Republican or Democrat?? [Archive]

DREAMer

06-01-2001, 04:34 AM

Here are some old-line platform issues and how the two main parties stand on them. The highlighted ones are the ones I agree with

Republican:
1. Anti-Abortion
2. Pro-Death Penalty
3. Strong Military
4. Civil Rights
5. War on Drugs
6. Small Government
7. Pro-Business
8. Exclusion of Gays

Democrat:
1.Pro-Choice (except the choice of fathers and fetuses, somehow 'choice' only applies to women, oh except women who are anti-abortion)
2. Anti-Death Penalty
3. Diminished Military
4. Civil Rights
5. Legalization of Drugs
6. Big Government
7. Anti-Big Business
8. Gay Rights

As you can see, it's pretty close. The one issue that keeps me closer to Republicans is Abortion. I feel like I'm a Southern land owner back in the 1800s. I'm all for state's rights, and I love the South, but I just can't agree with the South's position on slavery.....

Man, if you could find me a candidate or a party that represented all those ideals, I'd vote for them every time. I'd friggin' run for office for them.

1. Anti-Abortion
2. Anti-Death Penalty
3. Strong Military
4. Civil Rights
5. Legalization of Drugs
6. Small Government
7. Pro-Business
8. Gay Rights

If anyone can think of other significant political issues, let me know. That's all I could think of right now.

------------------

Little story on why it's so hard for me to be a Rep.

Today at work these two guys come in. I work at Saltgrass Steakhouse. Anyways, the hostess tries to seat them at one of my 4-top tables (a table designed to seat 4 people). But, NOOooooo, it wasn't good enough for them. They wanted to sit at my friggin' 6-top (a table designed to seat 6 people, see a trend?). They did have another guy joining them, but he wasn't there yet. This may not seem like much, but now there's three empty seats that I won't be getting tipped on. For instance @ $20/person = $60 for three times 15% (tip) = $9, for six people that would be doubled ($18), obviously. So, me not having the opportunity to make more money was the first problem I had with them.... but, not the last.

Then the third guy shows up as I'm bringing them bread and getting ready to great the table (introduce myself, how you doin', blah, blah, blah). Well, they're blabbering away, and I'm slowly putting the bread out... then their plates... Not a break they are talking none stop. So, I interject, "Hey guys how are you doing tonight?"... silence. Then one guy says to another, "What do you want to drink?". So, here's problem #2 - they ignored me. So, I stand there and finally one guys asks me, "What do y'all have on draft?". I tell him (gladly) that we don't have anything on tap, because they didn't put taps in when they built the restaurant. Well, they give the usual complaints about that and talk about how the "other" Saltgrasses have taps, like I give a nutria's a$$. They order three beers, and I go get them.

At this point, I'm irritated, but still willing to give them a chance. I come back with their drinks and ask, "Have you guys had time to look over the menu, or..." and one guy cuts me off. This is problem #3 - they interrupted me. Now, when a table chooses to interrupt me, this means I no longer offer things, I don't ask about extras, I don't offer little tidbits of information, I don't like to be interrupted. So, I stand there and the guy starts to talk about getting an appetizer, which I had offered to them when they ordered the drinks, but he waved me off saying they were going to look at the menu (I didn't like the wave either). I stand there patiently and silent letting them do all the work. They decide on getting our stuffed jalapenos (which are damn good), but they also want to order their entrees, which I hadn't had the chance to ask if they were ready to order or not. The normal crap goes on from there. I ring up their food and everything flows along.

I finally deliver their food, and notice that their all almost done with their beers (Corona and two Shiner Bocs). I ask all of them if they would like another beer, or if they are okay for now. One guy ignores me (I don't like to be ignored either). The other two say that they would indeed like another drink. I go ring them up and promptly bring them out. Of course, when I get there the idiot who ignored me makes this noise like, "Where's mine?" and he lifts up his bottle. I look at him and say, "Yes, sir?" to which he answers, "Where's mine?", to which I reply, "Would you like another beer?", "Yeah", "Okay, I'll be right back". Now, I didn't get this one with the same sense of urgency as the others... I friggin' took my time, I also didn't bring him another mug, forgetting that I had taken his original one. Of course, when I got there he whines, "Can I get a mug?" - "Sure", and I come back with the mug.

The point to this whole story is that while I'm cleaning up around them (at other tables) I overhear what they're talking about. They are talking about how Bush is likely to be remembered as a great president, yadda yadda yadda. Now, I friggin' voted for Bush, but these guys were just the arrogant, rude, selfish, type of person that most non-Republicans think of when they hear the work "conservative".

It made me want NOT to be associated with them in any way.

------------------
DREAMer's Rocket Page (http://members.nbci.com/DREAMer88/Rockets/DREAMersPage.html)

RichRocket

06-01-2001, 07:49 AM

I'm a mannerly, good-tipping Republican. What say you now. By the way, both of my brothers worked at The Mason Jar 30 years ago. Are you at the Saltgrass on I-10? I've eaten there twice in the past year.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

DREAMer

06-01-2001, 03:13 PM

"I'm a mannerly, good-tipping Republican. What say you now."

My story was not about you. My story was about some guys who most liberals would characterize as typical Republicans, and how I have an internal struggle about being associated with the rude bastards.

I too am a 'mannerly, good-tipping,... conservative'.

"By the way, both of my brothers worked at The Mason Jar 30 years ago. Are you at the Saltgrass on I-10? I've eaten there twice in the past year."

Me thinks I will not divulge that information. I don't need Jeff coming up to my job to settle some scores. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
DREAMer's Rocket Page (http://members.nbci.com/DREAMer88/Rockets/DREAMersPage.html)

ROXTXIA

06-02-2001, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by RichRocket:
I would need a really good reason not to vote Republican. Haven't seen too many either.


Well being a "Rich" Rocket probably has something to do with that opinion. Nothing wrong with being rich, though. I could use some extra dough, re, mi.

But even if I changed my moniker to "Another Rich Rocket," I sure would never vote Republican. Or so I tell myself. I certainly never talk politics with family members, all of whom live in or around Houston or a small town in Iowa. The Iowans dismiss me as weird or, probably, a closet homosexual. To which I reply, "I'm not weird." http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

Not that I don't see both sides of an issue. I think we took an informal test in school on political views that listed me as moderate-left.

------------------

[This message has been edited by ROXTXIA (edited June 01, 2001).]

haven

06-02-2001, 01:53 AM

Roxtxia:

I think conservative family members are fun. I've got one uncle who's the most rabid conservative I've ever met. I always look forward to seeing him, because I know I'm going to get in a huge, long, fun argument without feelings hurt on either side http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

RichRocket

06-03-2001, 12:29 AM

Your story implied that it WAS about me because you generally dismissed conservatives as rude, selfish, and boorish. None of which I am.

We all know people like that from whatever political persuasion. I just didn't get your focus on citing them here.

Some of my best friends are VERY liberal. We raised kids together and share meals and agree to disagree. In the end, it doesn't really matter that much. The world just goes on from one end of the continuum to the other through the election cycles.

BTW, I am not "rich." That moniker is merely derived from my given name.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 02, 2001).]

Joe Joe

06-03-2001, 01:46 AM

I am independent for now. I usually vote Republican, because I understand democratic canidates less than I understand Republican canidates. Most people consider me Republican. I do sometimes, but they are always pissing me off.

I like the environment and my job helps protect it, but I also see a need for electricity. Public utilities create large amounts of waste.

The democrats portray themselves as the defenders of freedom, but then have gun control. Republicans want guns and God everywhere, but don't always respect the Bill of Rights. I have never understood how someone can be against abortions and for Capital punishment or visa versa. I am against both.

I want exile. There is nothing more cruel than capital punishment.

I don't like parties. Get rid of them. They insulate the people from the power via corruption.

This is a funny tidbit from the Reagan years. Reagan issued an executive order to reduce the amount of welfare to only the people in need. A Government teacher (democrat) of mine and his collegues that were working in a welfare program were giving money away to any low income family that could use it. The government teacher said in class that democrats working in welfare departments was a contributing factor to why trickle down economics didn't work. BTW, trickle down is stupid is another reason it didn't work.

Another thing...there wasn't a popular vote for Presidency. The votes cast for electors is only an approximation of how the population would vote for President.

I don't like these rock the vote campaigns. Voting is a privelidge. If someone needs motivation to exercise this privilidge, they might not take the time to research the canidates thoroughly.

Are there any moderate poloticians in Texas? I can't vote for Gramm or Hutchinson. Sorry for my rantings.

------------------

DREAMer

06-03-2001, 02:18 AM

Richie RichRocket,

"Your story implied that it WAS about me because you generally dismissed conservatives as rude, selfish, and boorish. None of which I am."

Dude, I am going to have to start calling you DrunkyRocket. Did you totally ignore what I said right after my story? Here's the quote...

"Now, I friggin' voted for Bush, but these guys were just the arrogant, rude, selfish, type of person that most non-Republicans think of when they hear the work 'conservative'."

I thought it was completely obvious that I said these three guys fit the liberal stereotype of conservatives to a 'T'. I didn't say I agreed with that generalization. In fact, I said I was a conservative who hated to be associated with people that would give conservatives a bad name like these three particular jackasses.

------------------
DREAMer's Rocket Page (http://members.nbci.com/DREAMer88/Rockets/DREAMersPage.html)

TheFreak

06-03-2001, 07:06 PM

DREAMer -- I'll go ahead and take your pop quiz, because I think it's cool:

Republican:
1. Anti-Abortion
2. Pro-Death Penalty--not sure.
3. Strong Military--war sucks.
4. Civil Rights--I don't get this one. I'm in favor of "civil rights", so I guess I'm for this?
5. War on Drugs--lock up the dealers, not the users.
6. Small Government
7. Pro-Business
8. Exclusion of Gays--I didn't know Republicans were for this?

Democrat:
1. Pro-Choice -- choice is a good thing.
2. Anti-Death Penalty--not sure.
3. Diminished Military--war sucks.
4. Civil Rights -- again, "civil rights" are good.
5. Legalization of Drugs
6. Big Government
7. Anti-Big Business
8. Gay Rights--I thought gays already had rights?

[This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited June 03, 2001).]

Jeff

06-03-2001, 10:46 PM

Joe Joe: Really excellent post.

I'll take DREAMer's quiz also just for the hell of it.

Republican:
1. Anti-Abortion
2. Pro-Death Penalty
3. Strong Military
4. Civil Rights - good
5. War on Drugs - I don't consider marijuana or hemp drugs
6. Small Government
7. Pro-Business
8. Exclusion of Gays--I didn't know Republicans were for this?

I'll add one:

9. Environmentally disinterested - not against, but not for

Democrat:
1. Pro-Choice
2. Anti-Death Penalty
3. Diminished Military - not disintegrated, just streamlined
4. Civil Rights
5. Legalization of Drugs
6. Big Government
7. Anti-Big Business
8. Gay Rights - equal rights for gays and lesbians

9. Pro Environment

I am neither pro Big Government nor Anti Small Government and I am neither Pro Big Business nor Anti Big Business.

I generally tend to believe that government is the only entity that can do some things business simply will not but that government is inherently corrupt. I don't know the answer to this one because I'm not interested in anarchy nor am I a Libertarian. But, I don't want government digging through my personal life or legislating everything.

I don't trust big business because I believe they don't deserve our trust after all of the things they have done over the years. However, I don't want government regulating every element of the business world either.

Actually, I have more questions than answers. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama

finalsbound

06-03-2001, 10:57 PM

Well I'm the only black republican I know. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/frown.gif It's sad, i don't get it. I'm not the least bit rich either. I don't like the idea of murdering unborn babies, I don't like the idea of cheating on your wife or being a hypocrite (Clinton and Gore, respectively), and I like Colin Powell; I've always looked up to him.

I hate the gun issue. I mean, are all these deaths because of guns? It couldn't be that parents don't spend time with their kids no more? It couldn't be that kids my age (17) and younger play bloody video games where you kill violently? It couldn't be that music promotes hate and violence and the internet endorses it? It couldn't be that no schools teach sound morals anymore?

Naahhh, gotta be the guns.

------------------
"They couldn't shoot, rebound, or pass, but other than that, they played great!"

-Bill Walton

Rocketman95

06-03-2001, 11:56 PM

Wow finasbound believes that Clinton is the only politician to cheat on his wife. Hehe.

Ever heard of Dan Burton, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Guliani, Bob Packwood?

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

finalsbound

06-04-2001, 12:03 AM

But those guys were never the President, who should be the supreme role model in America.

I hate clinton's guts.

------------------
"They couldn't shoot, rebound, or pass, but other than that, they played great!"

-Bill Walton

Rocketman95

06-04-2001, 12:05 AM

So, you don't like Thomas Jefferson?

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

Puedlfor

06-04-2001, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Rocketman95:
So, you don't like Thomas Jefferson?



Well he was a democrat.

Seriously though - Your parents should be your role models, not the President, he's got enough to do.

------------------
This space currently being renovated. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Rocketman95

06-04-2001, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Puedlfor:
Well he was a democrat.

Seriously though - Your parents should be your role models, not the President, he's got enough to do.



Yeah, but it's hard to hate him or someone like George Washington.

How about Eisnehower?

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

finalsbound

06-04-2001, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Puedlfor:
Well he was a democrat.

Seriously though - Your parents should be your role models, not the President, he's got enough to do.



Yeah...he's got enough to do. Managing the budget, passing and vetoeing bills, committing adultury...Of course he couldn't fit being a rolemodel into that packed agenda! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif

------------------
"They couldn't shoot, rebound, or pass, but other than that, they played great!"

-Bill Walton

Puedlfor

06-04-2001, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by finalsbound:
Yeah...he's got enough to do. Managing the budget, passing and vetoeing bills, committing adultury...Of course he couldn't fit being a rolemodel into that packed agenda! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif 

His job isn't to be a role model. If you held up anyone's life to the micrscope that we hold up to our presidents we would find them lacking in the role-model department. Don't look to a President to be a role-model, look for them to govern.

------------------
This space currently being renovated. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Beto_Lluvioso

06-04-2001, 12:56 AM

I have been considering joining the Democratic Party lately, and I have unearthed some interesting tidbits.

1. The official magazine of the Democratic Party is Hustler Magazine. Larry Flynt (who, according to his daughter, was a practicing pedophile) is often seen yucking it up with Dem. bigwigs and donors. How classy!

2. The Democratic Party just recently changed their official flag to a Solid blue cloth (with a Gap symbol in the lower right hand corner) with a single white splattering of goo in the center. The single white shot symbolizes one nation, the death of state's rights, and the downfall of the silly Christian based morality for which our forefathers faught and died.

3. Jesse Jackson will remain as an important figure in the Party despite the fact that he diverted funds from charitable causes and used his supporter's hard earned cash as "hush money" for his mistress. What loyalty!

4. The Democrats are working on solutions to make sure that every uninformed, lazy citizen can vote without moving from their sofa (so they won't miss the latest Budweiser commercial). The Democrats realize that a less ambitious electorate and a more dependent people means a better chance of regaining the House and Presidency. Go Democrats!! Send me a check too!!!

5. Finally, the Democrats are working on plans to make our backward country more like Socialist Europe. This will be great! Aside from double digit unemployment, substandard medical care, $5 a gallon gasoline, a 70 tax rate, and a general lack of productivity, at least we can be on the dole!

I am sold! Vote Democrat!

------------------
I hate rice and beans!

Puedlfor

06-04-2001, 01:06 AM

You're funny. But probably not in the way you meant to be funny.

------------------
This space currently being renovated. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Beto_Lluvioso

06-04-2001, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Puedlfor:
His job isn't to be a role model. If you held up anyone's life to the micrscope that we hold up to our presidents we would find them lacking in the role-model department. Don't look to a President to be a role-model, look for them to govern.


What a stupid quote. The ex-President put himself in the following situation.

He had sexual relations with an intern- an act that would get ANY CEO of ANY public corporation fired.

He lied to a Federal Judge and a Federal Grand Jury about the relationship. He was forced to answer the questions about the Lewinsky relationship because a Federal Judge, appeals judges, and the Supreme Court all decided that a sitting President is to be treated like any citizen in Civil Rights sexual harassment violations cases.

His girlfriend, Monica Lewinsky, told more than 10 of her friends about the affair.

Israeli secret service and Chinese Intelligence have now both said they knew about the affair because our President had phone sex on unsecured phone lines. This means that many other countries must have known as well.

When faced with the charges, President Clinton waved his finger at the country and lied.

NOW, HERE IS THE IMPORTANT POINT THAT MORONS AND DEMOCRATS (REDUNDANT?) DON'T SEEM TO GET.

Our President, the most powerful man in the world, put himself into a situation where he could be blackmailed by scores of Washington insiders and several foreign governments- including our biggest foes!

Do you dimwits see the significance of this act? If the blue dress were never found, Clinton would have never told the truth, and guess what could have happened then?

China, Russia, Israel, and others could have used phone sex tapes in every negotiation with the U.S.

Congresspeople could get special favors from Clinton if they were "in the know".

Large corporations could get all kinds of concessions if they had access to hard evidence, which would no doubt become the hottest commodity in our capital.

The United States could have been reduced to a "banana Republic".

So Puedlfor, you go ahead and dismiss the complete abdication of responsibility and the commission of felonies as unimportant events. Thank God we have people in this country who have some basic sense about right and wrong. You, floating in your ignorant bliss, can thank them for your easy life in this wonderful country of law and order.

------------------
I hate rice and beans!

Puedlfor

06-04-2001, 01:28 AM

That was the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

------------------
This space currently being renovated. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Rocketman95

06-04-2001, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Puedlfor:
That was the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.



He's just pissed because he's unemployed.

I'm a Democrat and I have a job.

Hehe.

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

Jeff

06-04-2001, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Beto_Lluvioso:
the downfall of the silly Christian based morality for which our forefathers faught and died.


Just to point out, our forefathers (including Washington, Jefferson and Adams) weren't Christians. They were Diests. Diests had similarities to Christianity in practice but very different beliefs that had more in common with what we today consider Wicca than they did with traditional Christianity.

They fought and died for the right to religious freedom among other things. The monarchy they rebelled against was affiliated with the Roman Catholic church (the preeminent Christian religion in the world at the time), considered by most Diests and Quakers (both the predominant religions in America at the time of the revolutionary war) to be overbearing and stifling.

Groups like the Puritans, who practiced the strict dictates of the Bible (the Amish are an offshoot of this early group) and were likely the first true Christians in America along with the Pilgrims, actually abstained from the war because they believed in non-violence.

------------------
The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama

Puedlfor

06-04-2001, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Jeff:
They fought and died for the right to religious freedom among other things. The monarchy they rebelled against was affiliated with the Roman Catholic church (the preeminent Christian religion in the world at the time), considered by most Diests and Quakers (both the predominant religions in America at the time of the revolutionary war) to be overbearing and stifling.

Slight problem : The English Monarchy was not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.

------------------
This space currently being renovated. We apologize for the inconvenience.

tacoma park legend

06-04-2001, 01:45 AM

I believe Queen Elizabeth dismissed Catholicism with a predominantly Protestant official religion with Catholic ties. Is that right Puedlfor?

------------------

Beto_Lluvioso

06-04-2001, 09:36 AM

Puedlfor- I did not expect anything more from you than your inane response. I realize that facts don't play a major role in your world, so hasta nunca.

Jeff-
1. Our founding fathers were not all Deists. Your statement is a gross oversimplification.

2. I understand our history very well, and I used the term "Christian based morality" for a reason. You cannot deny the strong influence of Christianity in the Colonies, as explained in the Lincoln Journal Star-

Donald Lutz, in his book The Origins of the Constitution, devotes a chapter to the context of the Constitution. He says one way to identify the influences on American political thought is to examine the citations in public political literature of the time. In other words, to learn why the founders thought as they did, see whose works impressed them enough to be quoted. He found that from 1760 to 1805, not only was the Bible the most quoted book, it was quoted more often than all other sources combined. Note 1 Those who would have us think our founders were not Christians just don't know where the founders got their ideas.

The Library of Congress says "The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville's observation, 'indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. '" The fact is that not only were the founders overwhelmingly Christian, but even those few who weren't recognized the necessity of founding the republic on Christian principles.

3. King George 111 was a member of the Anglican Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.

------------------
I hate rice and beans!

Jeff

06-04-2001, 10:29 AM

On second thought, nevermind.

I was going to post, but I realized that it really isn't necessary. I feel better when I avoid these types of discussions anyway.

This in interesting reading, though. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama

[This message has been edited by Jeff (edited June 04, 2001).]

haven

06-04-2001, 12:14 PM

Hmm... I like chatting with trolls, usually, but this had devolved past the point where it's intriguing.

Bela: You're a complete idiot. Enjoy your unenlightened, banal, non-reflective life.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

Rocketman95

06-04-2001, 12:47 PM

Hmm, I wonder if a liberal on this board could get away with a moronic post calling conservatives dimwits and morons?

Doubt it.

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

Major

06-04-2001, 02:02 PM

Granted, the original stuff about Hustler, etc was maybe over the top but it was not without MERIT. Flynt and Jackson have both been long been prominently associated with Democratic politicking in the past.

So if I associated Republicans with racism, that would have merit because a few Republicans in the past were known to be racist?

------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

RichRocket

06-04-2001, 02:11 PM

Rocketman95: I was being sarcastic because I couldn't even begin to imagine what you were trying to say.

shanna: oh, yeah, sure, of course. But don't forget about the racist Democrats, too. The guy was trying to be FUNNY for God's sake!

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

Major

06-04-2001, 02:23 PM

shanna: oh, yeah, sure, of course. But don't forget about the racist Democrats, too. The guy was trying to be FUNNY for God's sake!

Of course he was trying to be funny... you're the one that said it had merit. My post was directed to you, not the original poster.

Granted, the original stuff about Hustler, etc was maybe over the top but it was not without MERIT.

------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

haven

06-04-2001, 02:25 PM

RichRocket: I need to prove that he's a troll, and that my insult was on that ground? Alright, here we go...

"I have been considering joining the Democratic Party lately, and I have unearthed some
interesting tidbits."

This is your first clue: deliberately taunting. Not exactly a good way to convince someone.

"1. The official magazine of the Democratic Party is Hustler Magazine. Larry Flynt (who,
according to his daughter, was a practicing pedophile) is often seen yucking it up with
Dem. bigwigs and donors. How classy!"

Straight-out lie. He gives money to the party that supports his constitutional rights, but if there were a Party Magazine, it'd probably be the New Republic. There are plenty of scumbags in the Republican part... like Newt, yet not all Republicans are scumbags. Or, what about Republican connections to big oil, etc? Strom Thurmond voted against civil rights legislation. ick

"2. The Democratic Party just recently changed their official flag to a Solid blue cloth
(with a Gap symbol in the lower right hand corner) with a single white splattering of goo
in the center. The single white shot symbolizes one nation, the death of state's rights,
and the downfall of the silly Christian based morality for which our forefathers faught and
died."

What a lie. This is first of all an uttery fabrication. Secondly, our founding fathers did NOT want Christian-based morality. Jefferson himself characterized the Establishment clause as a "wall of separation" between church and state. Having experienced persecution in England, nobody wanted a "christian-based" state.

"3. Jesse Jackson will remain as an important figure in the Party despite the fact that he
diverted funds from charitable causes and used his supporter's hard earned cash as "hush
money" for his mistress. What loyalty!"

More lies and misprepresentation. Jackson hasn't been an important member of the Democratic party since he lost in '88. He's very *vocal*, just not very important. And if you really wanted to get personal on congressmen, Reps have done just as sleazy of things.

"4. The Democrats are working on solutions to make sure that every uninformed, lazy
citizen can vote without moving from their sofa (so they won't miss the latest Budweiser
commercial). The Democrats realize that a less ambitious electorate and a more
dependent people means a better chance of regaining the House and Presidency. Go
Democrats!! Send me a check too!!!"

Amazing... another straight out lie! Actually, educated people tend to vote Democrat. The statistical breakdown goes like this:

highschool dropout: Dem
Highschool grad: rep
associates degree :rep
bachelors: pretty even
more than bachelors: dem

You were wrong again.

"5. Finally, the Democrats are working on plans to make our backward country more like
Socialist Europe. This will be great! Aside from double digit unemployment, substandard
medical care, $5 a gallon gasoline, a 70 tax rate, and a general lack of productivity, at
least we can be on the dole!"

Hmmm... You're triply wronng. I've never heard a single Democrat profess such desires. Never. Secondly, there isn't a single pure-socialist country in Europe. And, refer to many semi-socialist Scandinavian countries: high taxes, high per capita purchasing power and quality of life. Gasoline sucks, too :P.

Oh, and Europe isn't backward.
"I am sold! Vote Democrat!"

This entire post deliberately incendiary, incorrect, and misleading. Tell me how this wasn't a troll-post.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 04, 2001).]

Behad

06-04-2001, 02:34 PM

Hell yes, haven!!

Thank you.

------------------
I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out".

RichRocket

06-04-2001, 02:37 PM

shanna: I forgot; humor cannot have a grain of truth in it.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

haven

06-04-2001, 03:00 PM

RichRocket:

There wasn't anything there that was funny. Besides, humor should not be based on completely fallacious and mistaken assertions. I don't think he said a single thing that had a grain of truth in it. If there's humor in a situation, fine... but that was biased, rhetoric that attempted to be funny by mocking people's beliefs. That's offensive and wrong.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

RichRocket

06-04-2001, 03:36 PM

Of course there were kernels of truth in his piece.

1. Are you saying that Larry Flynt doesn't yuck it up with Democratic bigwigs? It was his money that exposed House Majority Leader-elect Bob Livingstone, wasn't it? He threatened to do even more. By the way, the "crime" of Clinton was not having an affair it was lying before the Grand Jury.

2. Read the reference he cited; it is true that the founders were heavily influence by Christian tradition and the Bible. Their life's work is full of references to such.
They were opposed to a state religion such as the Anglican Church was to merry old England. They knew that the success and longevity of our nation would be dependent on the moral character of its citizenry. Ben Franklin predicted that winning independence would be easier than keeping it.

3. Can you name the one person in this world who has done both of these things: counseled Bill Clinton about his infidelity with Lewinsky and visited Al Gore on the night he lost the presidential bid? Jesse Jackson; does he sound like "an unimportant member of the Democratic party?" Sure, Reps and Dems both have done sleazy things. When caught, they shouldn't just take a weekend of atonement and get back into the fray pretending to be the uber-conscience of the masses. Jackson is a sleazeball of the first order.

4. What do high-school dropouts and grad students have in common? Absolutely nothing except that they both vote overwhelmingly Democratic. What's wrong with this picture!!!!!!!!

Incendiary? How about provocative?
Incorrect? How about largely accurate?
Misleading? Don't think so....

The posting was a piece of humor. If you want to see something to get really stirred up about go the the piece about WWJD: What Would Jenna Drink. Now that's class!

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

haven

06-04-2001, 03:51 PM

I fail to see your kernels. Even the rationally softened picture you paint is, at best, doubtful.

"1. Are you saying that Larry Flynt doesn't yuck it up with Democratic bigwigs? It was his
money that exposed House Majority Leader-elect Bob Livingstone, wasn't it? He
threatened to do even more. By the way, the "crime" of Clinton was not having an affair
it was lying before the Grand Jury."

Do you have a point? Larry Flynt gives money to Democrats. Big deal. Lying to a Grand Jury? Clinton wouldn't be the first. But the *root* of the lie is still in pointless sex scandals.

"2. Read the reference he cited; it is true that the founders were heavily influence by
Christian tradition and the Bible. Their life's work is full of references to such.
They were opposed to a state religion such as the Anglican Church was to merry old
England. They knew that the success and longevity of our nation would be dependent on
the moral character of its citizenry. Ben Franklin predicted that winning independence
would be easier than keeping it."

Ethics has nothing to do with religion. If you studied history, you'd know that most of our founding fathers were Kantian in their belief that "rights" and "liberty" were rational concepts.

"3. Can you name the one person in this world who has done both of these things:
counseled Bill Clinton about his infidelity with Lewinsky and visited Al Gore on the night he
lost the presidential bid? Jesse Jackson; does he sound like "an unimportant member of
the Democratic party?" Sure, Reps and Dems both have done sleazy things. When
caught, they shouldn't just take a weekend of atonement and get back into the fray
pretending to be the uber-conscience of the masses. Jackson is a sleazeball of the first
order."

Terrific. But, once again, big deal. Jackson probably isn't a great guy. Tons of Republicans aren't either. What influence does Jackson have on policy? The real flaw the Dems are exhibiting here is using Jackson as a link to racial diversity. I do have a problem with that, but it's no tthe one you'r e pointing out.

"4. What do high-school dropouts and grad students have in common? Absolutely nothing
except that they both vote overwhelmingly Democratic. What's wrong with this
picture!!!!!!!!"

Not just grad students... people with further education than a bachelors. Doctors, lawyers, etc as well as phd's.

The original post was NOT amusing. It was an insulting piece of crap based on delusional conservative propoganda. A joke wouldn't have been deliberately insulting and rude.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

Rocketman95

06-04-2001, 04:00 PM

I have been considering joining the Republican Party lately, and I have unearthed some interesting tidbits.

1. The Republicans have this great love for the fetus. I love the fetus too. But that fetus shouldn't be born. I mean, he can be born, but it should probably be to a family with a combined income of $50,000 or more, or we don't care about them. That is until they reach the age where they can join the military.

2. The Republican Party is considering changing the nation's flag to the Confederate flag. This would show that white people are in fact better than everything else and the term "Stars and Bars" would represent their desire to get rid of all people non-white, non-Christian, and non-straight.

3. The Republican party is working to make it necessary to pray to God in schools. Oh no, not just any God, it has to be there God. You know, the one that condones slavery and discriminates against homosexuals and believes in talking bushes.

4. The Republicans are working on solutions that would make it illegal for the wealthiest 1% to give any money to any person or organization that isn't the RNC or blood-related. Any money not given to these two entities must be taken to the grave with them.

5. Finally, the Republicans are working on plans to make our backward country more like the USA circa 1850. That's when the blacks and women knew their place and there weren't any homos!!

I am sold! Vote Republican!

Wow, I have a sense of humor too!!!!!

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

RichRocket

06-04-2001, 04:19 PM

Do you have a point? Larry Flynt gives money to Democrats. Big deal. Lying to a Grand Jury? Clinton wouldn't be the first. But the *root* of the lie is still in pointless sex scandals.

What are you saying? Did the Democratic party pay for the inquiries into the personal lives of certain Republican figures? Or was it Flynt's private war? Okay so you think everyone who lies to the Grand Jury should just get away with it. That's nice!

Ethics has nothing to do with religion. If you studied history, you'd know that most of our founding fathers were Kantian in their belief that "rights" and "liberty" were rational concepts.

I'm not saying that ethics isn't rational but it does have lots to do with religion. In my world, we do allow overlapping.

Terrific. But, once again, big deal. Jackson probably isn't a great guy. Tons of Republicans aren't either. What influence does Jackson have on policy? The real flaw the Dems are exhibiting here is using Jackson as a link to racial diversity. I do have a problem with that, but it's no tthe one you'r e pointing out.

Jackson's influence is directly proportional to his ability to deliver votes which is also directly proportional to the perception that he is influential. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It doesn't matter now because they are both with us.

Not just grad students... people with further education than a bachelors. Doctors, lawyers, etc as well as phd's.
What do grad students become? Doctors, Lawyers, PhDs et cetera; I knew what I was saying. Do those two groups (high school dropouts and smart-types) have ANYTHING ELSE IN COMMON? That justifies my suspicion.

The original post was NOT amusing. It was an insulting piece of crap based on delusional conservative propoganda. A joke wouldn't have been deliberately insulting and rude.
Where is your sense of humor? Excuse me now, I have to go get my daily does of conservative pablum on The Jerry Springer Show.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

Rocketman95

06-04-2001, 04:22 PM

I forgot the big selling point.

6. Republicans are big defenders of the Bill of Rights!! Of course, their bill of rights only includes the 2nd amendment. Keep your hand off our guns and we can try to censor and eliminate speech all we want.

Woohoo, I'm definitely in.

I'm a funny guy, huh RichRocket?!?!?

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

haven

06-04-2001, 04:37 PM

RichRocket:

Larry Flynt: I don't really understand what our argument has devolved too, about that. We can just agree to disagree there.

Grad students: What are you suspicious about? Those stats are pretty sound, and available if you want to do a little reasearch. I read about the breakdown first in a freshman polisci class. *shrug*... I thought you were just making a slander against grad students http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif.

Ethics: Religion can deal with ethics, but it's not essential. I think our founding fathers were more concerned with a priori ethics than religious morality.

Jesse Jackson: Not really. Most of what Jackson is pushing for (stringent Aff action policies, etc) has been abandoned by the majority of the Dem party. He's pretty much simply cultural liaison with African-Americans. It would look "bad" to disassociate with him. I don't approve of this. He doesn't really deliver the African-American vote... they vote Dem, anyway, generally. But he probably could make it hard on the Democrats by making a ruckus about any "mistreatment."

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

Major

06-04-2001, 04:41 PM

Do those two groups (high school dropouts and smart-types) have ANYTHING ELSE IN COMMON? That justifies my suspicion.

Yes, they have one other thing in common. They both have an underlying concern for & desire to improve the lowest economic classes of society.

High school dropouts for personal reasons as they members of this group. "smart-types" because they understand that a strong lower & middle class is necessary for long-term growth of the economy.

The middle & upper classes generally don't have as strong a desire in that respect. Middle classes tend to be more focused on their own survival, while the upper classes tend to be more focused on their own immediate wealth creation.

------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

RichRocket

06-04-2001, 05:06 PM

shanna: as one of my students used to say, "Horse Hockey!" Only a slim perdentage of grad students care about what you assert. I'm sure that's the first thing in the minds of those pre-med students and those law review candidates. Nice theories though; let me know when (and if) you find a publisher.

haven: we can agree to disagree about Flynt if you are telling me it's okay to "blackmail" certain US Senators and Congressmen if they don't allow the President of the US to get away with lying to a Grand Jury and obstructing justice. I'll never agree to that.

Rocketman95: What's wrong? We used to be able to talk about these things. Now you just go off on these silly rants. Which part were you serious about? That's the danger of humor....
------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 04, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 04, 2001).]

haven

06-04-2001, 05:19 PM

RichRocket:

1. I don't consider what Clinton did to be sex, either. Sorry, but if my Great Aunt Hazel asked me if I'd had sexual relations with someone who'd given me a blowjob, I'd say "no" and feel honest.

2. The question was illegitimate. With all the witch-hunt propoganda concerning Clinton, there hasn't been enough focus on the fact that it was all a farce. Any self-respecting judge knew that Paula Jones' case was a complete joke, and in fact, it was originally thrown out. The question of perjury was contingent upon a political trial. I don't enough consideration is given to that.

3. At its routs, the entire thing was about sex. Read the rhetoric of the Republicans from the time: let me tell you, perjury was the last thing on their minds.

4. Most importantly - Independent of the Clinton issues, Republicans love to talk about sexual scandal. With all of their family values crap, I think that Flynt's exposures were fitting.
------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 04, 2001).]

Major

06-04-2001, 05:28 PM

Only a slim perdentage of grad students care about what you assert. I'm sure that's the first thing in the minds of those pre-med students and those law review candidates.

Pre-med students and law-review candidates are not exclusively a part of the "intellectual elite" -- they fit more into the middle classes and, accordingly, are more concerned about their own survival and happiness at that point. Some of those go on to the upper classes and turn to concerns over their own wealth creation. Others gravitate towards the "intellectual elite" mode.

It's after that point where the liberal tendencies come into play. Its the lifetime students, the professors, the PHd in Philosophy or Economics or English people that I'm referring to in this case. This is the portion of the "upper class" that is known to be liberal.

Beyond that, there are of course "sub-sections" that are known to be liberal or conservative. For example, teachers generally are middle class but tend to be Democrats. Farmers span the economic classes but tend to be Republicans. These are sometimes not be so much on idealist grounds as practical reasons -- those parties cater to those groups.

However, looking at large groups as a whole, I stand by what as I said earlier.

------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

haven

06-04-2001, 05:41 PM

I've never seen any statistics about this, but it would make sense to me that lawyers and doctors WOULD be democrats.

Doctors: Generally advocate more liberal policies... poll substantially for medical marijuana, hate HMO's, want better medical care for indigents, generally aren't radical Christians.

Lawyers: Seem to fill the same role for Democrats that businessmen enact for Republicans. Generally, lawyers support liberal interpretations of the Constitution, liberal criminal codes, and and a classic liberal standpoint on the issue of "fundamental human dignity."

Also, lawyers tend to be English and polisci majors who want to make money http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif. Like, I'll probably end up being an attorny, because I have horrifying nightmares about being an indigent professor, which is what I'd do in an ideal world.

I would wager that most lawyers and doctors are the "Reagan Democrats" - you know, the people who want their tax cut, but don't want Gary Bauer anywhere near public policy.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

Behad

06-05-2001, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Rocketman95:
Hmm, I wonder if a liberal on this board could get away with a moronic post calling conservatives dimwits and morons?

Doubt it.



You doubt it? I damn well guarantee it would never happen!

------------------
I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out".

Achebe

06-05-2001, 01:03 AM

Well there's only one way to find out, isn't there?

------------------
You're a fine woman, why don't you mock (http://www.clutchcity.net/mockdraft.cfm?xMockID=822) that draft up

RichRocket

06-05-2001, 01:05 AM

Anybody ever read "The Light and The Glory" by Peter Marshall?

Does haven's directly addressing him as a "complete idiot" and a "troll" count? Is it still there?
Yes.

The earlier assault was a general dismissal of Democrats-- which should offend no one in particular.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 04, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 04, 2001).]

Jeff

06-05-2001, 01:16 AM

Enough name calling everyone. Play nice or don't play at all.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama

haven

06-05-2001, 01:17 AM

RichRocket:

I call them as I see them. I've never called you an idiot. Nor have I ever called a true conservative *poster* anything really derogatory.

Who have I insulted? Bob Rainey and this fellow. Both trolls. I don't insult people over political beliefs. I do insult people for ruining genuine discussion with trolling.

Can you honestly tell me that any rational human being interested in discussion could possibly profess the ideas mentioned above? I really doubt it. If you can, you're incredibly generous.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

Band Geek Mobster

06-05-2001, 01:17 AM

And this started out as such a peaceful "getting to know ya" kind of thread.

------------------
They're loud, they're obnoxious and proud,
They are conscious but don't forget that theeeey're your future,
These kids are accused for all the violence,
You can't even keep them silent,
You...thought you had...all the answers...

RichRocket

06-05-2001, 01:42 AM

haven: Did you or did you not write "Bela, you are a complete idiot"?

Eexactly what did he say that is not correct?

Granted, the original stuff about Hustler, etc was maybe over the top but it was not without MERIT. Flynt and Jackson have both been long been prominently associated with Democratic politicking in the past.

The characterization of the Founding Fathers seems accurate; The Bible was continually referenced in their work. Weren't American colonists motivated by a desire to not have to join the Anglican Church. Seems like mostly they were seeking the freedom to have their own version of a Christian faith NOT the freedom to practice witchcraft or voodoo.

Flynt spent money to be ready to take down Republican philanderers. I can well imagine how knowledge of the Monica Lewinsky affair could have been used to our disadvantage by enemies. Don't read his ideas as if he is asserting that every one of these things would have come about. They are possible.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 04, 2001).]

Rocketman95

06-05-2001, 01:52 AM

And it's possible that the Republican party could be taken over by someone who wants to throw every non-white, non-christian, non-straight person into a gas chamber.

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

RichRocket

06-05-2001, 01:54 AM

Okay, I'm with you now Rocketman95. Good point!

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

Rocketman95

06-05-2001, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by RichRocket:
Okay, I'm with you now Rocketman95. Good point!


I hope you're not being sarcastic. I don't think that would ever happen and I know that 99.9% of conservatives aren't like that, just like I hope you know that 99.9% of liberals are like Larry Flynt.

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

Beto_Lluvioso

06-05-2001, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by haven:

1. I don't consider what Clinton did to be sex, either. Sorry, but if my Great Aunt Hazel asked me if I'd had sexual relations with someone who'd given me a blowjob, I'd say "no" and feel honest.

Wow! The above statement shows me that you did not even read about the case. Clinton was given a definition of "sexual relations" before he was asked any questions by the Grand Jury in his Civil Rights Sexual Harassment violations lawsuit (that he settled out of court for almost 1 million dollars). Included in that list of activity was oral sex. He lied to his fellow Arkansans, and your ignorance of the case does not change that fact.

Originally posted by haven:

2. The question was illegitimate. With all the witch-hunt propoganda concerning Clinton, there hasn't been enough focus on the fact that it was all a farce. Any self-respecting judge knew that Paula Jones' case was a complete joke, and in fact, it was originally thrown out. The question of perjury was contingent upon a political trial. I don't enough consideration is given to that.

Wrong! When a person is accused of sexual harassment, the historical behaviour of the defendant is always admissible, as ruled by the judge, and an appeals court. The Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 that Clinton had to stand trial.

The question of perjury was not contingent on a political trial. He was asked a question deemed proper by the judge, and he lied.

I wonder how you would feel if your wife, sister, or mother said to you that her powerful boss had police officers take her to his office, the boss exposed himself, and then he asked for oral sex. Would you call her "trailor trash" like Democratic operatives did after the Jones case?

Are you anti-female?
Originally posted by haven:

3. At its routs, the entire thing was about sex. Read the rhetoric of the Republicans from the time: let me tell you, perjury was the last thing on their minds.

This Clinton v Jones case is about one simple question- Are we as Americans going to hold our leaders to the same legal standards as we hold the poorest among us? Does it matter that the Clinton Justice Department put a woman in jail for lying about an affair? Do you really feel that Clinton, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land should walk away for an offense that merits putting a woman in jail in another case? Are you ignorant of these facts or do you want to live in a Monarchy, where we can worship our leaders? Originally posted by haven:

4. Most importantly - Independent of the Clinton issues, Republicans love to talk about sexual scandal. With all of their family values crap, I think that Flynt's exposures were fitting. 
What a perfect ending to your diatribe of ignorance! I think it is fitting that you align yourself with Flynt, who is accused by his own daughter of molesting her as a young girl.

Amoral confederates in an amoral cause....

------------------
I hate rice and beans!

mrpaige

06-05-2001, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by haven:
Doctors: Generally advocate more liberal policies... poll substantially for medical marijuana, hate HMOs, want better medical care for indigents, generally aren't radical Christians.

Lawyers: Seem to fill the same role for Democrats that businessmen enact for Republicans. Generally, lawyers support liberal interpretations of the Constitution, liberal criminal codes, and and a classic liberal standpoint on the issue of "fundamental human dignity."

My personal experience is different than this, of course. Every physician I know is more conservative than liberal and considers themselves Republican (and I know a lot of physicians. Not all physicians, of course). Most lawyers I know are also Republicans, but I do know a couple of lawyers who are Democrats (including one who is the epitome of a liberal).

But I don't think we see too many radicals of any stripe in everyday life. People tend to be more middle of the road than we see in the leadership of the political parties. I think most of us tend to get more middle of the road as we get older, too (not always, of course. And I disagree with the assertion that people become more conservative as they age. It depends on where they're starting from. I was far more conservative as a 20 year-old than I am as a near-30 year-old).

I consider myself a Republican, but there are many, many things that the Republican leadership espouses that I don't agree with. I'm pro-choice. I support the separation of church and state. I support welfare programs. I support more open immigration. I think there are things that the Government should do. The free market is not always the best way to accomplish things (though I support the free market approach more often than not). I support civil rights moreso than the Republican Party Leadership tends to. I'm not as big a fan of the death penalty as many of the Party's leaders are. And so on and so on. Truth be told, I'm probably more Libertarian than Republican, but I'm not 100% behind their stated philosophies, either. (And I've never voted for anyone who wasn't a Republican).

Personally, I don't think that we can label a person and know his/her total world view based on that label. We only have a handful of choices among the political parties. The political parties cannot possibly speak for 100% of us 100% of the time.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
Film Dallas.com (http://www.filmdallas.com)
AntiBud.com (http://www.antibud.com)

haven

06-05-2001, 03:24 PM

mrpaige:

Differen't experiences, I suppose... although I admittedly circulate in among liberals. Two of my uncles are doctors, and they're both Democrats.

What sort of lawyers do you generally associate with? I'd say an easy majority of those I've met, not just in my acquaintance, have been liberal.

The AMA and ABA endorsed Gore this time, though, didn't they?

I completely agree that most people don't support one party 100%. It would seem like a case of brain-washing if they did http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 05, 2001).]

mrpaige

06-05-2001, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by haven:
What sort of lawyers do you generally associate with? I'd say an easy majority of those I've met, not just in my acquaintance, have been liberal.

Most of the lawyers I have met are corporate lawyers, though I also know some family lawyers and a couple of criminal lawyers.

One thing to keep in mind is that the majority of physicians and lawyers I know are from the Panhandle, where people tend to be more conservative than other places (though my personal experience has held so far in D/FW, as well. I just don't know as many physicians and lawyers in D/FW).

I'm quite certain that the ABA endorsed Gore in 2000, and I'm pretty darn sure that the ABA endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996. But the ABA doesn't take a poll of its membership to determine who they will support. The leadership decides that, and the leadership of a group or organization is not always indicitive of the membership as a whole. Here's the question, too. Was the ABA's support of Gore or Clinton based on an overall agreement with his policies, or was their support based on Clinton/Gore's opposition to things like Tort Reform? Is the endorsement a matter of principle or of pragmatism?

Again, though, I am going to venture to guess that the majority of lawyers, doctors and the rest of us fall closer to the middle of the road on the vast majority of issues. Personally, I would hesitate to call anyone I know a liberal. They may vote Democratic, but they aren't far enough to the left for me to think of them as true liberals in the common sense of the word today.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
Film Dallas.com (http://www.filmdallas.com)
AntiBud.com (http://www.antibud.com)

WhiteMagic02

06-05-2001, 11:55 PM

"people become more conservative as they age"
I certainly hope this does not happen to me. Conservative economic policies always seem to favor those who have attained wealth whereas the liberals try to help the poor. This is the main reason I support Democrats.

------------------

RichRocket

06-06-2001, 06:29 AM

WM02: I guess you also hope NOT to age. What exactly is wrong with growing conservative with age?

Isn't change good? Shouldn't an evolving life experience reflect and rely upon a freshened outlook? That may mean growing conservative.

I believe it was Winston Churchill who said something like this: If you're not liberal while young, you don't have a heart. If you're not conservative with age, you don't have a brain.

I was ridiculed here for admitting this evolution in my own life and observing the pattern in general. Is remaining liberal a gallant kind of refusal to grow up?! Who knows? Is it just clinging to a set of youthful ideals? Maybe.

Try this one on: Conservatives are more willing to make tough, realistic choices. Liberals seem to be wanting to forestall that necessity: 1. Approve of almost anything and everything, and 2. MAKE the haves provide for the have-nots (it's easy to spend others' money).

I know it's a complicated matter and EVERYTHING written here is overly simplistic.

I'm a hard-assed Republican who likes chick-flicks, cries when children get rescued, and doesn't flinch when the death penalty is carried out. I don't own a gun. I give to charity. I don't mind paying some taxes; I just hate to see so much of our tax-dollar wasted unnecessarily.

Those who lean left have good hearts-- but not better than mine. Ann Landers once advised NOT to be so open-minded that your brain falls out. But then there's this: a mind is like a parachute-- only good when open.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

Rocketman95

06-06-2001, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by RichRocket:

I believe it was Winston Churchill who said something like this: If you're not liberal while young, you don't have a heart. If you're not conservative with age, you don't have a brain.



Yeah, and isn't he the guy whose ass we had to save in WWII?

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

rimbaud

06-06-2001, 09:17 AM

Actually, the most important thing to note about Churchill is that he was talking about a different kind of conservative, politically. Europe is different, remember, especially when talking about 50 years ago...

In contemporary French politics, for example, the Fascist party has seen a minor rise in popularity/strength. Here in the US, these politicians would be called conservative Republicans (meaning the farthest right, not all).

Rich,

You were "ridiculed" because your simplistic generalization used to categorize on political view as "youth" (meaning naive, uninformed, etc...) deserved it. I would have had the same reaction if you had said there were no young conservatives. What is the point?

Under your standard, people such as:
J.S. Mill, Bertrand Russel, Isaiah Berlin, Gustavo Gutierrez, Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, Guy Debord, Michael Harrington, Marx, Howard Zinn, etc...
all should be dismissed because they are "trying to hold onto their youth" because they represent non-conservative viewpoints (most into very old age -- some just have not gotten there yet).

That, my friend, is the real naive view. That is the real view worth dismissing, suggesting a lack experience, maturity, intelligence -- whatever word you deem fit.

Why not just allow, *generally*, for a difference of opinion?

Are you so insecure that you must attempt to raise yourself above those whose opinions differ by such tactics?

------------------
"You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"

[This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited June 06, 2001).]

BrianKagy

06-06-2001, 09:36 AM

Yeah, and isn't he the guy whose ass we had to save in WWII?

Who taught you history, Jerry Bruckheimer?

Rocketman95

06-06-2001, 09:47 AM

Yeah, so?

------------------
www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)
"Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin

[This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited June 06, 2001).]

RichRocket

06-06-2001, 12:24 PM

rimbaud: when I made that remark, I was specifically referring to shanna and haven with whom I was "conversing" at the time. I believe that is when you first jumped all over my case, isn't it? Shanna's remarks struck me as "textbook" and, I think, haven works in a university library somewhere, so to me their take on these matters struck me as right out of a university classroom-- places which are not particularly known for their fair treatment of conservative positions.

EVERYTHING said here in a few lines is generalized and simplified. Nothing else is feasible. I realize that and think you should too. I get your meaning and you get mine. Let's not hold each other accountable unto the end for these brief, inexact comments.

But thanks for your mean-spirited remarks!!!
Thanks for suggesting that I am immature, inexperienced, and unintelligent. By the way, I enjoyed your analogy of the European Fascists to Rightwing Conservatives. That is especially insightful! You are a helluva spokesman for your point of view...

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

rimbaud

06-06-2001, 12:45 PM

RichRocket,

Your "isolated" statement has been mirrored here in a different thread, that was the reasoning behind my response.

From there, we may continue...

I believe haven is a student, I do not know about the library part...regardless, why is that an issue? Shanna is not a student, so why are his remarcks "textbook?" During my undergraduate years, I had both conservative and liberal professors. I had two extreme ones: one left, one right. the left was a big comedian and enjoyed it when students made fun of his views, but still promoted them. The right would just make up things about leftist views and controlled the sylabus to reflect his views (this in a 20th Cent. Political Theory class). Point is, there are bad on both sides.

Anyway...

I never attacked you personally, I was saying that if you promote the view that all non-conservatives are either young or somehow flawed, then that was naive, ignorant, etc. View, not person.

You say you know differently, but yet insist on bringin up the same generalization in different contexts -- that is my issue.

As far as the fascist/far-left conservative thing...I was trying to illustrate the difference between European and American ideaology. What the French call the Fascist Party has a foundation of beliefs that are similar to the far-right conservatives of this country (Pat Robertson, Buchanan, etc.). That is a fact. When I lived in Paris I got a very cut-and-dry breakdown of all of their parties. It certainly was not meant as a slam against the Republican party, as you seemed to have taken it. Again, just pointing out differences in categorizing. This country is much more limited with its two party system. That, coupled with specific european evolution of political thought, leads to such differences.

Thus, it is a little inappropriate to transplant Churchill's words to represent our Bush/Gore options.

Seeing as you do not even know my political "pont of view" (I certainly have not brought it into these two threads) I do not see how you can make judgement upon my "spokesman" merit.

------------------
"You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"

The Voice of Reason

06-06-2001, 02:02 PM

I love potatos!!!

they are so yummy.

they make frenchfries

they make potato chips(but of cource they do, what else would possible make potato chips)
could you immagine hop potatos would feel if potato chips were made from brussel sprouts?? what a travesty this would be for spuds world wide. but i digress

they make potato pancakes.

they are often the most yumy part of stews

they are just as yummy in soups

baked potatos are yummy.

so are potato skins, especially with bacon and saur cream, ahh I feel like Homer "dognuts(potatos), is there nothing they cant do??"

if spelled PotatoEs they can humiliate imbicile vice presidents http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif and thus the relevance to this thread.

they can be used to power those potato clocks http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif i used to have one of them, anyone else??

they are the foundation which hash browns were built upon.

they only need to be cun in half and burried to drow MORE potatos

they quite succesfully help feed the world.

hurt when thrown hard

you can make a potato gun with some PVC piping and some starter fluid, or other highly volitile material. in this incidents potatos are both good and bad. if one hits you you will lkely not be the same person afterwards, and you will hate potatos. but you will still eat them

ahh and lets not forhet mashed potatos. both a food, and a way for aliens to communicate with humans(close encounters of the 3rd kind) they are a find sculpting material.

potatos have even found their way into a BBS poster signature.

I love Potatos. almost as much as I love cheese. potatos are cheaper however, and did you notice that you usually sayumm those potatos would be yummy if we added some______ to them, and not Boy thoser bacon bith would be yumy if we added some potato??

potato is the foundation of food. love the potato!!!!

god bless America!!

but not in school, lets keep god out of the schools ok people. hell keep got out of my potatos too.

PEACE

------------------
Hanta-Force Paintball
www.hanta-force.com (http://www.hanta-force.com)

rimbaud

06-06-2001, 02:14 PM

I must first preface the meat of this post with me reiterating that I, in no way, meant anything I posted in either this or the other thread to be personal. The only reason I responded was due to the continued generalization that I felt was intellectually irresponsible. Again, I would have reacted the same had someone said that only the elderly are conservative. I feel that it is a fallacy to hold such a generalizations as a "truism."

If any of my words seemed too acerbic or personal, I apologize, as that was not my intent. The person of "you" never existed, as you are not real anyway (at least in this context). I do not know you, I do not know your intelligence, nor do I particularly care. I, therefore, would never attack you or suggest that you were in some way un-intelligent.

It also follows that I was not trying to persuade you to my argument. There is not point to that. I do not get into discussions to change people's minds. That would be futile.

I still feel that you were "slighting" both Shanna and Haven, but that is irrelevant at this point. You brought their "persons" into a political ideaology discussion in order to better promote your side. So be it.

Haven,

I have not read Arthur Miller's political commentaries, and I certainly would not have seen his piece on Clinton. I intentionally steered clear of anything dealing with that (except for one op-ed that was forced upon me and it read like a trashy romance novel, trying to make the (Democratic) players appear as if they belonged in a romantic tragedy).

As far as your bit about people accruing and altering their eliefs to fit their new lifestyles...well, that is possible, but that just makes them ideological whores, right?

I have seen my wealth and "estate" grow rapidly over the last few years and my views have stayed pretty much the same (although I do listen to jazz more now). http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"

rimbaud

06-06-2001, 02:17 PM

VOR,

I feel that anything I could post from now on in this thread would be inadequate when compared to your patriotic potato polemic.

I must, therefore, bow out!

------------------
"You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"

haven

06-06-2001, 02:35 PM

Rimbaud:

Not saying it's universal; just accounting for a general trend that probably does exist.

About Miller: his op-ed piece simply likened the current sex-hunt to his play "The Crucible."

RichRocket: My writing style is, in general, relatively acerbic and arrogant. Sorry about that, but it's nothing personal. I write that way in all but my fiction. I think it's the result of too much CX debate http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif. There really is a culture of arrogance there... and it always "looks" better if you act like you're annihilating.

I've only been intentionally insulting in tihs thread with "Bela," and that's because I think he's a troll.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 06, 2001).]

Beto_Lluvioso

06-06-2001, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by haven:
Rimbaud:

I've only been intentionally insulting in tihs thread with "Bela," and that's because I think he's a troll.



What a joke! The minute I showed how ignorant you are about the facts surrounding the Clinton Perjury Trial, you shut up and declared me a troll. Go back to school little boy, and mind your lessons before you make yourself look any sillier.

BTW, it is very easy to declare oneself a socialist when you

a. don't have any employees
b. don't produce anything tangible
c. don't have a stake in our current system.

It is sooooo easy to tear down our great system when they did not sweat to maintain it!

Off to Sweden with you please, and take your red beret with you!

------------------
I hate rice and beans!

haven

06-06-2001, 03:20 PM

Bela: You're a troll in the main forum, too...

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

Beto_Lluvioso

06-06-2001, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by haven:
Bela: You're a troll in the main forum, too...



My name is Beto, which is a nickname for Roberto.

I see that you would rather call me names than defend your ideas, but why would I expect a socialist to compete?

------------------
I hate rice and beans!

haven

06-06-2001, 05:07 PM

Bela:

Notice the "competition" of ideas between others and myself?

I responded to your initial arguments with an argumentative, considered post. You responded with insults, panegyrics, and venom. I noticed that in the main forum, you flamed heypartner for no reason. That's proof of your trolhood enough for me. You've forfeited the rights for considered responses.

Gollum, gollum.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 06, 2001).]

rimbaud

06-06-2001, 05:08 PM

Haven,

Don't respond to bela, hey, jim, bob, or whatever else he comes up with. Just keep him on ignore mode. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"

DarkHorse

06-06-2001, 06:44 PM

Hmmmm.... Well I'm definitely conservative, which means I usually vote Republican, but not necessarily... I don't really look at it as a question of political party as much as I do a question of core beliefs...

My biggest beef is people who don't really understand what the party they claim to represent, or what candidate they like or dislike. So many people, liberal and conservative, just blindly vote whatever, or buy into most ridiculous blanket statements that are just stupid and don't reflect anything significant...

i.e.:
"Bob Dole is old"
"Bill Clinton is a womanizer"
"Nixon was a crook"

I really, really like and respect people like Jeff Balke, whom I absolutely and totally disagree with on nearly every political issue, but who really know and practice what they believe...

That's what freedom is all about isn't it?

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"There are three kinds of lies:
Lies, Damned Lies, and STATISTICS..."
- Mark Twain -

[This message has been edited by DarkHorse (edited June 06, 2001).]

haven

06-07-2001, 01:27 AM

RichRocket:

Dear God, categorize me as a student before a library employee! To think I might be here in 5 years *shudder*.

Rimbaud: Why don't you add Arthur Miller to your list of elderly liberal thinkers... he seems to be the best one left http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif. His op-ed piece about the Clinton impeachment was brilliant... wish he still wrote plays, though.

I think people generally become more conservative as they grow older because they become "stakeholders" in the status quo. That doesn't exactly endorse the validity of their change of opinion; rather, they lose the ideological clarity that they possessed in their youth. One is more objective in yourth, and hence probably more fair.

You mentioned that it's easy to spend other people's money; well, it is... but isn't it also more likely that disinterested people will make more rational decisions?

But I don't believe it's true that liberals just like to spend "other people's money." I know plenty of wealthy liberals. And I know plenty of poor, Republicans. Stereotypes seldom hold up.

------------------
A few years back on the Senate floor...
Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe."
Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!"

Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001

RichRocket

06-07-2001, 01:38 AM

Thus, it is a little inappropriate to transplant Churchill's words to represent our Bush/Gore options. I was only trying to paraphrase a remark that I view as a truism-- no transplantation meant or intended. I think I know what the man was getting at.

The specifics about shanna and haven were only cited because, whether accurate or not, they were my impression of who they were to be saying what they were saying. That's why I tossed in the little bio about myself. We are all more complex than we can deduct from these brief expressions here. That's why the stuff expressed here shouldn't be taken so literally. This is no more than an electronic bull session.

WHATEVER your views, I find your "style" a little too harsh and in-your-face although very subtle. Aren't we supposed to be talking about the ideas, not going after the author of any particular idea? This is supposed to be fun and enlightening. Slighting me is no way to persuade me to your argument, I can guarantee. And vice-versa.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.