Political discussion thread

Finnforest wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Finnforest wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Am I the only one who finds that last post wrong on incredibly different levels?  You are not Alex.  But it runs both ways with equal viciousness.  Unfortunately, yeah. I don't even like to align myself with anything for that reason; it's become a joke. Nor do I.  I lean Left on many issues, Right on some issues, but mostly I'm looking for common sense and hoping the country thrives on the policies of whoever is running it.  I'd like to see us in less dire circumstances in 20 years, but I'm not exactly optimistic.  I won't be voting for parties in the future, but for people who I think are the most practical.

Can't say I blame you there. I'm rather pessimistic in the state of politics anymore; I don't think we'll ever get what I deem as a worthy candidate for the presidency... at least for a while.

Apparently my views aren't particularly down the center though, so the chances of me being represented aren't near as likely. I want to create a new party. COMMON SENSE PARTY FTW


Edited by MovingPictures07 - May 07 2009 at 20:58

Finnforest wrote: Alex, just curious, doesn't the Libertarian Party get close enough to your views?     I thought that's where you were but maybe I'm mixing you up with other shredders.....David, etc?

Yeah, they're the closest that come to my views; I was the one around the Shred who had the notorious reputation of being a huge Rand head (though I don't see it as notorious, haha).

David's views are kinda similar to mine, but he leans more Republican and I lean more Libertarian, in general terms.

I don't really like the Libertarian party much as it is though; I think it's just a big of a joke as the two major parties and it really needs one strong candidate to pull it from the realms of insignificance if it wants any chance at all. They fit the closest at times, but I still don't really have a political home.


Edited by MovingPictures07 - May 07 2009 at 21:07

MovingPictures07 wrote: Am I the only one who finds that last post wrong on incredibly different levels?

Touched a nerve, eh?

Padraic wrote: I just tune those out.  "Republican = racist".  Gee, that's original.

I've never said that and if you happen to be referring to the cartoon, it doesn't say that either.  It says "racist tendencies".  But let's face it, while not every Republican is a racist, most racists are Republican by default because they can't stand what the Democrats stand for, except for the real hard right extremists, who find the Republicans to be too moderate.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Padraic wrote: I just tune those out.  "Republican = racist".  Gee, that's original. And to think that 100 year ago, it would have been "Democrats = racist".

A little history lesson, 100 years ago, 1909, Democrats were mostly racists, granted the Republican party wasn't much better, but it was dominated by the plutocrats.  Reconstruction after the Civil War had been a failure.  The south was segregated and dominated by racist Democrats.  Blacks were by and large were Republicans because it was the party of Lincoln.  Racist whites were Democrats, because they couldn't get over the Republican party being the party of Lincoln. 

Fast forward to the '60's.  Johnson's support of civil rights turned off the racists in the Democratic party.  Nixon began the "Southern Strategy", to welcome them in with open arms.  Southern racists in particular abandoned the Democrats on the presidential level, but stayed that way on a local level.  Eventually many southern racist politicians got over Republicans being the party of Lincoln and you saw many of them start to switch parties until eventually they all had abandoned the Democrats.

Now as even more moderates are leaving the Republican party, they are starting to distill into something rather ugly.  The racists, the religious extremists, the greedy.  Not a broad brush I'd paint all Republicans with, but it's the truth.


Edited by Slartibartfast - May 08 2009 at 07:05

Slartibartfast wrote: Padraic wrote: I just tune those out.  "Republican = racist".  Gee, that's original. I've never said that and if you happen to be referring to the cartoon, it doesn't say that either.  It says "racist tendencies".

Oh right!  That is so much better!

Slartibartfast wrote: But let's face it, while not every Republican is a racist

This makes it sound like you think the majority are.  Is that true?

crimhead wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#30631653

Edited by Henry Plainview - May 08 2009 at 18:40

Henry Plainview wrote: crimhead wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#30631653 Why do people even pay attention to Keith? The only difference between him and Rush is that Keith is occasionally funny in between the tirades.

You damn straight.  Rachel is the one!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


Edited by Slartibartfast - May 08 2009 at 19:45

I read a great Mark Twain quote today, which I think is appropriate:

Can someone please clue me in on why anyone would want to be a Republican. The only reason I can think of is liking to dictate morality on people you don't know. For all else, there's the Libertarian party.

Yeah, I guess I underestimated their actual hypocrisy.

Edited by stonebeard - May 09 2009 at 23:09

Deathrabbit wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the only reason Ron Paul is. He has more in common with a ham sandwich than Rush Limbaugh.

They're also both crazy!