Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]

[Typhoid]

Typhoid, it sounds like you don't like the evangelical part of the Republican party -- don't worry, no one like that part of the party except for evangelical Republicans.

I agree.

Like I said, i was just raging over those few individuals, not the whole.

If you want to discuss specific policy, then I'm all for it, but these broad statements are just tired.

I'd love if more Politicians in general started talking more about specific policy, and less about who they are, how their campaign is doing, what they did, what religion they are, and who they're going to bash this week. I'd especially love if the media - in general, and on a broader scale - actually gave a shit about policy, rather than their own ratings. That means they'll always focus more on someone who is controversial, over than someone who has a good idea to better the country - Those speeches are usually boring, and they don't sell papers or airtime. But Herman Cain having __ chicks coming out saying he sexually harassed them or whatever? You better believe that got him coverage. I'm starting to think the best way to get the popular vote is to do a bunch of fucked up shit before you run for President, then the media will have constant coverage of all the fucked up shit you did, and never give airtime to your opponents, thusly always putting your name on the tip of America's tongue. Brilliant.

I do think your comments about not hearing Republican ideas about education, taxes, healthcare expose two challenges of most legitimate republican ideas: They don't fit in soundbites, and the media is biased toward simple soundbites and sensationalism, and no longer wishes to engage in complex ideas. Explaining the Republican ideology in regard to eduction is a long conversation, an doesn't fit well in today's short attention span society. I could literally write paragraphs (and I think I have), but if the media only produces headlines like "Republicans want to eliminate the department of education!" it's difficult to get the message out. The same goes for healthcare.

Tangent warning: I agree that the attention span of Joe Q Ipad is one of the worst tragedies of the 21st century. Nobody knows the meaning of "hold on", or "One moment please". People get so incredulously mad when they get put on hold, or get stopped at a red light. People hate waiting through commercials so much they invented a device to ultimately make them obsolete, or maybe we just wanted to watch our 55 minute show in 42 minutes. Those 13 minutes add up! Who has time to relax, so many shows to watch! We hate how long it takes to cook food, so we invented the microwave. We've spent 40 years improving technology - making everything more convenient to get to the glorious point we're at today - and all we've done is create generations of people who don't have the proper attention span to properly pick a leader for their own country. This paragraph is all legitimate, and not some type of tongue in cheek joke. I think it's a tragedy how impatient people are these days, and how negatively it affects all politics because of it. (I mean fuck, I cringe at the thought of how many people are only going [or would, if it was a site with a bunch of teenagers] to scan this paragraph because it would "take too much time to read".) Give me a news channel that focuses on a positive 2-day story. I don't want a 35 second clip about an Earthquake that decimated an orphanage, how the fuck will that knowledge improve my life, or help the people around me.

I will say that I am a Republican that is not a supporter of Bachman or Santorum, for many of the reasons you mention, and I am obviously not alone. Hell, I've basically called Santorum a scumbag because I've listened closely to him for a long time. He, and perhaps Bachman, are theocrats who want to tell people how they have to live their lives because people are too stupid to do it themselves. Conversely, I think those to the far left want to do the same thing but in a different way.

That is why I wasn't directing anything at you. I know you're not an extreme Republican to the degree they are. Like I said, I vastly dislike extremism. Maybe that's a little ironic, but whatever. Extremism typically comes with extremely closed minds, and that never helps anyone.

I just hate those fucking scrotebags, and hate the fact they A) Get attention and B) Get such seemingly odd numbers of support for the fucked up shit they say.

[Bond]

I sympathize with almost everything you said Typh, although I would also add there are just as many crazy Democrats as crazy Republicans.

To play devil's advocate (pardon the pun), there are a lot of evangelicals in America and they do make up a sizable contingency in both political sway and fundraising dollars. I suppose they wouldn't be quite so irritating if they didn't want to impose their social views on everyone (what I would call "conditional conservatism") ... the Democrats try to do this as well though, just from the other side.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Bond

I sympathize with almost everything you said Typh, although I would also add there are just as many crazy Democrats as crazy Republicans.

Even if there are (which I'm not sure of), there isn't a group so large, organized, and well funded as the evangelical Christian sect of republicans.

I don't know what it is about the Republican party that attracts the crazies, but I think it does so more than the Democrat party. I think it has to do with their prerogative to harbor and encourage intolerance. Just about any Republican congressman you ask will say they don't support gay marriage, at least not openly.

There's something fundamentally flawed with that. You can say the entire Republican party isn't composed of evangelical Christians, but they have their claws in deep enough that it's still a valid criticism to say that the party is representative of them.

[Typhoid]

Typh, although I would also add there are just as many crazy Democrats as crazy Republicans.

I acknowledged that in my second post, although less on the 'crazy' and more of the extreme.

I don't like extremism on either side. I hate hippies, too. I totally hate hippies. Creep me out. Get a job. Help the economy.

the Democrats try to do this as well though, just from the other side.

oh, oh - I'm aware. That's just politics. I get both parties just want control and their own views to come to light, I mean that's really what it's all about. The problem I have, is that [what should be] typical freedoms for everyone, are being guarded because of uneducated hate [By some] under the guise of "God". Freedom of religion? Unless you're Muslim, then get your mosque the fuck out of my town, terrorist. Freedom of speech? Unless you're disagreeing with me, then get the fuck out of my town, hippy. Free Love? Unless you're gay. Then get the fuck out of my town, faggot. Free Choices? Unless you're planning to abort your baby, then get the fuck out of my town, whore.

This is a tangent- again - but I saw an old American citizen on the news and he said "We can't let those Middle East nations get too powerful, they're nations and people ruled by religion." - A relatively fine point for the 21st century. Religion ruling a country is antiquated. If I changed the channel there, that would have been great. But then he had to end it with the gem "God Bless America." For fucks' sake, do you even realize what you're saying. I found that to be one of the most laugh-worthy news moments I've seen recently. It made me blow ash all over my table. Yeah, I watch the news and smoke. Getting two birds stoned at once.

Just about any Republican congressman you ask will say they don't support gay marriage, at least not openly.

Yes. In fact many Republicans who were openly vocal against gay marriage were gay themselves. That right there should sort of show how much 'secret power' the Republican party has. If a gay man is willing to think "I'm going to act as if I hate myself, in order for ________ (Positive Personal Gain)", there has to be a pretty massive personal gain. Unless someone is going to make the argument that there are no gay Republicans, just Gay Democrats who haven't found out they're Democrats yet. Unless Gay Republicans are against gay marriage because they like the idea of traditional marriage, yet disagree with the ratio of penises involved with it. And being that they are Republicans, it's usually a pretty safe assumption (I don't mean that as a knock, but realistically) that the person is somewhat Christian, meaning that they also believe homosexuality to not only be a sin, but to be a choice. So think about the turmoil involved in a gay republican opposing gay marriage. He woke up that morning and said "I think today I'll be sexually attracted to some men...again, despite knowing full-well that Lord Almighty, whom I pray to every night - will send me to hell simply for this act alone." I think if homosexuality is a choice, that's a lot scarier than if it's not. That means at any moment any card-carrying Republican male can just suddenly decide he wants to suck a cock. I'm glad Democrat gays are born gay. I figure, as long as you're a straight democrat you'll never have a slight chance of even being gay in the first place, unless you were born that way. Since what each party says is relayed as fact, and ultimately what you say, is what is real to your voters (IE Republican candidates saying homosexuality is a choice, and thusly their voters believing that as fact, despite the fact it's really because of religious beliefs) means that on the other side you have an (nearly) entire group of people who have no fear of ever turning gay. Imagine all the fear in the Republican party. Each time they see another Republican male, they have to think "Hey, maybe this guy will try to jerk me off." Each day they wake up they have to worry "I really hope I don't see a man soooo attractive that I suddenly decide to turn gay. I hope it's not Larry. He just got a new tie."



That entire paragraph is not serious, just a tongue-in-cheek joke - for the love of science.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Bond

I would also add there are just as many crazy Democrats as crazy Republicans.

This is untrue. WAY more crazy Republicans than democrats.

I take that back, it definds how you define crazy. I will say this: there are more Dangerous crazy Republicans.

Crazy democrats protest in parks, smoke weed, and listen to Neil Young.

Crazy Republicans talking about killing Obama, own 4 different automatic rifles and shoot up schools and grocery stores. Republicans will try to deny this but it is true.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Since we're posting country music videos:

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Crazy Republicans talking about killing Obama, own 4 different automatic rifles and shoot up schools and grocery stores. Republicans will try to deny this but it is true.

I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about. What Republicans have shot up schools and grocery stores? I'm trying to imagine Mitt Romney with an AK-47 and I can't stop laughing... I think you are lumping lot of fringies in with Republicans, when they aren't really Republicans at all, just as Black Panthers, Weather Underground, and ELF aren't really Democrats. They abandoned the two party system years ago and have joined their own parties based on anger and conspiracy.

When you have a two party system the fringes will always be a part of each party because there is no realistic alternative. The only saving grace is that they never have enough sway to dominate the parties.

For example, there are three major issues in republican politics: Fiscal, Social, and Security. You need to have 2 of the 3 to get the nomination. Right now Romney is strong with fiscal, moderate with security and weak with social. Santorum is strong with social, moderate with security, and weak on fiscal (although he is trying to catch up). Paul is strong on fiscal, but weak on security and social issues (this is why he has a predestined cap and will never get the nomination, and he knows it).

Bush won re-election because he was strong on social and security issues, and seemed moderate on fiscal at the time. In comparison, McCain was strong on security, was weak on social issues, and when the economy flopped in 2008 he was eviscerated on fiscal issues. Hence, his defeat.

[Typhoid]

I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about. What Republicans have shot up schools and grocery stores?

First off, he said "Republicans talking about", not "Republicans actually following through with". Just clarifying for him, and all.



I can see what he's saying though. I'm not saying it's fact, but I get his angle, I think:

Your average extreme drunk Democrat will talk about staging a rally, or a people's movement. "Man, we should totally just like...go sit outside city hall tomorrow. Go make a facebook event."

Your average extreme drunk Republican will talk about what he and his gun can do. "Man, someone needs to shoot that motherfucker."

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

First off, he said "Republicans talking about", not "Republicans actually following through with". Just clarifying for him, and all.

Actually that is not what he said. He said they talk about killing Obama, but shoot up schools. And even is he did mean to say they talk about shooting up schools, where and when?

I can see what he's saying though. I'm not saying it's fact, but I get his angle, I think:

Your average extreme drunk Democrat will talk about staging a rally, or a people's movement. "Man, we should totally just like...go sit outside city hall tomorrow. Go make a facebook event."

Your average extreme drunk Republican will talk about what he and his gun can do. "Man, someone needs to shoot that motherfucker."

The liberal view of Republicans on this forum is simply hilarious. And what is an "average extreme" anyway? This thread is off the rails to the point of retardation...

[Typhoid]

And what is an "average extreme" anyway?