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
 
2012-09-03 09:48:01 AM
Mainly because of all the replies to threads like this one. So much douchiness, so little time.
 
2012-09-03 10:37:52 AM

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?


Dont have to defend it to you dumb libs. its obvious to anyone with half a brain, morans.
 
2012-09-03 10:55:13 AM

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.


Please do enlighten us on how the terms "liberal" and "conservative" aren't relative terms and how we're all stupid for not adopting whatever fringe anarchist ideology you want us to.
 
2012-09-03 11:06:12 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: Please do enlighten us on how the terms "liberal" and "conservative" aren't relative terms and how we're all stupid for not adopting whatever fringe anarchist ideology you want us to.


Write down 12, arbitrary, clapped out, decades old political buzzwords on some stickers.

Affix one each to 12 different pigs.

Put funny hats on them.

Send the republic scurrying for their false equivalency security blankets cause soshlists is comm'nists is libtards is rinos is fascists is.. ummm... A pack of swine heading for the trough your clearing a path to. Hope your pig wins.
 
2012-09-03 11:11:27 AM

Generation_D: 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?

Dont have to defend it to you dumb libs. its obvious to anyone with half a brain, morans.



Whoa. Hard to argue with that.
 
2012-09-03 11:22:32 AM
There are no liberals. There are no conservatives. There are damn few actual centrists.

All that crap was made up years ago by the people doing the play by play from the bench and frankly, those, and almost every other adjectives in american English, have been truncated, re-allocated, masticated and spit back out - bereft of meaning - and poorly spelled by a broad range of subgroups in a fractured culture.

And the people on the wrench turning end of that culture have figured out that if you weren't born on third base, you should probably just sit on the bench cause you ain't gonna get to bat. Start worrying about that and all this penny ante, semantic harrumphing will suddenly become as obviously moot as all the cats who are mowing your lawn and washing your car already know it is. When you start having to shoehorn the actualities of your political ideals into shopworn templates of what they're SUPPOSED to be, you're managing to sustain neither. You're just one more legs-in-the-air hypocrite trying to wedge your fat, size 12 ass into a pair of size 7 Levis and hope you can suck your gut in until the votes are counted.

In the mean time, keep barking at all the people who aren't waving YOUR subgroup's flag and come to think of it, that guy waving what looks like your flag seems to have one that's a little faded. Keep an eye on that sonofab*tch, too. And buy lots of labels and markers One nation. Under a common delusion. Gullible. With spoon fed malarkey for all.
 
2012-09-03 11:47:57 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.


When picking juries, we try and make sure they don't have direct experience because we want objective opinions, untainted by biases and prejudices. While I wouldn't suggest that therefore, those with uterii are therefore unfit to express an opinion, I will suggest that not having one has value in and of itself.
 
2012-09-03 11:48:44 AM

Smackledorfer: Ricardo Klement: He also needs to label his farking axes!

A guy who votes for the party that believes we are on the far side of the laffer curve demanding more accurate axis labeling? That's rich.

There are arguments in favor of decreasing taxation to be made, but the constantly repeated lie that it will increase total revenues is simply shenanigans. That it also comes from the side that doesn't really want to reduce everyone's taxes, but only the Job Creators makes it doubly ridiculous. The marginal difference in hours and effort put into earning an extra dollar is higher for poor people than it is for rich, so if we were to presume that people are choosing not to work that extra hour or work harder because of the top marginal tax rate, then lowering it for the lower brackets would provide the bigger boost, to say nothing of the basics of supply and demand and that poor people spend all of their money while rich have the capability to horde.


What a farking joke.

I'm not against the concept of balancing spending and taxation, and I'm not against the concept that keeping them low could be a good thing. I can even find acceptable the theory of busting up safety nets and welfare (provided we bust them down all the way and accept people dying destitute) as a functional solution, albeit a callous one to some. You say you'd do a write-in vote to try to send some kind of a message that the conservative party is going off the rails, but you know what, its been off those rails since before I was born.

I know this is a liberal site, and I have no problem saying I'm pretty liberal (more than the general public, while less than fark), but I can't figure out how some of you proclaimed conservatives can see anything in the Republican party. You should have been coming to the conclusions you seem to be drawing now 30 or more years ago. The party has been a mash-up of religious fundamentalism, cultural regression and bigotry, and completely retarded economics since befor ...


Note that I didn't express an opinion on taxes.
 
2012-09-03 11:49:40 AM

Bob16: o5iiawah: Your taxes dont go to Rich people.

Corporate welfare

http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html


The comment was directed more to the likelier instance that a wealthy person makes $10M/yr and should owe $360,000 of it. If they donate $1M to charity, it reduces their income liability and they pay taxes on the $9M, thus reducing their total tax bill to $324,000. They still paid that much in taxes, but it gets spun as they got $35,000 in taxpayer money.

This nonsense with oil company subsidies is the same thing. They follow the same accounting principles as the rest of the country in that they get to write off losses and expenditure against their total income. The oil companies are profitable and they pay taxes on it. The government makes a good penny off them too. When a company earns $80Bn in profits, and writes off $1Bn in losses, the resulting decrease in their tax liability is not subsidy which comes out of the taxpayer's pocket.

most people dont know the difference.

As far as tarp and banks go, thats simply a case of having access to government. There's no bigger perpetrator than the current President.
 
2012-09-03 11:58:49 AM

PopularFront: 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.

Weather or not the fetus is a person or not always seemed to me to be a diversion from the more fundamental issue of whether it has the right to enslave the mother as a life support system. If it doesn't, then abortion should, at the very least, be legal up until the point of viability.

Even if a zygote were entitled to the full spectrum of constitutional rights, it's hard to see how the right to force another person to keep them alive would be included. It would be akin to forcing someone with a tissue match to donate a kidney (or some other redundant organ) to save a life.

From another angle, Conservatives are usually staunch defenders of the Castle Doctrine with respect to protecting their homes. I don't understand why so many of them begrudge women the right to protect their bodies the same way.


There's a reason few people use that line or argument, because we don't allow you, even under the Castle Doctrine, to kill helpless people. Not in Virginia we don't. If you find some paralyzed unarmed guy in your living room, you're not free to shoot them. But your argument also concedes the point of it being alive, and if one is a liberal anti-death-penalty anti-war ant-lethal-force PETA member, you'd be hard-pressed to explain a greater hypocrisy than being fine with killing something you admit is alive due to the inconvenience and hardship it imposes. I could cut off your arms and legs and leave you to die in a vegetative state in the desert, but it you don't, I won't get the death penalty - even in Texas. It's hard to argue I did less to you than the fetus.

In short, that's not a great argument to make.
 
2012-09-03 12:00:48 PM

bunner: There are no liberals. There are no conservatives. There are damn few actual centrists.

All that crap was made up years ago by the people doing the play by play from the bench and frankly, those, and almost every other adjectives in american English, have been truncated, re-allocated, masticated and spit back out - bereft of meaning - and poorly spelled by a broad range of subgroups in a fractured culture.

And the people on the wrench turning end of that culture have figured out that if you weren't born on third base, you should probably just sit on the bench cause you ain't gonna get to bat. Start worrying about that and all this penny ante, semantic harrumphing will suddenly become as obviously moot as all the cats who are mowing your lawn and washing your car already know it is. When you start having to shoehorn the actualities of your political ideals into shopworn templates of what they're SUPPOSED to be, you're managing to sustain neither. You're just one more legs-in-the-air hypocrite trying to wedge your fat, size 12 ass into a pair of size 7 Levis and hope you can suck your gut in until the votes are counted.

In the mean time, keep barking at all the people who aren't waving YOUR subgroup's flag and come to think of it, that guy waving what looks like your flag seems to have one that's a little faded. Keep an eye on that sonofab*tch, too. And buy lots of labels and markers One nation. Under a common delusion. Gullible. With spoon fed malarkey for all.


I *just* read a study on SES mobility in the US and Canada, and you'd be surprised how much social mobility there is. There's more in Canada (really, it's social volatility), but it's definitely not so little in the US that one can safely ignore it.
 
2012-09-03 12:22:37 PM

Ricardo Klement: Note that I didn't express an opinion on taxes.


Ahh, right, because macroeconomics and government spending is a discussion that can be had irrespective of tax rates and policies.

I'll also note that in your outright dismissal of my post you took it upon yourself to do absolutely zero clarification of your points. You can't say "Keynes is wrong, Austrians are right, and I vote republican because their economic views line up with my economic views" and then just expect people to correctly guess which tiny portion of that discussion you are referring to (and it must be a tiny portion, now that you've dismissed revenue's relevance to your decisions).

Ricardo Klement: I won't get the death penalty - even in Texas


Not for some states' lack of trying. Link
 
2012-09-03 12:31:48 PM
Ricardo,

Is it their wonderful insistence that environmental damage should remain an externality?
Their christian views of not helping the poor?
The brilliance of voucher systems?
Calling for a decrease in basic services (police/fire/ems)?
Privatization of all things that someone could make a buck off, like prisons?
Belief that pulling back government spending during recessions is the bitter pill we all need to swallow?
Going back on a gold standard?

Which of these phenomenal republican plans for the economy fits with your conservative views so well that it justifies voting republican despite your apparent departure from them on so many other things (now including tax policy)?
 
2012-09-03 12:34:02 PM

Ricardo Klement: PopularFront: Weather or not the fetus is a person or not always seemed to me to be a diversion from the more fundamental issue of whether it has the right to enslave the mother as a life support system. If it doesn't, then abortion should, at the very least, be legal up until the point of viability.

Even if a zygote were entitled to the full spectrum of constitutional rights, it's hard to see how the right to force another person to keep them alive would be included. It would be akin to forcing someone with a tissue match to donate a kidney (or some other redundant organ) to save a life.

From another angle, Conservatives are usually staunch defenders of the Castle Doctrine with respect to protecting their homes. I don't understand why so many of them begrudge women the right to protect their bodies the same way.


There's a reason few people use that line or argument, because we don't allow you, even under the Castle Doctrine, to kill helpless people. Not in Virginia we don't. If you find some paralyzed unarmed guy in your living room, you're not free to shoot them. But your argument also concedes the point of it being alive, and if one is a liberal anti-death-penalty anti-war ant-lethal-force PETA member, you'd be hard-pressed to explain a greater hypocrisy than being fine with killing something you admit is alive due to the inconvenience and hardship it imposes. I could cut off your arms and legs and leave you to die in a vegetative state in the desert, but it you don't, I won't get the death penalty - even in Texas. It's hard to argue I did less to you than the fetus.


It doesn't matter whether the fetus is helpless, it still constitutes a danger to the mother. All pregnancies carry risk. There's no inconsistency with anti-death penalty beliefs since we aren't jailing prisoners inside the bodies of others.

BTW, I noticed you completely ignored the other argument in my post which explains why the issue of whether it's alive (or even a person) should be irrelevant.
 
2012-09-03 12:41:27 PM
Maybe it's their Christian values.

geminiindustries.com 
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-09-03 12:51:02 PM

PopularFront: BTW, I noticed you completely ignored the other argument in my post which explains why the issue of whether it's alive (or even a person) should be irrelevant.


Whether or not it is a person is the very first factor in whether or not abortion of any form can be illegal. If it isn't a person, but is a life owned by the mother, then presumably it has the same rights as a pet: kill if you want to, discipline within reason, torture a no-no. If it isn't a life, then it is an object owned by the mother, with all the rights of a couch.

If it is a person, only then do we follow steps regarding whether or not there is an obligation for the mother to bring it to term. Note that even with a one year old baby, there are still responsibilities forced on the mother. If she is walking down the street with her baby and decides she doesn't want it any more, she is not allowed to abandon it. There are, of course, pathways for her to rid herself of the burden, but she can still required in a limited manner to provide some level of care (keep it alive until it gets into the hands of someone who isn't going to leave it to die). So then we have to ask ourselves: what, if any, should the requirements be on a mother for this thing, prior to birth, before she can abandon it.

There are some things regarding the lives of others in which there is a duty to act, legally. Your assumption that merely because it would require some effort from a mother to bring the child to term that therefore, in all situations and regardless of whether the fetus is a human being with the associated rights, that it is completely unprecedented and unique to require something of her is simply false.

Now, there are minimum standards for the upkeep some inanimate objects in society as well (houses, for example), however the general requirements for forcing one to expend resources maintaining an inanimate object tend to be quite a bit different than those regarding human lives, so even in that case its still pretty clear it matters whether or not the fetus is to be considered a human being.
 
2012-09-03 12:55:53 PM
Oh, and there doesn't have to be any contradictions with your death penalty argument either. They aren't really comparable situations until you strawman-up the motivations of the supporters of the death penalty. Believing you can take a life based on the choices that life has made in order to prevent further deaths is not the same as taking a life based on the choices the taker makes.



/for the record, I'm pro-choice; I don't think they are human beings until they could survive extraction. Even then I only use that as a general determinant of whether the brain is developed enough to call them sentient. I could go based on memory and development of personality, but then you'd be able to 'abort' a child post-birth too, and that seems kind of silly :D
 
2012-09-03 12:58:58 PM

lohphat:
Don't feed the troll, ignore them.


Excuse me but this is the politics tab and as such is not a groupthink exercise so if I disagree with you, that does not qualify me as a troll. Is this in anyway unclear? Maybe if it isn't you can post some examples of me not legitimately having a point of view that I am arguing.
 
2012-09-03 01:36:33 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.


OK, so that is one more for "I believe the lies the GOP tells me about Obama". Next?
 
2012-09-03 01:44:45 PM
Obama wants your daughter to marry a kneegrow.

He will take all the pensioner's health care money and blow it on JayZ CDs and tuck and roll upholstery for Limo 1.

He will empty the treasury and give it to homeless crackheads.

Romney will empty what's left of the treasury and give it to Wall St. captains of larceny industry, cause they should have it to create jobs! What more reason do you need?
 
2012-09-03 01:47:38 PM
There's a lot here to address, and I don't have time today to respond. Maybe this evening but certainly nlt tomorrow.
 
2012-09-03 02:37:19 PM

Vindibudd: if I disagree with you, that does not qualify me as a troll. Is this in anyway unclear?


FYI, differing points of view are supposed to based at least somewhat on fact. If one point of view only serves to differ and is completely baseless, the more polite people assume it is "trolling" or "joking" or "having a seizure." It's the internet, and finally the crazy, the ignorant, the perverted, and the downright unpleasant finally have a voice, but so do the people who look down upon them.
 
2012-09-03 03:23:13 PM
FTA: "Scott Thomas, 22, Pennsylvania delegate
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
."

Spoken like someone who didn't have to work their way through school, and in doing that work PAID TAXES.
Those students are usually democrats and will continue to be democrats.
But of course no one helped Thomas... except for mommy and daddy...
/idiot
 
2012-09-03 03:47:03 PM

daveUSMC: I'm a registered Republican because I can't bear to be a Democrat, and there were no other options on my voter registration form.

I'm probably going to do a write-in vote for Dr. Zoidberg.



This is what boot camp does to fragile little minds
 
2012-09-03 04:35:45 PM

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


Well, for one thing, they don't want to reduce the bipartisan process to out and out, use-your-last-breath-to-stab-the-guy-on-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-in -the-face civil war. That's conserving *something* we said we stand for, ain't it?
 
2012-09-03 05:25:25 PM

ignatius_crumbcake:
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.


They're not concerned that "society" prospers (the part with the negroes and the asianz and the college students and the librulz and the poors and the jewwwzz and the muslins and the catholics and the homogays and the womens that ain't in the kitchen where they're supposed to be goddammitWHAARRRGGARBL)... they're concerned that THEY prosper.

This is why they want to go backwards... they wish to return to a time when white males had no competition for resources, for education, for money, for anything, regardless of the consequences. Fear of the future, a future where they will be one of many instead of the only one above many, is what keeps them voting republican.

The women and minorities that vote (R) are just hoping for some of the crumbs from these white men's tables.
 
2012-09-03 06:36:38 PM

Bob16: Why would i care about the rationalizations that crazy people who are not in the nut house come up with.


Because they vote for crazy people who will make laws that you have to follow.
 
2012-09-03 07:24:41 PM

Smackledorfer: Ricardo Klement: Note that I didn't express an opinion on taxes.

Ahh, right, because macroeconomics and government spending is a discussion that can be had irrespective of tax rates and policies.


My original post was not intended as a complete exposition of all my views. I happen to believe we're on the left side of the Laffer curve. And while both Keynesian and Classical economics believes tax cuts are useful, even Keynes would tell you that raising taxes during a recession is not a great idea. If we're going to do the equivalent of income smoothing, we should operate at a higher rate during good times, so we really shouldn't have cut taxes throughout the '90s. Grover Norquist can go fark himself with his extortion.

But ultimately, macroeconomics isn't just about taxes. I remain unconvinced that many functions of government, like enforcing many social laws, is a productive use of revenue.

I'll also note that in your outright dismissal of my post you took it upon yourself to do absolutely zero clarification of your points. You can't say "Keynes is wrong, Austrians are right, and I vote republican because their economic views line up with my economic views" and then just expect people to correctly guess which tiny portion of that discussion you are referring to (and it must be a tiny portion, now that you've dismissed revenue's relevance to your decisions).

First, I didn't say Austrians are right. Austrian economics is not the same as classic economics, though it shares many of the same views. I disagree with Austrian monetary policy.

But ultimately, I gave reasons I identify as Republican. I was never under any obligation to give a complete account of every issue in anticipation of someone deciding they knew what my stances were on issues that we had yet discussed. You didn't ask, "Hey, what's your opinion on..." No, you just went right into attack mode, "You're and idiot because you believe..." and then object when you got it wrong that somehow I'M the bad guy. If you want to have a discussion, do me the courtesy of not attacking with a fistfull of assumptions.
 
2012-09-03 07:31:00 PM

Smackledorfer: Ricardo,

Is it their wonderful insistence that environmental damage should remain an externality?
Their christian views of not helping the poor?
The brilliance of voucher systems?
Calling for a decrease in basic services (police/fire/ems)?
Privatization of all things that someone could make a buck off, like prisons?
Belief that pulling back government spending during recessions is the bitter pill we all need to swallow?
Going back on a gold standard?

Which of these phenomenal republican plans for the economy fits with your conservative views so well that it justifies voting republican despite your apparent departure from them on so many other things (now including tax policy)?


No, it's not wonderful that the party is unable to come to grips with a scientifically-supported externality.

I don't think we should pick and choose which Christian teachings the government should enforce. Separation of church and state means the government shouldn't do any of it.

Vouchers are part of something I addressed earlier: that the GOP is wrong on education, which should be well-funded by the government.

I don't think it's a national platform to reduce emergency services. Those who do are unwise. But frankly, the police and gOP tend to be friends. Even Walker didn't strip their union rights. I'm fairly agnostic on union rights, but I am certain unions played important roles in US history.

Privatizing prisons has to be carefully regulated, but it can save money.

Government spending is something we should at least pull back on during good times. Income smoothing doesn't work if you only "smooth" it in one direction. I would be open to alternatives, but what we do now is just stupid.

The gold standard is retarded. But it's also not an official platform, but a nod to that idiot Ron Paul.
 
2012-09-03 07:34:44 PM

PopularFront: It doesn't matter whether the fetus is helpless, it still constitutes a danger to the mother. All pregnancies carry risk. There's no inconsistency with anti-death penalty beliefs since we aren't jailing prisoners inside the bodies of others.


It's risk the mother took on. Someone else just driving on the road near you carries risk. That doesn't mean you can kill the driver just because they just might blow a tire and veer into you.

BTW, I noticed you completely ignored the other argument in my post which explains why the issue of whether it's alive (or even a ...

Oh? I addressed that directly.
 
2012-09-03 08:04:32 PM

thamike: Vindibudd: if I disagree with you, that does not qualify me as a troll. Is this in anyway unclear?

FYI, differing points of view are supposed to based at least somewhat on fact. If one point of view only serves to differ and is completely baseless, the more polite people assume it is "trolling" or "joking" or "having a seizure." It's the internet, and finally the crazy, the ignorant, the perverted, and the downright unpleasant finally have a voice, but so do the people who look down upon them.


And FYI, because I have points of view that are definitely based on legitimate political philosophy and theory, I am not a troll. The reason I come here is because I can find a good back and forth, unlike DU or Freeperland. Trolling is against the rules on Fark, so I don't call other people trolls and I don't appreciate every single thing I post resulting in a moronic troll blast.
 
2012-09-03 08:22:04 PM

Ricardo Klement:

Privatizing prisons has to be carefully regulated, but it can save money.


Prisons should never be privatized.
As long as we (the state) chooses to try, convict and incarcerate those people who choose to break our (the state's) laws, then it is our (the state's) responsibility to see to their needs, whatever the cost.
If we can't handle that cost, then maybe we shouldn't lock people up. We need to determine if the society we want is worth that cost instead of finding the cheapest way to put the most people behind bars.
 
2012-09-03 09:10:46 PM
That's great Ricardo, and while I don't see eye to eye with you there, I still don't see how the views you espouse line up with the talk, or walk, of the republican party. Not in my lifetime anyways.

Ricardo Klement: But it's also not an official platform, but a nod to that idiot Ron Paul


You know, if they have to talk like that and pick a VP who supports that in order to get the votes they want, then that becomes part of who they are. One can only dog-whistle so much before I consider one racist, one can only talk about gold standards and praise Ryan budgets before they represent one too.

That is the most disgusting part of that party. I want it to burn to the ground and have someone build something new and better that can actually provide a good counter to the Democrats.
 
2012-09-03 10:19:54 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."


Don't be stupid. He is a Ron Paul Delegate
 
2012-09-04 12:44:45 AM

intelligent comment below: buckler: 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.


You do. They're called the National Guard and local police forces


No, I'm talking about the one in which I'm required to own a gun at home and drill in the town square on every third Thursday.
 
2012-09-04 02:55:23 AM
Why I'm a Republican

Bullshiat.
 
2012-09-04 06:00:30 AM

Vindibudd: And FYI, because I have points of view that are definitely based on legitimate political philosophy and theory, I am not a troll. The reason I come here is because I can find a good back and forth, unlike DU or Freeperland.


They only "good back and forth" I've seen you have is with someone who agrees with you and whom you seem to be comfortable with because you think they're slightly less intelligent than you, and therefore will confirm your bias while stroking your ego. Everything else looks like AM radio.
 
2012-09-04 09:58:40 AM

EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.


media.tumblr.com


/ "An empty chair told me so!" doesn't count.
 
2012-09-04 11:20:12 AM

o5iiawah: The GOP is leaning more and more towards a platform of fiscal conservatism since social conservatism is no longer a winner.


That's funny. The idea that the GOP is trending away from social conservatism. If anything, they are doubling down on it, hoping that they just have to motivate the conservatives even more.

This from the party that wants to eliminate abortions even in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother? The party that brought us "legitimate rape" and is doubling down on opposition to marriage equality? The same party that fillibustered the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to ensure equal pay for men and women?

The New York Times even pointed out last week in an editorial how Paul Ryan's nomination seemed custom made to bring a strong social conservative slant to the more moderate Rmoney, because of Ryan's extreme social conservatism: Link
 
2012-09-04 11:41:00 AM
o5iiawah: The GOP is leaning more and more towards a platform of fiscal conservatism since social conservatism is no longer a winner.

Yeah, we need more of that.

joshanderson.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-04 12:15:31 PM

SpectroBoy: EnviroDude: Because democrats want to destroy the Republic.

[media.tumblr.com image 500x271]

/ "An empty chair told me so!" doesn't count.


Isn't it obvious? They want to destroy democracy by disenfranchising people who don't agree with them. They want to destroy freedom by having the government regulate the bedroom. They want to make it possible for some "people" to do damage to the health and prosperity of other people by eliminating personal responsibility for externalities...

Oh, wait, that's the other guy.
 
2012-09-05 04:05:45 AM
Paint chips?
 
Displayed 42 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