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  
•       •       •

9885 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2012 at 12:07 PM (1 year 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 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.
 
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 »






Report