skinsfan913 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Jesus loves you and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hilary Clinton. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.) What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant. Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail! (Quayle?) Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it to at least 10 other people, we're likely to be stuck with more Republicans in '06 and '08. Friends don't let friends vote Republican! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Oh boy, I think you may have just started a **** storm. Oh well, I enjoyed it, thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Things You Have to Believe to Be a Democrat Today Drug addiction is a disease that should be treated with compassion and understanding...unless the addict is a Conservative talk show host. The United States should be subservient to the United Nations. Our highest authority is not God and the U.S. Constitution, but a collective of tinpot dictators (and their appeasers) and the U.N. charter. Government should relax drug laws regardless of the potential for abuse, but should pass new and unConstitutional anti-gun laws because of the potential for abuse. Calls for increased security after a terrorist attack are "political opportunism," but calls for more gun control after a criminal's spree killing is "a logical solution." "It Takes a Village" means everything you want it to mean...except creeping socialist government involvement in the nuclear family. Disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens helps protect them from evil, lawless terrorists and other thugs. Slowly killing an unborn innocent by tearing it apart limb from limb is good. Slowly killing an innocent disabled woman by starving her to death is good. Quickly killing terrorists, convicted murderers and rapists is BAD. Every religion should be respected and promoted in public schools the name of diversity, so long as that religion isn't Christianity. The best way to support our troops is to criticize their every move. This will let them know they're thought of often. Sexual harassment, groping and drug use are degenerate if you're the governor of California, but it's okay if you're the President of the United States. Sex education should be required so that teens can make informed choices about sex, but gun education should be banned because it will turn those same teens into maniacal mass-murderers. Minorities are blameless for the hatred of the racist; women are blameless for the hatred of the rapist; but America is entirely at fault for the hatred of Islamofascists. Poverty is the cause of all terrorism...which is why the leaders of al Qaeda are typically U.S.-educated and were raised in wealth and luxury. The Patriot Act is a horrific compromise of Constitutional rights, but anti-Second Amendment laws and Franklin Roosevelt's Presidential Order 9066 must be regarded "reasonable precautions." We should unquestioningly honor the wishes of our age-old allies, even when said allies no longer act like our allies and have vested economic interests in propping up our enemies. Socialized medicine is the ideal. Nevermind all those people who spend every dime they have to get to the United States so they can get quality medical care...that their nation's socialized medical community can't provide. Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Natalie Maines are perfectly qualified to criticize our leadership, but Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlton Heston, and Dennis Miller are just ignorant political hacks. John Lott's research on how gun ownership reduces crime is junk science, but Michael Bellesiles is still an authority on why gun control is good (even though he was forced to resign from Emory due to research misconduct over his book "Arming America"). Bush's toppling the Saddam regime was a "diversion," but Clinton's lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the Lewinsky sex scandal was "sending a message." A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report should be dragged through the streets naked. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn't pass in any legislature. "The People" in the First Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Fourth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Ninth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Tenth Amendment means The People; but "the People" in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903). You support a woman's "right to choose" to kill her unborn child, but don't believe that same woman is competent enough to homeschool the children she bears. Proven draft-dodging is irrelevant, but baseless claims of AWOL status is crucial to national security. Threatening to boycott Dr. Laura's and Rush Limbaugh's advertisers is exercising Freedom of Speech, but threatening to boycott CBS's "The Reagans" and Liberal actors over their asinine anti-American remarks is censorship and McCarthyist blacklisting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Where is that munchie smiley? I think thats appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Oh boy, I think you may have just started a **** storm. Oh well, I enjoyed it, thanks for sharing. :laugh: i came here looking for some honest commentary. i do wonder what makes someone a republican or democrat. oh yea... :munchout: second edit...MISSU28...to be a teacher you are here often during the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 [some] Democrats: finding new and different ways to alienate people who might otherwise listen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan913 Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 Just a little something to lighten the mood. After all it is Friday. I got a kick outta this. Cant' say the points aren't valid though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight_on_til_you_have_won Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 :applause: :applause: :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I hate threads like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 You know what this thread says to me? Moderates > wingnuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 This is a perfect example of why I can't see how anyone can be proud to be a member of either political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 You know what this thread says to me? Moderates > wingnuts. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 second edit...MISSU28...to be a teacher you are here often during the day. study hall, music, PE, Art, lunch.... i doubletask during those times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 second edit...MISSU28...to be a teacher you are here often during the day. Hey! I resent that! How dare you tell me how to do my job as a teacher? Do you know what kind of hours teachers work? You have no idea how... Oh. You weren't talking to me. Uh, never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 study hall, music, PE, Art, lunch.... i doubletask during those times Yeah! And don't forget planning periods! Oh... sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 This is a perfect example of why I can't see how anyone can be proud to be a member of either political party.The truth is though, there doesn't exist anyone in the Democratic or Republican Party that believes all of those things. A political party is by definition a compromise where a group of people who may disagree on a wide variety of issues agrees to support each other because it is politically advantageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLadyRaven Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 SKINSFAN913, other than the Bush lied part (Which is wrong--it takes mass intelligence to lie about that and Bush hasnt the IQ capacity) that was :applause: :notworthy Gospel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 What you need to believe to be a Republican: that you're not a Democrat. What you need to believe to be a Democrat: that you're not a Republican. What you need to believe to be a normal person: that you're the person you want to be because what you believe is right, not because you believe the other way is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 democrats= Violence begets violence republicans= Tanks stop tanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Both lists are amusing, but I hope no one is attempting to take anything more than that out of such obvious oversimplification. They don't even qualify as 15 second sound bites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Jerry Doyle on the way home points out both... Government is like religion: ITs great in principle, then people decide they should be in charge of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy Edited to comply with forum rules. ~ihs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 The truth is though, there doesn't exist anyone in the Democratic or Republican Party that believes all of those things. A political party is by definition a compromise where a group of people who may disagree on a wide variety of issues agrees to support each other because it is politically advantageous. Is that the truth? You have never met anyone that thought nation building was idiotic in the 90's, but then when we found out Iraq has no WMD's decided it was perfectly ok to spread democracy around the world at the point of a bullet? And that same person also believed every drug addict ought to be sent to jail while Rush needs help? There are hundreds of people on this site that use one argument when the other party is in power then switch it when they lose it. These people have no ideologies, they are just flags and labels. I can understand how it is politically advantageos to make compromise, for example I would vote for democrats to avoid a war, but I wouldn't actually believe in all of the party's ideas. But that isn't what has happened here with a lot of people. In general the ideology of the party itself changed, it was no longer the same party, but it had the same members. How is that possible? How can people change so quick and so uniformily? Well for these people, the label of Republican or Democrat matters more to them then the glaring contradictions they see from one year to the next. This is what disturbs me. What's worse is that more people are becoming like those I described. The parties may have many wrinkles, but increasingly the belief in those wrinkles is becoming more uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Is that the truth? You have never met anyone that thought nation building was idiotic in the 90's, but then when we found out Iraq has no WMD's decided it was perfectly ok to spread democracy around the world at the point of a bullet? And that same person also believed every drug addict ought to be sent to jail while Rush needs help? There are hundreds of people on this site that use one argument when the other party is in power then switch it when they lose it. These people have no ideologies, they are just flags and labels.I think you're right that they have few ideologies. For example, the Republicans that have opposed nation-building since the Korean War but all of a suddent support Iraq rebuilding probably never really cared that much about nation-building anyways.However, it doesn't mean they have no ideologies - those people probably came to their conclusions under some general dislike of big government without really thinking things through. Democrats did the exact same flip-flop by supporting nation-building all the way until Bush started doing it. They still support international humanitarian intervention, but now they think the Iraqis would be better off without us screwing it all up. The point is that peoples' ideologies aren't as strong as they appear to be. I generaly feel like most people only have one or two things they believe in very strongly. Those ideologies will draw them to a particular political party, and they will adopt the rest of the platform out of apathy ... and like joining any other team, it's not hard to buy into the system when you don't really care that much about the issue anyways. I can understand how it is politically advantageos to make compromise, for example I would vote for democrats to avoid a war, but I wouldn't actually believe in all of the party's ideas. But that isn't what has happened here with a lot of people. In general the ideology of the party itself changed, it was no longer the same party, but it had the same members. How is that possible? How can people change so quick and so uniformily? Well for these people, the label of Republican or Democrat matters more to them then the glaring contradictions they see from one year to the next. This is what disturbs me.What's worse is that more people are becoming like those I described. The parties may have many wrinkles, but increasingly the belief in those wrinkles is becoming more uniform. One thing the parties are very good at is trying to tie all their different ideologies together. For example, Christian philosophy towards the poor is generally at odds with the laissez-faire economic policy of the Republican Party, but the Religious Right has done an incredible job of downplaying those particular Christian values to move from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party over the past 50 years. The common ideology is that private entities (including churches) are more effective than the government. Similarly, the labor movement is at odds with the immigration activists in the Democratic Party, but the common ideology is that human rights should be paramount.These things can easily shift over time, but I guess my point is that people generally only believe very strong in a few things, and oftentimes it's just one thing. The way the political landscape is now, the parties can sell you a whole package of other issues along with your ideology, and it will sound very consistent to you because of the way our rhetoric is structured. People change with their party because even issues that seem in direct conflict have a lot in common under the surface: When a Christian conservative is railing against welfare, does that anger come from a disdain for the poor or from a deeper mistrust of a government that has repeatedly interfered with the practice of religion? When an abortion activist protests against the death penalty, does that anger come from valuing the sanctity of life or from disdain for a legal system that does not show sufficient compassion for people in difficult situations? I don't think people are brainwashed ... they are simply making different connections than you might be. Political parties take advantage of those myriad connections to create consistency where there might otherwise be discord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 The point is that peoples' ideologies aren't as strong as they appear to be. I generaly feel like most people only have one or two things they believe in very strongly. Those ideologies will draw them to a particular political party, and they will adopt the rest of the platform out of apathy ... and like joining any other team, it's not hard to buy into the system when you don't really care that much about the issue anyways.One thing the parties are very good at is trying to tie all their different ideologies together. For example, Christian philosophy towards the poor is generally at odds with the laissez-faire economic policy of the Republican Party, but the Religious Right has done an incredible job of downplaying those particular Christian values to move from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party over the past 50 years. The common ideology is that private entities (including churches) are more effective than the government. Similarly, the labor movement is at odds with the immigration activists in the Democratic Party, but the common ideology is that human rights should be paramount. The brilliant core of a truly brillaint post. Maybe the best thought out post I have ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.