Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

9890 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 592 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report