isn't true today.

the.swartz: Tends to be a little more like "the government will provide you with what you need"


Well, if we look at the Democrats historically -- starting with the first Democrat, Thomas Jefferson -- the ideal was this: leave people alone.

The 20th Century Democratic Party was much more interventionist...but, "the government will provide you with what you need" was NEVER an ideal of the Democratic Party.

The programs supported by the Democrats never were intended to act a substitute for personal responsibility. And, in fact, they've never been that.

Your answers indicate what you have imagined the party ideals are, rather than what they are -- either today or historically.

But, the truth is, we don't have to guess or imagine what the parties stand for. Each party, in fact, publishes a list of its ideals every four years in a document usually called the party platform.

/as an aside, I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican
 
2012-09-02 06:10:21 PM  
Mitch McConnell 70, senator from Kentucky
I think we ought to have an opportunity society where everybody has a chance to do as well as they can, and I don't think an oppressive federal government involved in every aspect of our lives will allow you to have an opportunity society.


So, I am against an oppressive federal government involved in every aspect of your lives... except for the aspects of your lives that I deem appropriate to look over.... mostly concerning your bodies ladies.
 
2012-09-02 06:17:44 PM  

the.swartz: eraser8: swartz

Republican ideal: Abe Lincoln being the first Republican president is a good place to start. Take a look at the Kansas Nebraska Act. I also believe, if any sort of history is correct, that this party tends to be more business-minded, and less about sticking noses in personal choices.

Democratic ideal: Great place to start, for sure. Absolutely the best thing going at the time. Tends to be a little more like "the government will provide you with what you need" which tends to come with "and we will keep a close eye on you as part of the deal."

Not saying that anyone represents this today, or that these ideals still survivie. I suspect there are those in both parties that believe in something close to the original ideals. Anyway, hope that answers your question.


You never grasped the concept that the poles switched between parties since the civil war, have you? Or that big businesses that look down on you benefits much more from government welfare than the people you look down on? Didn't think so.
 
2012-09-02 06:18:06 PM  
Didn't read the article but I suspect that the truthful answer is the one that was omitted from every response:

"I'm someone who settles."
 
2012-09-02 06:23:08 PM  

The Troof hurts: So you went with the party that will NEVER believe in small government and individual rights?


The republicans are the party of small government and individual rights? Are you people farking serious? Who started The Patriot Act? Enacted holding people without due process? Are pro-life? Anti-birth control? Ant-gay marriage? Anti-gays in the military? HOW THE FARK are you people pro-individual rights?

And before you say it, The democrats aren't after your farking guns.
 
2012-09-02 06:34:08 PM  
If you call yourself, donate to, support or do anything associated with the "Republican" party you are nothing but a racist, bigoted, hateful €sshole. Birds of a feather flock together and even if you aren't one of those birds you are supporting them. That makes you a silent partner, just as bad and more cowardly.

Gay use to mean happy and gleeful.
Republican use to mean fiscally responsible and patriotic.
Neither are even remotely close to true today.

Modern "Republicans" are the worst enemy the United States has ever seen because they have infiltrated our Government.
 
2012-09-02 06:38:10 PM  

nyseattitude: If you call yourself, donate to, support or do anything associated with the "Republican" party you are nothing but a racist, bigoted, hateful €sshole. Birds of a feather flock together and even if you aren't one of those birds you are supporting them. That makes you a silent partner, just as bad and more cowardly.

Gay use to mean happy and gleeful.
Republican use to mean fiscally responsible and patriotic.
Neither are even remotely close to true today.

Modern "Republicans" are the worst enemy the United States has ever seen because they have infiltrated our Government.


That's kind of an extreme statement to make.
 
2012-09-02 06:44:07 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: I used to be a republican because I believe in small government and individual rights. Unfortunately the republican party no longer agrees with me.



At what point in history did they actually agree with you? I'm genuinely curious.
 
2012-09-02 06:44:24 PM  

randomjsa: Never let it be said that liberals will ever waste a chance to spew hate and misconceptions. There's a reason that when asked to accurately state liberals positions on things, conservatives can, and when asked to accurately state conservatives positions on things, liberals can't. That would be because conservatives don't have to lie to themselves or to each other about what liberals believe in so that their own ideas sound better.

Yes, we DID build that, including all the roads and bridges and infrastructure. All of those things are dependent on American business in order to come to fruition, not the other way around. Without successful hard working people to pay taxes, you don't get to have those nice things. I'm a Republican because I don't believe that being beholden to the government is a good thing. I'm a Republican because I believe it's primarily my own responsibility to take care of me and I don't hold out my hand demanding that anybody who made more than me pay my way too.

I'm a Republican because anyone who is paying attention can plainly see that Democrats maintain and continue to buy their way in to power by finding new and interesting ways to write government checks to as many people as possible and if the country goes broke in the process that's just fine because long term success or failure never mattered to a liberal anyway, only intentions.


I, Mr.Random Republican Jsa am an idiot
 
2012-09-02 06:49:04 PM  

skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint


0/10. Needs a full ellipsis, not a half-assed 2/3rds one.
 
2012-09-02 06:49:22 PM  
oi48.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-02 06:49:45 PM  
 
2012-09-02 06:51:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.

You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.


No, he's right. You forget: he's arguing with the Obama only Republicans can see.
 
2012-09-02 06:54:05 PM  

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: I will be able to take a pain pill when I need a pacemaker at an elderly age per Obama. So much for the right to live.

You're bringing up 3 year old, busted talking points? Oh my god, you are so screwed in November.

No, he's right. You forget: he's arguing with the Obama only Republicans can see.


Damn you Fartbongo, raiding Medicare benefits that only Envirodude sees!
 
2012-09-02 06:54:30 PM  

coeyagi: skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint

0/10. Needs a full ellipsis, not a half-assed 2/3rds one.


KONOS!

What constitutes a full ellipsis? I've never looked it up.

/now i'm gonna have to.
 
2012-09-02 06:55:47 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Democrat masturbation thread?

why yes, yes it is.


This is what you write when you have zero counter-argument. These are the words of TRUE patriots and REAL Americans who don't need facts, truth or arguments to let you know what they FEEL in their gut is ultimately the best path for America.

Tricolor Patriot Eagles Tears FTW!
 
2012-09-02 06:57:35 PM  

skipjack: coeyagi: skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint

0/10. Needs a full ellipsis, not a half-assed 2/3rds one.

KONOS!

What constitutes a full ellipsis? I've never looked it up.

/now i'm gonna have to.


It's ok, without at least three of more ellipses in a post, you can't be considered for the upper echelons of Fark Thread Crappers Incorporated.
 
2012-09-02 06:58:49 PM  

skipjack: coeyagi: skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint

0/10. Needs a full ellipsis, not a half-assed 2/3rds one.

KONOS!

What constitutes a full ellipsis? I've never looked it up.

/now i'm gonna have to.


Is that before or after "conservatism," "non-sequitur" and "hyperbole"?
 
2012-09-02 07:05:13 PM  

DrD'isInfotainment: I, Mr.Random Republican Jsa am an idiot


And?
 
2012-09-02 07:05:41 PM  
Let me tell you why I am Republican:

1) My economics education leaves me unconvinced that Keynesian economics can work. The math doesn't seem to support it, although I can appreciate the point of view and the argument that, "...we're all dead in the long-run." And while my economic puritanism runs afoul of Republicans when it comes to funding things like the NIH, NASA, and Department of Education, it's still closer to what the GOP at least pays lip-service to than what the Democratic Party believes. This doesn't mean I think that Democrats are morons. We just disagree.

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy. This means, of course, I'm no libertarian isolationist. My hawkishness is not without limits. For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but was not against an impeachment investigation for his being wrong about Iraq. (That's generous. He royally pissed me off.) Anyway, that means I tend to be at odds with Democrats on defense spending.

4) I want to keep fighting the whackjobs in the GOP who have taken the party in a direction it should never have gone. Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion. It may be a religion I share, but it's not a religion I believe should be removing free will by creating laws against sins that are God's to punish. 

That's the top reasons. I reserve the right to have more opinions.
 
2012-09-02 07:06:40 PM  

skipjack: coeyagi: skipjack: A liberal circle jerk given to you by the mods...and you guys have barely got it over 50 posts.

/son..i am dissapoint

0/10. Needs a full ellipsis, not a half-assed 2/3rds one.

KONOS!

What constitutes a full ellipsis? I've never looked it up.

/now i'm gonna have to.


I think that's when a male stripper strips completely.
 
2012-09-02 07:12:01 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

1) My economics education leaves me unconvinced that Keynesian economics can work. The math doesn't seem to support it, although I can appreciate the point of view and the argument that, "...we're all dead in the long-run." And while my economic puritanism runs afoul of Republicans when it comes to funding things like the NIH, NASA, and Department of Education, it's still closer to what the GOP at least pays lip-service to than what the Democratic Party believes. This doesn't mean I think that Democrats are morons. We just disagree.

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy. This means, of course, I'm no libertarian isolationist. My hawkishness is not without limits. For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but was not against an impeachment investigation for his being wrong about Iraq. (That's generous. He royally pissed me off.) Anyway, that means I tend to be at odds with Democrats on defense spending.

4) I want to keep fighting the whackjobs in the GOP who have taken the party in a direction it should never have gone. Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion. It may be a religion I share, but it's not a religion I believe should be removing free will by creating laws against sins that are God's to punish. 

That's the top reasons. I reserve the right to have more opinions.


I can disagree with you but I can take you seriously when you type like a mature adult instead of someone who dripped spittle on his keyboard.

1) I can understand some skepticism about Keynesian economics but at least you don't have the blind worship to a purely free market like some folks on the right do. Kudos.

2) Pro-life and against the death penalty? Holy crap, I didn't think people could be that consistent!

3) Being hawkish when it comes to foreign policy always seems to get us into more trouble...which is why I'm against it.

4) More power to you and I wish you all the best. Until some sanity sinks back into the Republican party, we can not have mature political discourse in this country.
 
2012-09-02 07:21:03 PM  
The only person who seems to have made a decision not based on or not given a rationale steeped in talking points is Alexander Reber. Shame his party does not care about higher education or transportation and continues to bloat government except in utterly meaningless and invasive ways. Other than a couple folks who seem disillusioned with the party and merely with them for tradition, the rest are speaking in vagueries.
 
2012-09-02 07:23:00 PM  

Ricardo Klement: 3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy


Doesn't that go against the whole "pro-life, anti-death penalty" thing?

Well anyway, at least you presented your reasoning in a reasoned manner, even if a lot of it was back handed compliments to the party at best.
 
2012-09-02 07:24:28 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

1) My economics education leaves me unconvinced that Keynesian economics can work. The math doesn't seem to support it, although I can appreciate the point of view and the argument that, "...we're all dead in the long-run." And while my economic puritanism runs afoul of Republicans when it comes to funding things like the NIH, NASA, and Department of Education, it's still closer to what the GOP at least pays lip-service to than what the Democratic Party believes. This doesn't mean I think that Democrats are morons. We just disagree.

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy. This means, of course, I'm no libertarian isolationist. My hawkishness is not without limits. For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but was not against an impeachment investigation for his being wrong about Iraq. (That's generous. He royally pissed me off.) Anyway, that means I tend to be at odds with Democrats on defense spending.

4) I want to keep fighting the whackjobs in the GOP who have taken the party in a direction it should never have gone. Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion. It may be a religion I share, but it's not a religion I believe should be removing free will by creating laws against sins that are God's to punish. 

That's the top reasons. I reserve the right to have more opinions.


Your 2nd point and your 4th point are inconsistent with each other on the face of it, as the only arguments that support the pro-life position are those that derive from religion. Science tells us that nothing like a soul has ever been discovered, and a fetus lacks a nervous system (necessary for any other possible definition of human) until late in the second trimestre. Thus any assertion that a zygote should have full rights is specious and arbitrary on the face of it unless you allow for the religious argument - which you expressly deny allowing as a political argument in your 4th point.

No one is talking about aborting late-term fetuses except in cases of extreme danger to the life of the mother, and even then most of the time it's a premature birth, not an abortion. The pro-life crowd is talking about preventing abortion during early development, before the formation of the nervous system. If you support that position, then I must conclude you're not paying attention to the detailed ramification of how the positions you claim to espouse here affect each other.
 
2012-09-02 07:25:03 PM  

Mugato: The Troof hurts: So you went with the party that will NEVER believe in small government and individual rights?

The republicans are the party of small government and individual rights? Are you people farking serious? Who started The Patriot Act? Enacted holding people without due process? Are pro-life? Anti-birth control? Ant-gay marriage? Anti-gays in the military? HOW THE FARK are you people pro-individual rights?

And before you say it, The democrats aren't after your farking guns.


The present iteration isn't, but there is always The chance that we could get to that ideal. It will never happen in the democratic party.
 
2012-09-02 07:28:06 PM  

The Troof hurts: And before you say it, The democrats aren't after your farking guns.

The present iteration isn't, but there is always The chance that we could get to that ideal. It will never happen in the democratic party.


Did you type that correctly?
 
2012-09-02 07:28:16 PM  
I disagree with the statement that modern republicans are stupid. That would be to say that we are all (after a fashion) stupid. I look at it this way: You really want a banana, with all your heart. Someone you moderately trust offers you a banana, but you must first cover your eyes. The entire time your eyes are covered, he describes the banana he will give you. It is not a banana, it is something else entirely, but when you open your eyes, what do you think you will see? That is what I read when I read these peoples statements.
 
2012-09-02 07:29:39 PM  
So many new righty shills in this thread to label, so little time...
 
2012-09-02 07:32:11 PM  

The Troof hurts: The present iteration isn't, but there is always The chance that we could get to that ideal. It will never happen in the democratic party.


Not sure why you believe this. Neither party has shown itself to be the party of smaller government in recent history, and at least one party is unwilling to present itself as such. Being hypocritical in this, the Republicans have essentially shown contempt for the notion of smaller government, just as liars who claim honesty show contempt for the notion of truth. To me, this says the Democratic Party is likelier to begin whittling down the size of government.
 
2012-09-02 07:33:08 PM  

RoyBatty: I disagree with these people but I won't insult them, or any of us, by merely rotely, and cheaply, insisting they are stupid, irrational, greedy, brain-washed, corrupt. And I don't think you advance anything, either discourse, or liberal politics, or any of your political goals by doing the same.

This is a farked up thread -- NPR gave us the opportunity to listen and learn and you and the rest just spit in that.


I read all fifteen quotes. Does that make me qualified to think these people are stupid, greedy, brain-washed morons?

1) When I was really embracing who I was in terms of my faith ... as somebody who would be open and honest about my sexuality ... I had decided, 'OK, I'm going to embrace everything I believe in, and that includes my politics.'

-You believe you should be treated like a second-class citizen and that legislation is necessary to prevent you from getting married?

2) I was in college ... and I had read Thomas Sowell's book ["Vision of the Anointed"], and Sowell, eloquently ... lays out the moral cause, for not so much being a Republican but being a conservative. And really changed my life.

-Sowell believed that bigger, more bureaucratic government restricted social and economic freedom. Since a healthy chunk of the Republican Party's platform involves using the power of government to restrain or reverse social progress, it's hard to argue with that point.

3) My parents taught me individual responsibility. You have to rely on yourself to get you anywhere. And I became a Republican because I truly believe that we are giving people the tools to build a successful life and really be a part of the American dream.

-Meaningless platitudes.

4) I love the fact that the Republican Party stands for smaller government, where we make decisions for ourselves and our families.

-Since when?

5) I started to take a closer look at the differences in ideology. ... Republicans were about less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility. Democrats were just the opposite.

-Maybe you should take a closer look at Republicans *do* instead of what they *say*, Herman.

6) I think we ought to have an opportunity society where everybody has a chance to do as well as they can, and I don't think an oppressive federal government involved in every aspect of our lives will allow you to have an opportunity society.

-Except gays and pregnant women, right, Mitch? The government needs to be more involved in their lives, I guess. Also, you look like a turtle.

7) I was a registered independent until 1998. I grew up in Montgomery County [Md.], which has a very liberal atmosphere. I was exposed to a lot of stuff politically, and saw a lot of changes in the '70s through the '90s, and I just knew the conservative leanings that I had, that made me a Republican.

-Since she doesn't elaborate on what social changes from the 70s-90s put her off, I'm going to assume she just hates gays, too. Either that, or she thinks women show too much ankle now. The hussies.

8) People in college a lot of times don't look at the bigger picture. When you get out of college and you're paying taxes, that's when you become a Republican.

-I'll let my parents and grandparents know that they're doing it wrong, thanks.

9) Ronald Reagan is the guy very early in his career as president of the United States that made me very easily affiliate with the Republican Party.

-By increasing government spending, increasing the deficit, and increasing the debt? It's easy to see why you're a Republican.

10) I chose to be a Republican when I first registered to vote. My father was pretty conservative, and I think I inherited that. I've become more disillusioned, more libertarian -- the party has veered off course a little. But it's a dynamic, human organization.

-Well, damn, if that isn't a little ray of honesty. I hope he made it off the convention floor OK.

11) It was because of [Virginia Gov.] Bob McDonnell. I met him at an event, and he was focused on higher education, transportation, smaller government. All the things I'm interested in.

-They say we always hurt the ones we love.

12) I've been an entrepreneur for as long as I can remember; I ran three or four different businesses in grammar school. The ideas that are exposed by the Libertarian Party and the libertarian part of the Republican [Party] really reinforce that Republican spirit.

-I think you may be at the wrong convention.

13) When I started looking [at] and reading their platforms and what they were interested in, I thought, 'I'm in the wrong party.' I said, 'I'm a conservative person.' And I am now a Republican.

-I'm going to take the safe route by simply assuming that she hates gays and abortion.

14) I switched to Republican after a friend who worked for the Log Cabin Republicans asked me to be his secretary. They helped me learn how to fundraise, how to organize, how to make decisions about candidates. The big issue for me was the DREAM Act, because it's giving priorities to illegal aliens. That really pushed me away from the Democrats.

The DREAM Act that had strong bipartisan support?

15) Ronald Reagan. I was in my 20s, just getting a job. And I liked how he was for the people, and we are the people. Government can't run us. It's scary. When Obama won, my stomach was aching. I'd like to see everyone have what I had, and the benefits we've had.

Because I know elderly actors are who I think are in touch with the masses. Hey, I sympathize lady, I know I got a little queasy whenever I saw Dubya on TV.
 
2012-09-02 07:35:51 PM  

SusanCreature: why I'm not a Republican:

Stumping on abortion as a major platform issue.

Gimme a call after you've backed away from those two things, no promises but I'll reconsider.


The abortion issue is a valid complaint against us Republicans; it is a war we simply cannot win in its present state.

I am against Roe vs Wade simply because it should be considered a states rights issue - not adjudicated by a court. There will always be states that ban abortion, just like there will always be states that allow that procedure but getting all butthurt and self-righteous about when life begins is simply insane.

It is not up to anyone to mandate whether or not I carry a baby to term; that is between my conscience and my physician.  Personally? I'm pro-life but the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a woman's decision and not my place to force her to act against her conscience.
 
2012-09-02 07:38:02 PM  

relcec: if the democratic party just once actually took a political position that was an unadulterated progressive policy I might be forced to admit that party has some actual interests that square with those of the entire body politic, if not me in particular, more than with some political patron getting a fat government handout.



Like a health care plan created by the Heritage Foundation? Oh right...
 
2012-09-02 07:38:26 PM  

Spanky McStupid: SusanCreature: why I'm not a Republican:

Stumping on abortion as a major platform issue.

Gimme a call after you've backed away from those two things, no promises but I'll reconsider.

The abortion issue is a valid complaint against us Republicans; it is a war we simply cannot win in its present state.

I am against Roe vs Wade simply because it should be considered a states rights issue - not adjudicated by a court. There will always be states that ban abortion, just like there will always be states that allow that procedure but getting all butthurt and self-righteous about when life begins is simply insane.

It is not up to anyone to mandate whether or not I carry a baby to term; that is between my conscience and my physician.  Personally? I'm pro-life but the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a woman's decision and not my place to force her to act against her conscience.


RINO.

//not by my standards, by the current GOP's.
 
2012-09-02 07:39:27 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

4) I want to keep fighting the whackjobs in the GOP who have taken the party in a direction it should never have gone. Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion. It may be a religion I share, but it's not a religion I believe should be removing free will by creating laws against sins that are God's to punish.

I've heard this argument more than once from Republicans posting in this thread. My question for you is this:

Good on you for staying in the Republican Party and fighting the good fight from within. Vote in the primaries for moderate, traditional conservatives.

Now what happens in the general election if the wackjob is the Republican candidate. Romney (if he has any personal convictions whatsoever) may be a moderate, but he's convinced me that he will sign whatever legislation the Tea Party Congress places on his desk. Do you "hold your nose and vote for the sane Democrat" or are you going to vote for the Republican anyway, even those he's the sort of person you're remaining in the party to fight against?
 
2012-09-02 07:40:57 PM  

relcec: I also agree with the green party about capital controls to discourage outsourcing

.....statism


So you are AGAINST stateism yet for protectionism? WUT?
 
2012-09-02 07:41:18 PM  

Spanky McStupid: It is not up to anyone to mandate whether or not I carry a baby to term; that is between my conscience and my physician.  Personally? I'm pro-life but the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a woman's decision and not my place to force her to act against her conscience.


Then why are you for making it a state's right to make that decision? Your statements are sort of contradictory.
 
2012-09-02 07:42:13 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

[...]

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.


I don't understand why being pro-life or pro-choice should have anything to do with a political party--believing something is wrong and wanting it to be illegal are two different things. The problem is, when you make abortion illegal, it gets worse--women have more of them, and much more dangerously, putting their lives (to say nothing of the fetuses') in significant peril.

Whatever your personal opinion on abortion, your choices are 1) make it illegal and let women die from the ones they will get regardless of the law or 2) make them legal and regulated so that they can be as safe as possible for the women who will get them, since they will get them.
 
2012-09-02 07:42:41 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

1) My economics education leaves me unconvinced that Keynesian economics can work. The math doesn't seem to support it, although I can appreciate the point of view and the argument that, "...we're all dead in the long-run." And while my economic puritanism runs afoul of Republicans when it comes to funding things like the NIH, NASA, and Department of Education, it's still closer to what the GOP at least pays lip-service to than what the Democratic Party believes. This doesn't mean I think that Democrats are morons. We just disagree.

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy. This means, of course, I'm no libertarian isolationist. My hawkishness is not without limits. For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but was not against an impeachment investigation for his being wrong about Iraq. (That's generous. He royally pissed me off.) Anyway, that means I tend to be at odds with Democrats on defense spending.

4) I want to keep fighting the whackjobs in the GOP who have taken the party in a direction it should never have gone. Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion. It may be a religion I share, but it's not a religion I believe should be removing free will by creating laws against sins that are God's to punish. 

That's the top reasons. I reserve the right to have more opinions.


I was going to sponsor you for this post, but I see you're a Totalfarker already. What you wrote is almost exactly what I believe, and I give you big props for posting between the FarkLibTM hate machine comments.
 
2012-09-02 07:43:21 PM  

parkthebus: I am a Republican because I was a dirty hippie in college but quickly discovered the liberals had no idea what they were taking about. My years of experience in the real world has only buffered this perception. Neither side is always right, but on balance the GOP gets it right far more than the Democrats. Intellectually I'm more of a libertarian, but the Republicans get the fiscal and world issues right more than the Democrats IMHO.


This post is code for, "I had decent instincts when I was younger, but the holistic nature of the propaganda model worked on me over time."
 
2012-09-02 07:43:30 PM  

nyseattitude: If you call yourself, donate to, support or do anything associated with the "Republican" party you are nothing but a racist, bigoted, hateful €sshole. Birds of a feather flock together and even if you aren't one of those birds you are supporting them. That makes you a silent partner, just as bad and more cowardly.

Gay use to mean happy and gleeful.
Republican use to mean fiscally responsible and patriotic.
Neither are even remotely close to true today.

Modern "Republicans" are the worst enemy the United States has ever seen because they have infiltrated our Government.


Baby boomers started as hippies aged into yuppies and now have become guppies. Thats progress.
 
2012-09-02 07:45:17 PM  

The Troof hurts: ignatius_crumbcake: I used to be a republican because I believe in small government and individual rights. Unfortunately the republican party no longer agrees with me.

So you went with the party that will NEVER believe in small government and individual rights?

/seems legit


I go with the only party not currently trying to legislate personal behavior. The foreign policy stuff and economic stuff doesn't fluster me as much. I don't get worked up about paying taxes, since this is America and I can always just make more money if I want. I also don't get too concerned with foreign policy since I don't think there is much of a difference between the parties and congress controls the purse anyway. I mostly care about social issues, since that is where the executive (via court appointments) makes the biggest difference.

Also, a major tenant of the republican party is "a return to the past." They must be ignorant of history because no society has ever prospered by moving backward.
 
2012-09-02 07:46:22 PM  

Meanniss: Baby boomers started as hippies aged into yuppies and now have become guppies. Thats progress.


Wanna know how I know you got most of your 20th c. American history from Time Life?
 
2012-09-02 07:46:38 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: parkthebus: I am a Republican because I was a dirty hippie in college but quickly discovered the liberals had no idea what they were taking about. My years of experience in the real world has only buffered this perception. Neither side is always right, but on balance the GOP gets it right far more than the Democrats. Intellectually I'm more of a libertarian, but the Republicans get the fiscal and world issues right more than the Democrats IMHO.

This post is code for, "I had decent instincts when I was younger, but the holistic nature of the propaganda model worked on me over time."


I read it as "I got nothing so let me just put some vague crap out there without evidence for conclusions."
 
2012-09-02 07:47:38 PM  

Ricardo Klement: My economics education leaves me unconvinced that Keynesian economics can work. The math doesn't seem to support it



First I doubt you actually have a real economics education. And if you did, you sure wouldn't be complaining about the most tried and tested economic theory and compare it to supply side Austrian economics.

Ricardo Klement: 3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy. This means, of course, I'm no libertarian isolationist. My hawkishness is not without limits. For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but was not against an impeachment investigation for his being wrong about Iraq. (That's generous. He royally pissed me off.) Anyway, that means I tend to be at odds with Democrats on defense spending.


So why aren't you a fan of Obama's foreign policy? And why is cutting defense spending from cold war levels so bad?

Spending more than the next 27 nations while 24 are your allies is not fiscally responsible nor even useful for real defense
 
2012-09-02 07:48:41 PM  

Ricardo Klement: I'm pro-life.


Ricardo Klement: Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion.



WUT
 
2012-09-02 07:53:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I can disagree with you but I can take you seriously when you type like a mature adult instead of someone who dripped spittle on his keyboard.

1) I can understand some skepticism about Keynesian economics but at least you don't have the blind worship to a purely free market like some folks on the right do. Kudos.

2) Pro-life and against the death penalty? Holy crap, I didn't think people could be that consistent!

3) Being hawkish when it comes to foreign policy always seems to get us into more trouble...which is why I'm against it.

4) More power to you and I wish you all the best. Until some sanity sinks back into the Republican party, we can not have mature political discourse in this country.


There are a lot of Catholics who are consistent with number 2, for what it's worth.

I understand your reservations on number 3. Really, it's a statement of idealism, because so often we screw the pooch like LBJ and Nixon in Vietnam and Bush2 in Iraq. Obama handled Libya well, as well as taking out bin Laden. But I am not sure he's handling Afghanistan particularly well. I'm not sure it's not a lost cause at this point, which means we're there for sure if Obama loses until at least 2016, and 2020 if Romney then loses, and 2024 if his successor then fails to win a second term...
 
2012-09-02 07:53:52 PM  

intelligent comment below: Ricardo Klement: I'm pro-life.

Ricardo Klement: Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion.


WUT


Well, to be fair, he acknowledges the difference between believing something is morally wrong and believing something should be illegal. If people want to believe that abortion, or being gay, or interracial marriage, or whatever, is morally wrong then good for them. That's their opinion and that's fine with me. It's when that moral belief becomes a call for state intervention that it becomes a problem.
 
2012-09-02 07:54:32 PM  

Spanky McStupid: The abortion issue is a valid complaint against us Republicans; it is a war we simply cannot win in its present state.

I am against Roe vs Wade simply because it should be considered a states rights issue - not adjudicated by a court. There will always be states that ban abortion, just like there will always be states that allow that procedure but getting all butthurt and self-righteous about when life begins is simply insane.

It is not up to anyone to mandate whether or not I carry a baby to term; that is between my conscience and my physician. Personally? I'm pro-life but the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a woman's decision and not my place to force her to act against her conscience.


Wait, does this even make sense?

Did you just say that it's a woman's decision, but that the government (state government) should be allowed to ban her from making that decision against her conscience? If you did just say that...really?

Also, in the modern US we generally consider (thanks to the 14th Amendment), that US citizens have equal rights no matter the state in which they reside. Removing the federal right to privacy of a woman and her own body in this decision would mean that people in some states have a right to privacy that people in other states don't. The Supreme Court has tended to not take too kindly to that.

Of course, right now, as a gay person I don't have the same marriage equality in my state that other American citizens have in other states. I sorta know how it feels to be even more of a second class US citizen in my state than other people are in other US states. And don't get me started on how I feel about Romney and Republicans actively working and campaigning on the promise of keeping me separated on a different continent from my non-American partner by denying me equal federal immigration rights than straight Americans have for their non-American partners (plus, the separation really is starting to take its toll on me making me even less quiet about it..sorry, Farkers). So yeah, way not down with unequal rights between US citizens between the various states.
 
2012-09-02 07:55:34 PM  
Neither platform or their respective, proffered ideologies are viable alone. From Communism, to Capitalism to Socialism, all sociopolitical constructs that have enjoyed any sort of shelf life offer viable *components* to reasonable and just and supportive management of the human condition by humans. The most useful component for the people selling their particular flavor of closed circuit absolutism is that you keep fighting about which obviously failed absolute is best. All this bargain basement posturing, harrumphing and oh, by jingo malarkey has, so far, gotten us here. And until we demand better, you can go vote for a sh*t covered two by four for all the difference it will make. Successful politics isn't gates and fences. It's LEGO. You build something that works using components and then you maintain it. You want useful change? Elect a high level OOP programmer or a physicist. Sure, they'll get their skull turned into brain salad by some guy in a black suit with a rifle in about a year, but that's the cost of serving the body politic instead of greedy old men.
 
2012-09-02 07:56:11 PM  

Spanky McStupid: I am against Roe vs Wade simply because it should be considered a states rights issue - not adjudicated by a court. There will always be states that ban abortion, just like there will always be states that allow that procedure but getting all butthurt and self-righteous about when life begins is simply insane.

It is not up to anyone to mandate whether or not I carry a baby to term; that is between my conscience and my physician. Personally? I'm pro-life but the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a woman's decision and not my place to force her to act against her conscience.


Wait, what. You think it's a not the place of the state to force the but you think the state should have the right to?
 
2012-09-02 07:56:48 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: The foreign policy stuff and economic stuff doesn't fluster me as much


The foreign policy stuff should.Because I think Romney is genuinely dangerous in this area. There's little chance he has the power to outlaw abortion but he can start WWIII very easily.
 
2012-09-02 07:57:29 PM  

Mugato: Ricardo Klement: 3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy

Doesn't that go against the whole "pro-life, anti-death penalty" thing?

Well anyway, at least you presented your reasoning in a reasoned manner, even if a lot of it was back handed compliments to the party at best.


Remember: I believe the intervention can save more lives than it ultimately costs.

Thanks, I'm trying.
 
2012-09-02 07:57:34 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Spanky McStupid: I am against Roe vs Wade simply because it should be considered a states rights issue - not adjudicated by a court. There will always be states that ban abortion, just like there will always be states that allow that procedure but getting all butthurt and self-righteous about when life begins is simply insane.

It is not up to anyone to mandate whether or not I carry a baby to term; that is between my conscience and my physician. Personally? I'm pro-life but the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a woman's decision and not my place to force her to act against her conscience.

Wait, what. You think it's a not the place of the state to force the but you think the state should have the right to?


The original post is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-09-02 07:58:15 PM  

coeyagi: Phil Moskowitz: parkthebus: I am a Republican because I was a dirty hippie in college but quickly discovered the liberals had no idea what they were taking about. My years of experience in the real world has only buffered this perception. Neither side is always right, but on balance the GOP gets it right far more than the Democrats. Intellectually I'm more of a libertarian, but the Republicans get the fiscal and world issues right more than the Democrats IMHO.

This post is code for, "I had decent instincts when I was younger, but the holistic nature of the propaganda model worked on me over time."

I read it as "I got nothing so let me just put some vague crap out there without evidence for conclusions."



It's strange for conservatives to take the "they know nothing!" argument when they turn around and complain that universities are full of professors who spread liberal propaganda. If some of the most intelligent and educated people in the country are more liberal than most, then that says something about liberal ideology.

If you listen to climate deniers rather than educated scientists with evidence to back up their positions, you can't claim to be the party that knows what they are talking about
 
2012-09-02 08:03:10 PM  

KiltedBastich: Your 2nd point and your 4th point are inconsistent with each other on the face of it, as the only arguments that support the pro-life position are those that derive from religion. Science tells us that nothing like a soul has ever been discovered, and a fetus lacks a nervous system (necessary for any other possible definition of human) until late in the second trimestre. Thus any assertion that a zygote should have full rights is specious and arbitrary on the face of it unless you allow for the religious argument - which you expressly deny allowing as a political argument in your 4th point.

No one is talking about aborting late-term fetuses except in cases of extreme danger to the life of the mother, and even then most of the time it's a premature birth, not an abortion. The pro-life crowd is talking about preventing abortion during early development, before the formation of the nervous system. If you support that position, then I must conclude you're not paying attention to the detailed ramification of how the positions you claim to espouse here affect each other.


There are pro-life atheists. And while I'm not an atheist, I came to my conclusion without the need to resort to religious arguments. Whether a fetus is a person is not something where the answer seems obvious to me. I'm actually for abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, which sometimes is only discovered in the last trimester. I'm not an absolutist and I'm open to the discussion. I'm not actually comfortable banning the morning after pill, so my pro-lifeness is not nearly so strong as the GOP's has been in general. But you may be right: I haven't developed a Grand Unification Theory of my positions. In my defense, I bet that's rare for anyone.
 
2012-09-02 08:06:12 PM  

intelligent comment below:


It's strange for conservatives to take the "they know nothing!" argument when they turn around and complain that universities are full of professors who spread liberal propaganda. If some of the most intelligent and educated people in the country are more liberal than most, then that says something about liberal ideology.

If you listen to climate deniers rather than educated scientists with evidence to back up their positions, you can't claim to be the party that knows what they are talking about


It's nice of you to say that, but clearly you haven't spent many years working with educated scientists. I have several decades of experience working with public and private sector leaders in scientific areas, and no one in my field is so absolutely convinced of any theory such as the ones you mention. Climate change isn't my field, so I don't have a personal position. But scientists who take political positions (I know some) are not the ones to be listened to. A real scientist will be data-centric only.
 
2012-09-02 08:07:30 PM  

bunner: Meanniss: Baby boomers started as hippies aged into yuppies and now have become guppies. Thats progress.

Wanna know how I know you got most of your 20th c. American history from Time Life?


I got my 20th c. American history from living it. I am 50 I grew up at the tail end of the boomers. I have watched people I know make these transitions. A large portion of boomers started out as Idealist turn into consumerist and now have become willing to eat their young if it will keep them fat and secure.
 
2012-09-02 08:10:01 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

4) I want to keep fighting the whackjobs in the GOP who have taken the party in a direction it should never have gone. Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion. It may be a religion I share, but it's not a religion I believe should be removing free will by creating laws against sins that are God's to punish.

I've heard this argument more than once from Republicans posting in this thread. My question for you is this:

Good on you for staying in the Republican Party and fighting the good fight from within. Vote in the primaries for moderate, traditional conservatives.

Now what happens in the general election if the wackjob is the Republican candidate. Romney (if he has any personal convictions whatsoever) may be a moderate, but he's convinced me that he will sign whatever legislation the Tea Party Congress places on his desk. Do you "hold your nose and vote for the sane Democrat" or are you going to vote for the Republican anyway, even those he's the sort of person you're remaining in the party to fight against?


I don't know how Romney will govern. What he says and what he has done in the past are at odds, and part of me wants to believe he'll govern closer to what I believe than what the Tea Party believes. This primary has been tough. Gingrich is an untrustworthy douche who has zero scruples. Santorum is too revolting to vote for. The rest of the field was pretty worthless. So Romney v. Obama? If one looks to history, they're pretty similar. So the question is whether I want to see Congress' agenda realized, or do I want continued gridlock. I haven't decided. I might vote for Johnson to help send a message to the GOP.
 
2012-09-02 08:11:44 PM  

austerity101: Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

[...]

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

I don't understand why being pro-life or pro-choice should have anything to do with a political party--believing something is wrong and wanting it to be illegal are two different things. The problem is, when you make abortion illegal, it gets worse--women have more of them, and much more dangerously, putting their lives (to say nothing of the fetuses') in significant peril.

Whatever your personal opinion on abortion, your choices are 1) make it illegal and let women die from the ones they will get regardless of the law or 2) make them legal and regulated so that they can be as safe as possible for the women who will get them, since they will get them.


I have never seen evidence supporting an assertion that making abortions illegal increases the frequency of abortions.
 
2012-09-02 08:12:08 PM  

Mugato: Ricardo Klement: 3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy

Doesn't that go against the whole "pro-life, anti-death penalty" thing?

Well anyway, at least you presented your reasoning in a reasoned manner, even if a lot of it was back handed compliments to the party at best.


It's odd that some of the most hawkish pols nowadays are supported by people whose attitude is "Let them fix their own damn countries"...a pure an isolationism as we had before WWI.

Do people not even listen to themselves talk?
 
2012-09-02 08:12:45 PM  

parkthebus: I was going to sponsor you for this post, but I see you're a Totalfarker already. What you wrote is almost exactly what I believe, and I give you big props for posting between the FarkLibTM hate machine comments.


Thanks! I've been happy to see how many Republicans and former Republicans feel similarly on Fark.
 
2012-09-02 08:12:58 PM  
Kids? The *point* of this whole free election fandango tango isn't to actually effect change or choose a better sock puppet CEO. The point is to give the illusion that we have any say in how things are run at all. It's the consolation prize for showing up at the Ongoing Con Festival™. It's the hot cocoa kit gift box with the freeze dried marshmallows. It's the talking Mickey Mouse plush animal.

This is the government.

www.thenader.com

You? You get back to work. And vote early and vote often. And CHEER FOR YOUR TEAM!

America is a business. And that business is moving to a new storefront. And you ain't got sh*t to say about it except how much you're willing to take to help pack the truck. Nor do I.
 
2012-09-02 08:14:36 PM  

Ricardo Klement: austerity101: Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

[...]

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

I don't understand why being pro-life or pro-choice should have anything to do with a political party--believing something is wrong and wanting it to be illegal are two different things. The problem is, when you make abortion illegal, it gets worse--women have more of them, and much more dangerously, putting their lives (to say nothing of the fetuses') in significant peril.

Whatever your personal opinion on abortion, your choices are 1) make it illegal and let women die from the ones they will get regardless of the law or 2) make them legal and regulated so that they can be as safe as possible for the women who will get them, since they will get them.

I have never seen evidence supporting an assertion that making abortions illegal increases the frequency of abortions.


Then look at teenage pregnancy rates in pro-life crazy Mississippi. Then look at welfare rates there.

The GOP: why solve a problem when you've got Jesus?
 
2012-09-02 08:14:48 PM  

Meanniss: I got my 20th c. American history from living it. I am 50 I grew up at the tail end of the boomers. I have watched people I know make these transitions. A large portion of boomers started out as Idealist turn into consumerist and now have become willing to eat their young if it will keep them fat and secure.


I was 50, once. I saw the same movie but I think I was sitting a little further back from the screen. There's a lot more to it than the broad stroke, sound bite summation, IMHO.
 
2012-09-02 08:14:53 PM  

bunner: America is a business. And that business is moving to a new storefront. And you ain't got sh*t to say about it except how much you're willing to take to help pack the truck. Nor do I.


/thread.
 
2012-09-02 08:16:20 PM  

Ricardo Klement: There are pro-life atheists. And while I'm not an atheist, I came to my conclusion without the need to resort to religious arguments. Whether a fetus is a person is not something where the answer seems obvious to me. I'm actually for abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, which sometimes is only discovered in the last trimester. I'm not an absolutist and I'm open to the discussion. I'm not actually comfortable banning the morning after pill, so my pro-lifeness is not nearly so strong as the GOP's has been in general. But you may be right: I haven't developed a Grand Unification Theory of my positions. In my defense, I bet that's rare for anyone.



Then what's the rationale? Biology is rife with miscarriage, induced abortion, abandonment of offspring, and so on, even infanticide. I'm not advocating callousness or willful, unnecessary abuse, but am pointing out that these things often occur in nature. Sanctity, soul, the specialness of human life, these ideas are religious in origin. Please also note that morality and fairness are not.
 
2012-09-02 08:19:39 PM  

intelligent comment below: Ricardo Klement: My economics education leaves me unconvinced that Keynesian economics can work. The math doesn't seem to support it


First I doubt you actually have a real economics education. And if you did, you sure wouldn't be complaining about the most tried and tested economic theory and compare it to supply side Austrian economics.

Ricardo Klement: 3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy. This means, of course, I'm no libertarian isolationist. My hawkishness is not without limits. For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but was not against an impeachment investigation for his being wrong about Iraq. (That's generous. He royally pissed me off.) Anyway, that means I tend to be at odds with Democrats on defense spending.

So why aren't you a fan of Obama's foreign policy? And why is cutting defense spending from cold war levels so bad?

Spending more than the next 27 nations while 24 are your allies is not fiscally responsible nor even useful for real defense


Austrian and Classic economics are not the same thing, though they're pretty close. My economics comes from UVA, which has a mix of opinions. After each additional econ class, I felt a desire to learn more because there's more to learn, especially since I was often left with the question, "OK, so you show why Keynes is wrong. So why do such intelligent economists believe in his theory and that which flows from it?" So far, I haven't had a chance to have dinner with Paul Krugman to give him a chance to convince me. The man's not a moron by any stretch (although he has said some things that go completely against some fundamental economics in the last decade). He also needs to label his farking axes!

I'm actually not particularly disappointed in Obama's foreign policy. History will tell us what went on behind the scenes and whether he is worthy of praise.

As far as spending, we spend so much in part because we want to a: minimize our troops dying b: minimize killing people we don't mean to kill. When your cost per soldier is an order of magnitude higher than your competitors just on personal equipment like body armor and first-aid kits, it rapidly becomes easy to have a huge budget even when your raw troop numbers are actually not that high.
 
2012-09-02 08:20:27 PM  

Ricardo Klement: So Romney v. Obama? If one looks to history, they're pretty similar. So the question is whether I want to see Congress' agenda realized, or do I want continued gridlock.


Well, only one of them is running on the promise to keep me separated from my partner.
 
2012-09-02 08:21:26 PM  

Ricardo Klement: austerity101: Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

[...]

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

I don't understand why being pro-life or pro-choice should have anything to do with a political party--believing something is wrong and wanting it to be illegal are two different things. The problem is, when you make abortion illegal, it gets worse--women have more of them, and much more dangerously, putting their lives (to say nothing of the fetuses') in significant peril.

Whatever your personal opinion on abortion, your choices are 1) make it illegal and let women die from the ones they will get regardless of the law or 2) make them legal and regulated so that they can be as safe as possible for the women who will get them, since they will get them.

I have never seen evidence supporting an assertion that making abortions illegal increases the frequency of abortions.


...because if abortions are illegal then there is no way to accurately track their occurrence. Actually, making abortions illegal decreases the frequency of "abortions" (i.e. only the ones officially allowed to protect the life of the mother); but it greatly increases the number of criminal actions leading to the death of a fetus. It also increases the number of fatalities due to "self-induced" criminal actions leading to the death of a fetus.

You should try to set your strawmen up so they're not so easy to burn down.
 
2012-09-02 08:21:48 PM  

WorldCitizen: Ricardo Klement: So Romney v. Obama? If one looks to history, they're pretty similar. So the question is whether I want to see Congress' agenda realized, or do I want continued gridlock.

Well, only one of them is running on the promise to keep me separated from my partner.


Not his problem.

America: Liberty and justice... for me!
 
2012-09-02 08:22:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Mugato: Ricardo Klement: 3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy

Doesn't that go against the whole "pro-life, anti-death penalty" thing?

Well anyway, at least you presented your reasoning in a reasoned manner, even if a lot of it was back handed compliments to the party at best.

It's odd that some of the most hawkish pols nowadays are supported by people whose attitude is "Let them fix their own damn countries"...a pure an isolationism as we had before WWI.

Do people not even listen to themselves talk?


I'm actually for foreign aid because exports go up the richer other countries are, and you can help get that started with some capital expenditures - so long as they're not corrupt. Build a road in some backwards place and it eventually helps you.
 
2012-09-02 08:23:37 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Mugato: Ricardo Klement: 3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy

Doesn't that go against the whole "pro-life, anti-death penalty" thing?

Well anyway, at least you presented your reasoning in a reasoned manner, even if a lot of it was back handed compliments to the party at best.

It's odd that some of the most hawkish pols nowadays are supported by people whose attitude is "Let them fix their own damn countries"...a pure an isolationism as we had before WWI.

Do people not even listen to themselves talk?


Woodrow Wilson, Too Proud to Fight!
 
2012-09-02 08:23:47 PM  

Ricardo Klement: so long as they're not corrupt.


So, Mars?
 
2012-09-02 08:24:27 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

1) My economics education leaves me unconvinced that Keynesian economics can work. The math doesn't seem to support it, although I can appreciate the point of view and the argument that, "...we're all dead in the long-run." And while my economic puritanism runs afoul of Republicans when it comes to funding things like the NIH, NASA, and Department of Education, it's still closer to what the GOP at least pays lip-service to than what the Democratic Party believes. This doesn't mean I think that Democrats are morons. We just disagree.

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy. This means, of course, I'm no libertarian isolationist. My hawkishness is not without limits. For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but was not against an impeachment investigation for his being wrong about Iraq. (That's generous. He royally pissed me off.) Anyway, that means I tend to be at odds with Democrats on defense spending.

4) I want to keep fighting the whackjobs in the GOP who have taken the party in a direction it should never have gone. Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion. It may be a religion I share, but it's not a religion I believe should be removing free will by creating laws against sins that are God's to punish. 

That's the top reasons. I reserve the right to have more opinions.


We really need you around here. I don't agree with a lot of what you said, but I can take you seriously. Most people on the right at this point are just raving lunatics who lash out at everything that isn't in lock-step with them. It's becoming harder and harder for me to avoid just dismissing people as soon as they say "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a conservative." So please, keep posting in these threads because I know I'm not the only one that really needs to have some honest debate with people that still identify as a conservative.
 
2012-09-02 08:25:20 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Gyrfalcon: Mugato: Ricardo Klement: 3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy

Doesn't that go against the whole "pro-life, anti-death penalty" thing?

Well anyway, at least you presented your reasoning in a reasoned manner, even if a lot of it was back handed compliments to the party at best.

It's odd that some of the most hawkish pols nowadays are supported by people whose attitude is "Let them fix their own damn countries"...a pure an isolationism as we had before WWI.

Do people not even listen to themselves talk?

I'm actually for foreign aid because exports go up the richer other countries are, and you can help get that started with some capital expenditures - so long as they're not corrupt. Build a road in some backwards place and it eventually helps you.


As a former foreign aid worker, trust me, they're all corrupt. I saw a road not get built 5 times as money got stolen by contractors and local officials.

//lib who thinks foreign aid should be primarily human resources
 
2012-09-02 08:26:03 PM  

Ricardo Klement: austerity101: Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

[...]

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

I don't understand why being pro-life or pro-choice should have anything to do with a political party--believing something is wrong and wanting it to be illegal are two different things. The problem is, when you make abortion illegal, it gets worse--women have more of them, and much more dangerously, putting their lives (to say nothing of the fetuses') in significant peril.

Whatever your personal opinion on abortion, your choices are 1) make it illegal and let women die from the ones they will get regardless of the law or 2) make them legal and regulated so that they can be as safe as possible for the women who will get them, since they will get them.

I have never seen evidence supporting an assertion that making abortions illegal increases the frequency of abortions.


At the risk of sounding rude, you must not have dug very deep, then.

There's this recent study from the Lancet, for starters, which found that there is a correlation between abortion rates and conservatism of legislation.

As for the US specifically, it's very difficult to ascertain historical abortion rates since the number of abortions historically have been egregiously underreported, and of course illegal abortions are extremely difficult to estimate.

More importantly, blocking legal access makes women get abortions in unsafe environments, and fatality rates from those abortions for the women are much, much higher. This information is also widely available, both from this Lancet article as well as the WHO and elsewhere.
 
2012-09-02 08:26:06 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

1) My economics education leaves me unconvinced that Keynesian economics can work. The math doesn't seem to support it, although I can appreciate the point of view and the argument that, "...we're all dead in the long-run." And while my economic puritanism runs afoul of Republicans when it comes to funding things like the NIH, NASA, and Department of Education, it's still closer to what the GOP at least pays lip-service to than what the Democratic Party believes. This doesn't mean I think that Democrats are morons. We just disagree.

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy. This means, of course, I'm no libertarian isolationist. My hawkishness is not without limits. For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but was not against an impeachment investigation for his being wrong about Iraq. (That's generous. He royally pissed me off.) Anyway, that means I tend to be at odds with Democrats on defense spending.

4) I want to keep fighting the whackjobs in the GOP who have taken the party in a direction it should never have gone. Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion. It may be a religion I share, but it's not a religion I believe should be removing free will by creating laws against sins that are God's to punish. 

That's the top reasons. I reserve the right to have more opinions.

We really need you around here. I don't agree with a lot of what you said, but I can take you seriously. Most people on the right at this point are just raving lu ...


Seconded.
 
2012-09-02 08:26:36 PM  

Snark Shark II: I think it's better to be moderate and determine things on a case-by-case basis rather than always say Republicans are bad, Democrats are good and vice versa.


Oh, definitely. As long as we aren't deluding ourselves into believing that the Republican party is weighing things carefully on a case by case basis, I think it's better if we as a people still do it.
 
2012-09-02 08:27:19 PM  

bunner: Kids? The *point* of this whole free election fandango tango isn't to actually effect change or choose a better sock puppet CEO. The point is to give the illusion that we have any say in how things are run at all. It's the consolation prize for showing up at the Ongoing Con Festival™. It's the hot cocoa kit gift box with the freeze dried marshmallows. It's the talking Mickey Mouse plush animal.

This is the government.

[www.thenader.com image 700x302]

You? You get back to work. And vote early and vote often. And CHEER FOR YOUR TEAM!

America is a business. And that business is moving to a new storefront. And you ain't got sh*t to say about it except how much you're willing to take to help pack the truck. Nor do I.


Mr. Carlin's "Illusion of Choice" statement
 
2012-09-02 08:27:55 PM  

runcible spork: Ricardo Klement: There are pro-life atheists. And while I'm not an atheist, I came to my conclusion without the need to resort to religious arguments. Whether a fetus is a person is not something where the answer seems obvious to me. I'm actually for abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, which sometimes is only discovered in the last trimester. I'm not an absolutist and I'm open to the discussion. I'm not actually comfortable banning the morning after pill, so my pro-lifeness is not nearly so strong as the GOP's has been in general. But you may be right: I haven't developed a Grand Unification Theory of my positions. In my defense, I bet that's rare for anyone.

Then what's the rationale? Biology is rife with miscarriage, induced abortion, abandonment of offspring, and so on, even infanticide. I'm not advocating callousness or willful, unnecessary abuse, but am pointing out that these things often occur in nature. Sanctity, soul, the specialness of human life, these ideas are religious in origin. Please also note that morality and fairness are not.


It's hard to have an abortion discussion without seeming callous or making comparisons people will argue are mean-spirited. But in the same spirit as your observation that things like this happen in nature, I'll point out bears maul humans in nature, from time to time, but that doesn't mean I should let other humans maul humans. Essentially, this comes down to, "When does life start?" Most people aren't comfortable with on-demand abortion late in the third trimester, so obviously most of us appear to agree it's before birth. Where's that line? I start getting uncomfortable earlier than most pro-choice people. Does that make sense?
 
2012-09-02 08:29:22 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Ricardo Klement: So Romney v. Obama? If one looks to history, they're pretty similar. So the question is whether I want to see Congress' agenda realized, or do I want continued gridlock. I haven't decided. I might vote for Johnson to help send a message to the GOP.


Fair enough.

So if there isn't too much difference between Romney's historical positions and Obama's current positions, then it seems to me that - unless you believe in the "Obama only Republicans can see" - President Obama is a safer bet to continue pursuing centrist policies.
 
2012-09-02 08:30:40 PM  

WorldCitizen: Ricardo Klement: So Romney v. Obama? If one looks to history, they're pretty similar. So the question is whether I want to see Congress' agenda realized, or do I want continued gridlock.

Well, only one of them is running on the promise to keep me separated from my partner.


That's a very good point, and it's one I disagree with the GOP on both in policy and even in principle. I fully support your right to get married and that issue ALONE might be enough to get me to vote for Obama instead of Gary Johnson or Romney. It seems to me that it simply overshadows all other issues because of the damage the fight against your rights does.
 
2012-09-02 08:31:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984:

Is that before or after "conservatism," "non-sequitur" and "hyperbole"?


Are you always this humorless, or is it just when someone points out something that you don't like?
 
2012-09-02 08:32:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Ricardo Klement: austerity101: Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

[...]

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

I don't understand why being pro-life or pro-choice should have anything to do with a political party--believing something is wrong and wanting it to be illegal are two different things. The problem is, when you make abortion illegal, it gets worse--women have more of them, and much more dangerously, putting their lives (to say nothing of the fetuses') in significant peril.

Whatever your personal opinion on abortion, your choices are 1) make it illegal and let women die from the ones they will get regardless of the law or 2) make them legal and regulated so that they can be as safe as possible for the women who will get them, since they will get them.

I have never seen evidence supporting an assertion that making abortions illegal increases the frequency of abortions.

...because if abortions are illegal then there is no way to accurately track their occurrence. Actually, making abortions illegal decreases the frequency of "abortions" (i.e. only the ones officially allowed to protect the life of the mother); but it greatly increases the number of criminal actions leading to the death of a fetus. It also increases the number of fatalities due to "self-induced" criminal actions leading to the death of a fetus.

You should try to set your strawmen up so they're not so easy to burn down.


If they're so hard to track, how come you're so sure of the numbers?

And what, exactly, was the straw man I set up?
 
2012-09-02 08:32:50 PM  

bunner: Ricardo Klement: so long as they're not corrupt.

So, Mars?


Point taken. But I really meant it as a relative measure.
 
2012-09-02 08:34:33 PM  

Ricardo Klement: bunner: Ricardo Klement: so long as they're not corrupt.

So, Mars?

Point taken. But I really meant it as a relative measure.


Incest is never a good idea.
 
2012-09-02 08:35:03 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Point taken. But I really meant it as a relative measure.


If we have learned on thing from the business of business, it's that relatively corrupt is like relatively pregnant.
 
2012-09-02 08:35:24 PM  

Ricardo Klement: WorldCitizen: Ricardo Klement: So Romney v. Obama? If one looks to history, they're pretty similar. So the question is whether I want to see Congress' agenda realized, or do I want continued gridlock.

Well, only one of them is running on the promise to keep me separated from my partner.

That's a very good point, and it's one I disagree with the GOP on both in policy and even in principle. I fully support your right to get married and that issue ALONE might be enough to get me to vote for Obama instead of Gary Johnson or Romney. It seems to me that it simply overshadows all other issues because of the damage the fight against your rights does.


Well, I know my partner and I would appreciate it; living on separate continents and through Skype blows. And I appreciate your general support.
 
2012-09-02 08:37:28 PM  

Ricardo Klement: I fully support your right to get married and that issue ALONE might be enough to get me to vote for Obama instead of Gary Johnson or Romney.


In my fantasy world, the GOP has kicked out the Christian Right and Gary Johnson is their 2012 nominee. And I'm married to Scarlett Johansson.

As it stands, the GOP is just too damn scary to vote libertarian, as much as I agree with them.
 
2012-09-02 08:37:56 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Ricardo Klement: Let me tell you why I am Republican:

1) My economics education leaves me unconvinced that Keynesian economics can work. The math doesn't seem to support it, although I can appreciate the point of view and the argument that, "...we're all dead in the long-run." And while my economic puritanism runs afoul of Republicans when it comes to funding things like the NIH, NASA, and Department of Education, it's still closer to what the GOP at least pays lip-service to than what the Democratic Party believes. This doesn't mean I think that Democrats are morons. We just disagree.

2) I'm pro-life. Of course, that, too, runs afoul of the GOP because I am also against the death penalty. But while my position is unpopular, more often than not, it's usually met with begging the question assertions about women's bodies that are unconvincing. I'm not absolut or completely without doubts about my position, but being wrong about mine is less tragic than being wrong about the alternative view.

3) I'm hawkish on foreign policy. This means, of course, I'm no libertarian isolationist. My hawkishness is not without limits. For the record, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, but was not against an impeachment investigation for his being wrong about Iraq. (That's generous. He royally pissed me off.) Anyway, that means I tend to be at odds with Democrats on defense spending.

4) I want to keep fighting the whackjobs in the GOP who have taken the party in a direction it should never have gone. Namely, increasing government interference in our lives in the name of religion. It may be a religion I share, but it's not a religion I believe should be removing free will by creating laws against sins that are God's to punish. 

That's the top reasons. I reserve the right to have more opinions.

We really need you around here. I don't agree with a lot of what you said, but I can take you seriously. Most people on the right at this point are just raving lu ...


I actually came here because my Democrat housemate offered to pay for my totalfark if I did. I guess he wanted a non-lunatic on here but settled for me.
 
2012-09-02 08:39:00 PM  

Ricardo Klement: It's hard to have an abortion discussion without seeming callous or making comparisons people will argue are mean-spirited. But in the same spirit as your observation that things like this happen in nature, I'll point out bears maul humans in nature, from time to time, but that doesn't mean I should let other humans maul humans. Essentially, this comes down to, "When does life start?" Most people aren't comfortable with on-demand abortion late in the third trimester, so obviously most of us appear to agree it's before birth. Where's that line? I start getting uncomfortable earlier than most pro-choice people. Does that make sense?



More or less. I certainly wouldn't advocate late-term abortions except for cases with severe risk to the mother. First trimester, the earlier the better, is obviously the best approach when such a course is chosen. There's a difference between mere existence and sensate, sentient life. And no matter what, it's never a decision to be taken lightly. It's traumatic and upsetting how ever one looks at it. Those who suggest otherwise are callous and disingenuous.
 
2012-09-02 08:39:25 PM  

coeyagi: As a former foreign aid worker, trust me, they're all corrupt. I saw a road not get built 5 times as money got stolen by contractors and local officials.

//lib who thinks foreign aid should be primarily human resources


That's the real trick. Alas.
 
2012-09-02 08:40:02 PM  

austerity101: At the risk of sounding rude, you must not have dug very deep, then.

There's this recent study from the Lancet, for starters, which found that there is a correlation between abortion rates and conservatism of legislation.

As for the US specifically, it's very difficult to ascertain historical abortion rates since the number of abortions historically have been egregiously underreported, and of course illegal abortions are extremely difficult to estimate.

More importantly, blocking legal access makes women get abortions in unsafe environments, and fatality rates from those abortions for the women are much, much higher. This information is also widely available, both from this Lancet article as well as the WHO and elsewhere.


Will read.
 
2012-09-02 08:40:16 PM  

WorldCitizen: Ricardo Klement: WorldCitizen: Ricardo Klement: So Romney v. Obama? If one looks to history, they're pretty similar. So the question is whether I want to see Congress' agenda realized, or do I want continued gridlock.

Well, only one of them is running on the promise to keep me separated from my partner.

That's a very good point, and it's one I disagree with the GOP on both in policy and even in principle. I fully support your right to get married and that issue ALONE might be enough to get me to vote for Obama instead of Gary Johnson or Romney. It seems to me that it simply overshadows all other issues because of the damage the fight against your rights does.

Well, I know my partner and I would appreciate it; living on separate continents and through Skype blows. And I appreciate your general support.


I just hope that one day one of the national politicians stands up and says "Consenting adults? It's not anyone's business but theirs. If they wish to be legally joined? Good luck to them, I wish them all the best."

If only the closed minded came with closed mouths.
 
2012-09-02 08:40:55 PM  

Ricardo Klement: There are pro-life atheists. And while I'm not an atheist, I came to my conclusion without the need to resort to religious arguments. Whether a fetus is a person is not something where the answer seems obvious to me. I'm actually for abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, which sometimes is only discovered in the last trimester. I'm not an absolutist and I'm open to the discussion. I'm not actually comfortable banning the morning after pill, so my pro-lifeness is not nearly so strong as the GOP's has been in general. But you may be right: I haven't developed a Grand Unification Theory of my positions. In my defense, I bet that's rare for anyone.


I have never met a pro-life atheist. I have met atheists who dislike abortion and who would never want to have one, but never an atheist who believed firmly in outlawing it for everyone else. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, remember. It means leaving people the freedom to make the decision for themselves. Near as I can tell that's because atheists by and large don't believe in souls, only minds. Once you rule out the concept of the soul, there's nothing particularly special about a clump of cells that hasn't developed a nervous system yet, ethically and morally speaking. I suppose that there could well be completely pro-life atheists out there, but I'd rather expect them to be ideologues of a rather extreme sort in order to come up with a justification for their position given the lack of scientific support for it.

On another note, ethically, why is it different if the fetus is the result of rape or incest or not? The fetus didn't have any control over the circumstances of its conception. Asserting that abortion is OK in those circumstances is not logically consistent with valuing human life; if you claim the opposition to abortion is because life is sacred and fetuses are human with full rights you're in effect saying that because the mother was abused murder is acceptable.

And where do you draw the line for harm to the mother? Is abortion acceptable if she will suffer illness but not death? How much illness? What if she will be physically abused by her family and community otherwise? What if it's only emotional abuse? What if she will be thrown out of the house and denied an opportunity to complete high school and go to college? What if she's desperately poor already, the pregnancy is due to failed birth control and she can't afford to have the child because the pregnancy will interfere with her working to support herself? At some point it becomes arbitrary, and you are in effect saying you know better than that person what she needs to do to live her life. No matter where you draw the line, you can come up with a situation where you are harming someone without need in order to 'save' a clump of cells that hasn't differentiated yet. And I haven't even touched on the fact that you are dictating to that person what happens to their own body.

In effect, saying that abortion in the case of rape or incest is ok is tacitly admitting that abortion is not murder. That the fetus does not have full rights as a human being yet. So why else be against abortion, if not a sanctity of life argument? The only other consistent rationale is to punish women for having sex without authorization by a patriarchal hierarchy of some kind, usually religion. Under that position, abortion in the case of rape or incest is acceptable, because the woman involved didn't choose to have sex. However, abortion for a pregnancy that results from consensual sex can't be allowed, because the pregnancy is her fault for having sex, and so she should be forced to suffer the consequences. Note that this is also consistent with the general pro-life tendency to be against birth control.

I think these examples show why consistency of one's avowed philosophical and intellectual positions is important, as it's the only way to avoid hypocrisy and simultaneously adopting mutually exclusive positions. You're somewhat more consistent than most Republicans I have interacted with, but you've still got some rather glaring inconsistencies, as I have just elucidated.
 
2012-09-02 08:43:47 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: And I'm married to Scarlett Johansson Christiana Hendricks.


If you're going to dream, dream BIG.
 
2012-09-02 08:46:31 PM  

zappaisfrank: Republicans want less government for the same reason criminals want less cops.


Favorited!
 
2012-09-02 08:46:56 PM  

2wolves: ignatius_crumbcake: And I'm married to Scarlett Johansson Christiana Hendricks.

If you're going to dream, dream BIG.


Nah, Scarlett is 10 years younger and has more money.
 
2012-09-02 08:47:33 PM  

epoch_destroi: [oi48.tinypic.com image 627x419]


Such Photoshop skilz!!
 
2012-09-02 08:47:54 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: 2wolves: ignatius_crumbcake: And I'm married to Scarlett Johansson Christiana Hendricks.

If you're going to dream, dream BIG.

Nah, Scarlett is 10 years younger and has more money.


I'm in my 50s and don't care about the money.
 
2012-09-02 08:49:43 PM  

KiltedBastich: Ricardo Klement: There are pro-life atheists. And while I'm not an atheist, I came to my conclusion without the need to resort to religious arguments. Whether a fetus is a person is not something where the answer seems obvious to me. I'm actually for abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, which sometimes is only discovered in the last trimester. I'm not an absolutist and I'm open to the discussion. I'm not actually comfortable banning the morning after pill, so my pro-lifeness is not nearly so strong as the GOP's has been in general. But you may be right: I haven't developed a Grand Unification Theory of my positions. In my defense, I bet that's rare for anyone.

I have never met a pro-life atheist. I have met atheists who dislike abortion and who would never want to have one, but never an atheist who believed firmly in outlawing it for everyone else. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, remember. It means leaving people the freedom to make the decision for themselves. Near as I can tell that's because atheists by and large don't believe in souls, only minds. Once you rule out the concept of the soul, there's nothing particularly special about a clump of cells that hasn't developed a nervous system yet, ethically and morally speaking. I suppose that there could well be completely pro-life atheists out there, but I'd rather expect them to be ideologues of a rather extreme sort in order to come up with a justification for their position given the lack of scientific support for it.

On another note, ethically, why is it different if the fetus is the result of rape or incest or not? The fetus didn't have any control over the circumstances of its conception. Asserting that abortion is OK in those circumstances is not logically consistent with valuing human life; if you claim the opposition to abortion is because life is sacred and fetuses are human with full rights you're in effect saying that because the mother was abused murder is acceptable.

And where do ...


Well, I should note that you've made some assumptions, like my position on Rape and Incest exceptions. I'm not sure I'm prepared to address those issues at the moment, as most of what you said are things I've identified as needing clarification in my own mind, for mostly the reasons you point out. If you notice, I did say earlier the day-after pill doesn't bother me enough for me to be against it.
 
2012-09-02 08:49:58 PM  

eraser8:

Well, then maybe Thomas Jefferson being the first Democratic president is a good place to start, too, eh?


It is, yes!

Or, maybe referring back to 19th Century presidents to understand the principles of a 21st Century party isn't very smart.


Maybe. Or really, what does it matter what a starting point is. My initial point is that each 'party' has lost its way. Or didn't you read that part before you commented?

That may have been true at one time. It isn't true today.


Riiight. I believe that was also in my orginal point. Your statement is a much stronger, but same sentiment.

the.swartz: Tends to be a little more like "the government will provide you with what you need"


Well, if we look at the Democrats historically -- starting with the first Democrat, Thomas Jefferson -- the ideal was this: leave people alone.


Great. I was not there, or must have slept through that class.

The 20th Century Democratic Party was much more interventionist...but, "the government will provide you with what you need" was NEVER an ideal of the Democratic Party.

We can disagree here. Or, rather, I just don't know. And neither do you. No one does, for sure.

The programs supported by the Democrats never were intended to act a substitute for personal responsibility. And, in fact, they've never been that.

A lively debate, but only over a beer. Your "facts" do not align with much of what I understand.

Your answers indicate what you have imagined the party ideals are, rather than what they are -- either today or historically.

Perhaps any answer that did not wholly agre with your line of thinking would have brought the same result to this brief conversation.

But, the truth is, we don't have to guess or imagine what the parties stand for. Each party, in fact, publishes a list of its ideals every four years in a document usually called the party platform.

Yay! Most sensible thing I have read all day! Very close to what I wanted to articulate in my original statement..

/as an aside, I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican

I am not, either. Nor did I ever claim to be.
 
2012-09-02 08:53:44 PM  

buckler: As it is, we're just getting a bunch of yahoos screaming at each other, and trying to silence each other. That's not the way it's supposed to work. I think this is why the Founders came out as opposed to political parties in the first place.


Brilliant. Nicely stated. Most accurate thing I have seen in any political thread.
 
2012-09-02 08:56:19 PM  

FuturePastNow: RoyBatty: I disagree with these people but I won't insult them, or any of us, by merely rotely, and cheaply, insisting they are stupid, irrational, greedy, brain-washed, corrupt. And I don't think you advance anything, either discourse, or liberal politics, or any of your political goals by doing the same.This is a farked up thread -- NPR gave us the opportunity to listen and learn and you and the rest just spit in that.I read all fifteen quotes. Does that make me qualified to think these people are stupid, greedy, brain-washed morons?


No, I really think it doesn't.

I think it entitles you to disagree with them, but I think it's hubristic to assume you know more than they do about why they make the choices they do, just as it would be wrong of them to look at your choices and decide you must be some socialist loving, America hating, anti-colonialist traitor.

I've learned a ton at FARK by listening to people I disagree with and learning in fact they can be rational, consistent even as I think they are wrong.
 
2012-09-02 08:57:17 PM  
RicardoKlemnet: On paper, and without the recent backtracking, back peddling and retconning by his campaign, Romney and Obama may look somewhat similar. Healthcare plans, very similar. Romney signed marriage equality into law. The difference is, Romney does what is expedient at the time, and then disavows any responsibility. Worse, when in control of other peoples' money, he tends to be quite good at distributing to friends. From his time with the Board at UMaine. From his time with the Olympics. From his time as Governor. He is fantastic at giving away money that isn't his, and getting other people to pay for the privilege of getting saddled with good sized debts for personal goodwill.

My problems with Romney go back to the days before he headed to Utah. His favorite pick for Chancellor of the UMaine system got the most No Confidence votes of any Chancellor in the UMaine system's history--who implemented a LOT of great building projects that met current needs for the schools, yet, left the system on the hook for expansions, that further put the system to foot the bill for those projects, as opposed to simply allowing for growth. That wasn't a glitch, that was a feature. The same contractors who got those projects, were then on a preferred list to continue those expansions, and thus he delivered long after he left for Utah. This is a similar feature in how Romney operates. Build today, so that you will still have to build tomorrow, and probably long after he's gone. This is no where near good Conservatism, but it IS a feature of feeding off the largess of the taxpayers. He LIKES to soak a bill, that makes him look good while he's in office, and take a LOT of credit for all that he's done, even if it's nowhere near enough.

He only signed the bill for marriage equality, because it was a losing issue to oppose. Romney could have been over ridden by the state Senate, and that would have been a losing proposition for his Presidential bid--something he's been keen to avoid discussing.

As a Mass resident, I watched him preside over plunging schools, and do little to even attempt to rectify things. He likes to claim a lot, except his own failures. This is not a bug, it is also a feature. His recent "flexibility" with the truth is NOT terribly recent. It is a feature, and while I joke about Schrodinger's Candidate a lot, he has ALWAYS been on both sides of an issue for as long as possible. He is a man with a highly evolved sense of "situational ethics" so long as by that you mean, "what situation can I meld what I've done with what the people in front of me want." He is about as far from principled as you can get, just an amorphous blob that will try to retconn his past, and that is not something I ever want to see in office. In any case.

From his spending policy, to his "advanced" situational ethics, we cannot afford to put this amoral opportunist anywhere near the White House. We can't afford a Romney Presidency. Our grandkids can't afford a Romney Presidency. As bad as GW was with the handing over Federal funds at every opportunity, Romney will make GW look like a babe in the woods. A Romney Presidency isn't just for sale, it's essentially been considered an investment by folks who already have profited heavily from the previous debacle and feeding frenzy of the GW's economic policy--and disastrous debts that he approved, and the folks who are looking to put Romney in office are putting large amounts of cash on him as an investment, that they will CERTAINLY expect a return on.
 
2012-09-02 08:57:20 PM  

runcible spork: Ricardo Klement: It's hard to have an abortion discussion without seeming callous or making comparisons people will argue are mean-spirited. But in the same spirit as your observation that things like this happen in nature, I'll point out bears maul humans in nature, from time to time, but that doesn't mean I should let other humans maul humans. Essentially, this comes down to, "When does life start?" Most people aren't comfortable with on-demand abortion late in the third trimester, so obviously most of us appear to agree it's before birth. Where's that line? I start getting uncomfortable earlier than most pro-choice people. Does that make sense?

More or less. I certainly wouldn't advocate late-term abortions except for cases with severe risk to the mother. First trimester, the earlier the better, is obviously the best approach when such a course is chosen. There's a difference between mere existence and sensate, sentient life. And no matter what, it's never a decision to be taken lightly. It's traumatic and upsetting how ever one looks at it. Those who suggest otherwise are callous and disingenuous.


OK, but what about late term abortions where the mother's life isn't in serious danger, but her mental health is? What if she's just learned, for instance, she's carrying an anencephalic baby (if you can call it that) and the thing she's going to have to carry and deliver is about as alive as a baby-shaped piece of meat? What if she's one of those poor deluded teenagers who is JUST SURE she isn't pregnant, and promises to kill herself if you make her have a baby? (I saw a documentary that indicated a lot of late-term abortions are done for just this reason--the mother is herself a child and is in complete denial about the baby) Can we allow late-term abortions where these conditions apply, or only where the mother's physical health is at stake?
 
2012-09-02 09:02:15 PM  

the.swartz: buckler: As it is, we're just getting a bunch of yahoos screaming at each other, and trying to silence each other. That's not the way it's supposed to work. I think this is why the Founders came out as opposed to political parties in the first place.

Brilliant. Nicely stated. Most accurate thing I have seen in any political thread.


Why I have no one on ignore.
 
2012-09-02 09:04:59 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Well, I should note that you've made some assumptions, like my position on Rape and Incest exceptions. I'm not sure I'm prepared to address those issues at the moment, as most of what you said are things I've identified as needing clarification in my own mind, for mostly the reasons you point out. If you notice, I did say earlier the day-after pill doesn't bother me enough for me to be against it.


I may have presented those out of the order I had intended when initially putting together my thoughts on the issue. It is reflective of the general idea of exceptions in the case of harm to the mother. I will note that the morning after pill is routinely prescribed for rape victims in many areas.

That said, I hope your personal deliberations on these topics bring you to a point of consistency. I find that personally I need to keep in mind that whether or not I personally find something is distasteful or unfavorable has no bearing on whether it is legally or ethically permissible. I'm never going to like the idea of abortion, but I will never be anything but pro-choice about it. There's lots of things I find personally problematic that I would never seek to have outlawed - because no one individual or group should ever be able to unilaterally dictate to society at large about issues of personal conscience.
 
2012-09-02 09:10:52 PM  

Gyrfalcon: OK, but what about late term abortions where the mother's life isn't in serious danger, but her mental health is? What if she's just learned, for instance, she's carrying an anencephalic baby (if you can call it that) and the thing she's going to have to carry and deliver is about as alive as a baby-shaped piece of meat? What if she's one of those poor deluded teenagers who is JUST SURE she isn't pregnant, and promises to kill herself if you make her have a baby? (I saw a documentary that indicated a lot of late-term abortions are done for just this reason--the mother is herself a child and is in complete denial about the baby) Can we allow late-term abortions where these conditions apply, or only where the mother's physical health is at stake?



Mental health is just as real as physical health, although it is often more difficult to diagnose. Without intending to sound too pro-eugenics, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to aborting seriously compromised fetuses. As for the teenagers-in-denial phenomenon, that's something I wasn't aware of, at least not as being so prevalent. It's trickier, but it strikes me as being somewhat frivolous and arising out of ignorance, willful or otherwise. Provisionally, I don't believe a near-term fetus should be the victim there. I'd be okay with the mother either raising it herself (but not being forced to) or having the child put up for adoption. If someone can be so frivolous about something so serious, I'm fairly confident she'd get over it without too much trouble.
 
2012-09-02 09:11:14 PM  

Gyrfalcon: What if she's one of those poor deluded teenagers who is JUST SURE she isn't pregnant, and promises to kill herself if you make her have a baby?


Shouldn't we take some responsibility for the fact that abortion as a convenience should be deemed sacrosanct in a nation where a packet of three rubbers is about 2.83 and Airplane Hangar Mart? Sure, choice is important, but so is pulling your head out of your ass a little. Even teenagers.
 
2012-09-02 09:19:03 PM  

bunner: Gyrfalcon: What if she's one of those poor deluded teenagers who is JUST SURE she isn't pregnant, and promises to kill herself if you make her have a baby?

Shouldn't we take some responsibility for the fact that abortion as a convenience should be deemed sacrosanct in a nation where a packet of three rubbers is about 2.83 and Airplane Hangar Mart? Sure, choice is important, but so is pulling your head out of your ass a little. Even teenagers.


As I understand it...it's been a while since I saw it....these are the kinds of girls who, for whatever reason, wouldn't even be able to get rubbers, much less be able to use them. Mentally challenged, girls who still think a virgin can't get pregnant, extremely religious types, things like that. These weren't girls who had a pretty good idea what would happen, these are girls who apparently had NO IDEA they could even get pregnant, much less that they were. There was more going on than just "not wanting" to be pregnant, but the same kind of mental block that lets a 70-lb anorexic look in the mirror and see a fat chick.

They're a very small subset of what's a very rare procedure anyway; but it was interesting in that these are the ones we don't even think about, in all the brou-ha-ha about responsibility and choice and what have you.
 
2012-09-02 09:21:34 PM  
Ugh.

Just, ugh.
 
2012-09-02 09:22:55 PM  

Gyrfalcon: They're a very small subset of what's a very rare procedure anyway; but it was interesting in that these are the ones we don't even think about, in all the brou-ha-ha about responsibility and choice and what have you.


So we should build a house with 20 out of 300 million bricks because... : /

There is a fallacy extant in American culture that states that, should you meet certain social, gender, economic, ethnic or age criteria, that you are entitled to shh*t were you eat - and, subsequently, where just about everybody else eats - up to a certain point. The problem is that it promotes the 50' feet deep barrel of absolute horsesh*t notion that success in life is about getting away with things. That's the message, folks. That's the piss in the punch. That's why we can't have nice things.

Because, you see...

The only problem with shaping a nation to serve victims is that it doesn't do anything about the predators and everybody is trying to get fitted for a victim suit. You run out of everything but predators and victims.
 
2012-09-02 09:22:57 PM  

zappaisfrank: [www.politifake.org image 640x511]


Nail, head: you hit it!
 
2012-09-02 09:46:00 PM  

parkthebus: It's nice of you to say that, but clearly you haven't spent many years working with educated scientists. I have several decades of experience working with public and private sector leaders in scientific areas, and no one in my field is so absolutely convinced of any theory such as the ones you mention. Climate change isn't my field, so I don't have a personal position. But scientists who take political positions (I know some) are not the ones to be listened to. A real scientist will be data-centric only.



No, they all are convinced that the standard theories are right. That doesn't mean they won't keep testing them, but to pretend the answers are still up in the air is ridiculous. And no, you haven't worked with scientists unless we're talking about on the oil rig, since that's obviously where your conservative nonsense comes from.
 
2012-09-02 09:46:43 PM  

Vangor: The Troof hurts: The present iteration isn't, but there is always The chance that we could get to that ideal. It will never happen in the democratic party.

Not sure why you believe this. Neither party has shown itself to be the party of smaller government in recent history, and at least one party is unwilling to present itself as such. Being hypocritical in this, the Republicans have essentially shown contempt for the notion of smaller government, just as liars who claim honesty show contempt for the notion of truth. To me, this says the Democratic Party is likelier to begin whittling down the size of government.


And, in fact, the Obama administration has seen the largest decline in government jobs in recent history. That's at least step 1.
 
2012-09-02 09:47:03 PM  

diadelsuerte:

So you are basically pigeonholing half of the population as either mentally unstable and/or stupid. How compassionate of you.


No, I didn't say that. Not at all.

There are vast numbers of highly intelligent people out in the world-- a few of them WAY smarter than you or me-- who for some reason or other cling to beliefs that are clearly and demonstrably wrong, wrong, wrong.

Luckily, most of us humans somehow manage to "wall off" this bit of craziness so it doesn't seriously screw up our lives most of the time.

But when people's delusions are in the area of how a government should be run, and also those people hold elected office or vote, then there's damn near no limit on the amount of tragic damage that can be done.

IOW, smart people do stupid things all the farking time.

Unfortunately for all of us, the Republican leadership has gotten VERY good at manipulating people's fears, ignorance, and delusions to generate votes that ultimately harm everybody but a tiny number of very wealthy sociopaths.

That includes smart people, too.
 
2012-09-02 09:49:00 PM  

the.swartz: buckler: As it is, we're just getting a bunch of yahoos screaming at each other, and trying to silence each other. That's not the way it's supposed to work. I think this is why the Founders came out as opposed to political parties in the first place.

Brilliant. Nicely stated. Most accurate thing I have seen in any political thread.



The founders were also opposed to a standing permanent army but that doesn't stop society from accepting it today
 
2012-09-02 09:50:40 PM  

parkthebus: I am a Republican because I was a dirty hippie in college but quickly discovered the liberals had no idea what they were taking about. My years of experience in the real world has only buffered this perception. Neither side is always right, but on balance the GOP gets it right far more than the Democrats. Intellectually I'm more of a libertarian, but the Republicans get the fiscal and world issues right more than the Democrats IMHO.


You mean like WMDs? You mean like reducing the deficit by cutting taxes?
 
2012-09-02 09:54:44 PM  

bunner: Gyrfalcon: They're a very small subset of what's a very rare procedure anyway; but it was interesting in that these are the ones we don't even think about, in all the brou-ha-ha about responsibility and choice and what have you.

So we should build a house with 20 out of 300 million bricks because... : /

There is a fallacy extant in American culture that states that, should you meet certain social, gender, economic, ethnic or age criteria, that you are entitled to shh*t were you eat - and, subsequently, where just about everybody else eats - up to a certain point. The problem is that it promotes the 50' feet deep barrel of absolute horsesh*t notion that success in life is about getting away with things. That's the message, folks. That's the piss in the punch. That's why we can't have nice things.

Because, you see...

The only problem with shaping a nation to serve victims is that it doesn't do anything about the predators and everybody is trying to get fitted for a victim suit. You run out of everything but predators and victims.


Yes - and those generalities apply 100% of the time, in imaginary worlds populated by stern-faced, helmwt-haired, but sexy young women who run railroads (that they inherited) all by themselves.
In the real world, we have both strong, fortunate people who need to be allowed to thrive and grow, and weak, unfortunate people who need the assistance of the rest of us.
I believe that we are sufficiently capable and decent beings tha we can do both of those things.
Don't you?
 
2012-09-02 09:59:16 PM  

Kibbler: parkthebus: I am a Republican because I was a dirty hippie in college but quickly discovered the liberals had no idea what they were taking about. My years of experience in the real world has only buffered this perception. Neither side is always right, but on balance the GOP gets it right far more than the Democrats. Intellectually I'm more of a libertarian, but the Republicans get the fiscal and world issues right more than the Democrats IMHO.

You mean like WMDs? You mean like reducing the deficit by cutting taxes?



"We will be greeted as liberators!"
 
2012-09-02 10:01:18 PM  

jso2897: I believe that we are sufficiently capable and decent beings tha we can do both of those things.
Don't you?


That was sort of my point. and one of those methods is to educate people about bad ideas and responsibility, because the preponderance of the population resides in neither of your imaginary world or your real one. Teaching *is* compassionate. Acting upon what you learn is how we make the platforms upon which inherited railways and blankets and tea for the less fortunate are firmly lain.
 
2012-09-02 10:02:41 PM  
Sadly, Americans and the English already know everything, so that sort of pisses on that camp fire.
 
2012-09-02 10:08:02 PM  
There seemed to be a lot of "I cant make my own decisions or form an original opinion so I followed along with what someone else was doing" answers.
 
2012-09-02 10:17:46 PM  

Vindibudd: MacEnvy:
Because I'm an asshole.

This is what Democrats call tolerance.


Is being Republican an immutable condition? No. Judging people for bad choices and/or refusing to educate themselves is fair game.
 
2012-09-02 10:22:15 PM  
Why I'm a Republican:

newscoma.com
 
2012-09-02 10:41:15 PM  
Being a republican is a character flaw. Plain and simple. (emphasis on simple)
 
2012-09-02 10:42:23 PM  
i45.tinypic.com

My parents also taught me never to spend more than 5 bucks on a haircut.
 
2012-09-02 10:48:18 PM  

bunner: Gyrfalcon: They're a very small subset of what's a very rare procedure anyway; but it was interesting in that these are the ones we don't even think about, in all the brou-ha-ha about responsibility and choice and what have you.

So we should build a house with 20 out of 300 million bricks because... : /

There is a fallacy extant in American culture that states that, should you meet certain social, gender, economic, ethnic or age criteria, that you are entitled to shh*t were you eat - and, subsequently, where just about everybody else eats - up to a certain point. The problem is that it promotes the 50' feet deep barrel of absolute horsesh*t notion that success in life is about getting away with things. That's the message, folks. That's the piss in the punch. That's why we can't have nice things.

Because, you see...

The only problem with shaping a nation to serve victims is that it doesn't do anything about the predators and everybody is trying to get fitted for a victim suit. You run out of everything but predators and victims.


I usually agree with you, bunner, so tell me if I'm wrong...you're actually saying that a retarded thirteen-year old who has sex with a 17-year old boy who assures her she doesn't need a condom because virgins can't get pregnant isn't a victim and is entirely responsible for the subsequent pregnancy?
 
2012-09-02 10:57:02 PM  

Gyrfalcon: .you're actually saying that a retarded thirteen-year old who has sex with a 17-year old boy who assures her she doesn't need a condom because virgins can't get pregnant isn't a victim and is entirely responsible for the subsequent pregnancy?


No, that's the strawman you need to build upon my back garden to justify your notion that worst case scenario should constitute the man average, when I plainly stated that - while such scenarios exist - they should be addressed as the exceptions to the rule, the rule being "use your head" and reaching as many people as possible with the common sense of that rule. If you need to have me casting the infirm, the misled and abused to the curb is some sweeping condemnation of each and every abortion performed, you're welcome to do so. But since that's not true, it's not very germane to the dialogue, is it? : )
 
2012-09-02 10:58:42 PM  
img843.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-02 11:00:12 PM  

bunner: Gyrfalcon: .you're actually saying that a retarded thirteen-year old who has sex with a 17-year old boy who assures her she doesn't need a condom because virgins can't get pregnant isn't a victim and is entirely responsible for the subsequent pregnancy?

No, that's the strawman you need to build upon my back garden to justify your notion that worst case scenario should constitute the man average, when I plainly stated that - while such scenarios exist - they should be addressed as the exceptions to the rule, the rule being "use your head" and reaching as many people as possible with the common sense of that rule. If you need to have me casting the infirm, the misled and abused to the curb is some sweeping condemnation of each and every abortion performed, you're welcome to do so. But since that's not true, it's not very germane to the dialogue, is it? : )


Well I never said that the worst-case scenario should be used as the standard by which all others should be judged; and I didn't intend to construct a strawman in your garden, which I'm sure is very lovely. I think my original post was to someone else and our wires crossed, in which case you're right, it wasn't very germane to our conversation. I do apologize.
 
2012-09-02 11:00:20 PM  
Besides, arguing over what, righteously indignant sparring notwithstanding, are the minutiae of dime store governance is what got us in this piss pail of endlessly selling woof tickets to each other whilst waving whatever flag we were told was available and very important to our interests. I'm more for a cure than stapling up flyers about the symptoms. Politicizing abortion was, if nothing else, a brilliant move upon the part of those who desperately need us to look everywhere but behind the curtain in search of our oppressors.
 
2012-09-02 11:01:14 PM  
Casey Pick, 28, programs director for Log Cabin Republicans:
When I was really embracing who I was in terms of my faith ... as somebody who would be open and honest about my sexuality ... I had decided, 'OK, I'm going to embrace everything I believe in, and that includes my politics.

'scuse me, your "faith"?

But your "politics"?

I don't envy your liver, because your innards are in for a meltdown.
 
2012-09-02 11:09:40 PM  
i45.tinypic.com

If we pulled back on this shot, would we see him holdingup a glass of champagne and his foot on the front bumper of an old cream-colored Mercedes?
 
2012-09-02 11:10:39 PM  

TV's Vinnie: If we pulled back on this shot, would we see him holdingup a glass of champagne and his foot on the front bumper of an old cream-colored Mercedes?


He'd be masturbating furiously to his own sense of self-satisfaction.
 
2012-09-02 11:13:34 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: [i45.tinypic.com image 639x440]

My parents also taught me never to spend more than 5 bucks on a haircut.


I'm pretty sure he cuts his own hair.
 
2012-09-02 11:14:41 PM  

bunner: Besides, arguing over what, righteously indignant sparring notwithstanding, are the minutiae of dime store governance is what got us in this piss pail of endlessly selling woof tickets to each other whilst waving whatever flag we were told was available and very important to our interests. I'm more for a cure than stapling up flyers about the symptoms. Politicizing abortion was, if nothing else, a brilliant move upon the part of those who desperately need us to look everywhere but behind the curtain in search of our oppressors.


I truly cannot argue with you over that. Divide and conquer and all that.
 
2012-09-02 11:15:40 PM  

TV's Vinnie: [i45.tinypic.com image 639x440]

If we pulled back on this shot, would we see him holdingup a glass of champagne and his foot on the front bumper of an old cream-colored Mercedes?


My parents taught me never to be more than 26 minutes away from a gym.
 
2012-09-02 11:16:12 PM  
www.npr.org

Alexander Reber
21, alternate delegate from Virginia, head of University of Virginia student legislature

"It was because of [Virginia Gov.] Bob McDonnell. I met him at an event, and he was focused on higher education, transportation, smaller government forcing women to have transvaginal ultrasounds. All the things I'm interested in."
 
2012-09-02 11:31:31 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: snip

Why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself, Mitt Romneys Tax Return? What makes you so special that Mitt doesn't want to reveal you?
 
2012-09-02 11:51:54 PM  
It's hilarious how easy it is to get the lackwits to spin their wheels about reproductive rights. Pavlov's farking dogs.
 
2012-09-02 11:55:23 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Often what you're labeling as "willfully stupid" are just one issue voters.


That meets the criteria for 'willfully stupid' in my book.
 
2012-09-02 11:55:45 PM  

intelligent comment below: the.swartz: buckler: As it is, we're just getting a bunch of yahoos screaming at each other, and trying to silence each other. That's not the way it's supposed to work. I think this is why the Founders came out as opposed to political parties in the first place.

Brilliant. Nicely stated. Most accurate thing I have seen in any political thread.


The founders were also opposed to a standing permanent army but that doesn't stop society from accepting it today


They also put forth the second amendment with the justification that we need local militias, but we don't see many of those.
 
2012-09-02 11:57:14 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: That meets the criteria for 'willfully stupid' in my book.


My single issue is whether Romney or Obama will enforce an executive order to force the History Channel to go back to showing actual history.
 
2012-09-03 12:22:52 AM  
Pro-life men. Yawn. Call me if you grow a uterus- then maybe you'll be allowed an opinion on the subject that matters.
 
2012-09-03 12:27:40 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: UndeadPoetsSociety: That meets the criteria for 'willfully stupid' in my book.

My single issue is whether Romney or Obama will enforce an executive order to force the History Channel to go back to showing actual history.


cdn.celebritycarsblog.com

"History? It's sort of old. It has a limited market. I'll give you twenty bucks."
 
2012-09-03 12:45:39 AM  

bunner: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: UndeadPoetsSociety: That meets the criteria for 'willfully stupid' in my book.

My single issue is whether Romney or Obama will enforce an executive order to force the History Channel to go back to showing actual history.

[cdn.celebritycarsblog.com image 245x290]

"History? It's sort of old. It has a limited market. I'll give you twenty bucks."


He could at least call in his "expert".
 
2012-09-03 12:45:52 AM  

bunner: "History? It's sort of old. It has a limited market. I'll give you twenty bucks."


I hate you. I love you, but I also hate you.
 
2012-09-03 12:47:16 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: bunner: "History? It's sort of old. It has a limited market. I'll give you twenty bucks."

I hate you. I love you, but I also hate you.


Are you my ex-wife?
 
2012-09-03 12:49:12 AM  

Jadedgrl: Pro-life men. Yawn. Call me if you grow a uterus- then maybe you'll be allowed an opinion on the subject that matters.


Maybe when you can learn to make sperm out of Cool Whip, Sprite and mayo, you can have the *only* opinion on the subject. : )
 
2012-09-03 12:51:07 AM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net