THE PACK Message Boards

DO NOT GET OFFENDED!!! If it does offend I'll personally close the thread, but it's just a joke.
http://freedomlovingrepublicans.com/

x5

*Facepalm* Awwww, that's terrible!

Terrible in that 'bad pun that get's everybody laughing' kind of way, of course.

Actually, it's a bit off. Instead of "Freedom Loving Republicans", it should read "Politically Responsible Republicans".
That would be more accurate.

.

I kinda find that little offencive, but i know it's a joke so I got one for the dems.

Democrats-

Liberal fascists 51,654,850...

<sarcasm>
Because every one knows their right, and every one who has an different opinion is evil.
</sarcasm>

(Somehow, I might think this will result in a flame directed at me. )

Anubis wrote:Liberal fascists

So is this now a thread for oxymorons?

If so, I've got another one:

Compassionate conservative.

I'm not a republican nor a Democrat....I just vote on who is doing better in the polls.

.

It doesn't really matter. None of them do what they promise. You may as well vote based on who has better hair.

That is exactly why I am voting a write in this year. I hate both candidates.

PariahPoet wrote:It doesn't really matter. None of them do what they promise. You may as well vote based on who has better hair.

That is exactly why I am voting a write in this year. I hate both candidates.

Better Hair? Lets see: Obama has more hair; but Mc Cain does more with his.
Not to say we've degenerated, but have you noticed that of the last four presidents (which may be longer than some of you have been alive), the winner has always been the better looking candidate. A revolution and a constitution and a civil war (oxymoron) which led up to: a Beauty Contest.

Is it just me, or do other people think we're in deep doo-doo, too?

RedEye wrote:Is it just me, or do other people think we're in deep doo-doo, too?

Well, I'm alive, so yes you are.

RedEye wrote:the winner has always been the better looking candidate. A revolution and a constitution and a civil war (oxymoron) which led up to: a Beauty Contest.

You thought the Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber looked better than Mike Dukakis and John Kerry?

No offense, but I am shocked and appalled every time I see/hear somebody say "they both suck." Personally, I think that's just the old political cynicism ballooned to a point that I almost think it's become their preference, and you all know by now what I think of the old political cynicism.

I have no pity for these people. Why should I? They're the emos of the political world; they're content to let the country fall into ruin -- why should I have anything besides disgust and resentment towards them and their sentiments?

You really think both candidates are crap and that life is going to suck no matter what? Fine, [expletive] you then. If there's nothing important enough in your life that you would get off of your big fat sorry [expletive] and vote for it, you probably don't have anything worth living for anyway. So go ahead, throw your vote away, tell us we all suck, crawl into a corner, listen to Evanescence and tear up paper hearts or whatever it is that angsty emos like yourself do.

What truly sucks is that, if the right people get in even in spite of their lack of support and the country does recover, they'll still stand to benefit (though will still insist that all politicians are rotten and that everything sucks). But if the wrong candidates do get in and the country falls into ruin like they want it to, they'll drag everyone else down along with them.

If that isn't selfish and rotten to the core, I don't know what is. So really, why shouldn't we all hate their guts?

Seriously, if you hate politics in general, stay out of the political threads. It's tense enough without you being all emo "I hate the world" about it.

Short fuse much, Ter?

I don't really think I have to justify what I believe to you, but just for kicks I'll clue you in.

I am conservative in general, but I also support gay rights. I am pro-life, so I will not support a candidate who will make it easier for women to get an abortion as a form of birth control(I think that should only be a worst case scenario option if the girl was raped or if the pregnancy puts her life in danger. Otherwise, don't be an idiot and just get on the pill.) I also will not support Obama because he can not stand on his own platforms. He just puts down every one else. He says what people want to hear, yelling "Change! Change!", but gives no strategy for achieving it.

On the other hand I will not support McCain because of Palin. They will do everything in their power to thwart gay rights just because they don't like the idea of two dudes or two ladies being in love. And if you've read my signature you know the other reason I despise Palin.

Now, does my lengthy explanation meet your satisfaction or do you just want to run around yelling "O NOeSS! TeH EMO!!!1111" some more?

In all honesty I have no faith in human leadership whatsoever. History is just repeating itself regardless of who is in office. They are human and as such with most not all there is failure. Not every human is bad. To many promises to make things better have been nothing more than talk. I know alot of people who have had to give up everything because of how things were. Same thing applies when it comes to the wolves that are being murdered. All the votes in the world isn't protecting them. They are still dying so just because those who vote are human are to expect to get better? From what I have seen voting does nothing. People want to believe voting makes things better, but look what president we have in office now? This Bush should have never been in office. He has done nothing but harm to human and animals alike. Things have not been stable since he was in office. I don't hold much for these new guys. I don't mind cops or soliders, but we don't need a human ruling anything. They are no better than the rest of us with these empty promises. The average human makes promises and break them or let you down. I will never vote because it means nothing in the end if your still homeless or jobless. It means nothing if you can't feed yourself or your family. It mean nothing if you can't pay for medication or healthcare if you or your children need it. It means nothing...

but gives no strategy for achieving it.

He has given various ways of paying for his policies (the most well known being the elimination of defunct programs and the tax on anyone earning $250,000) and the policies themselves. I also find it pretty funny that you accuse Obama of just putting people down when McCain has put down Obama left right and center and has misrepresented Obama's policies or tried to smear him (socialism accusations because dem better be dead dem red kids!). Now you said you did not surport McCain due to wolf naylin Sarah Palin but you seem to be saying only Obama does this sort of thing when McCain does it and does it worse.


but we don't need a human ruling anything.

I will not support a candidate who will make it easier for women to get an abortion as a form of birth control

Out of interest, would you make it harder for people to get them and what do you think of European type systems where the limit (Like the UK) can be up to 28 weeks? I also want to argue that people will have abortions, legally or not so are you happy with some going off in backallies to do it?

, but we don't need a human ruling anything.

Let the magical cloud being on Zubu world rule then. Its not like we have no alt to humans ruling.

There is a fundamental contradiction that the reps (or the liberals over here in Australia; actually labor as well) really hammer home with their policies. Why try to convince someone of a law or policy that you intend to force upon them? If they accept it there is no need for batons and badges and fines. If you intend to enforce it there is no need to convince people, which I suppose is a little too easy anyway. They simply need to agree, which is largely the point.

But of course, I am reminded of majority rules, which we all consented to as a rule and has worked so far(!).

Proudhon said:

'To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated over, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither right, nor knowledge, nor virtue'

And I think he was particularly right about the virtue. People are bastards, manipulative and power-hungry but leaders are bastards that are dangerous to their followers. Followers are like a big bowl of popcorn to be dipped into at will and most people would follow complex patterns to be the one who has the bowl in their lap. The trick is seeing the pattern.

Well some form of goverment has to exist even if its the most basic form of tribalism. Humans, like wolves will always have command structures forming (alpha, beta, omega for a basic example). Goverment no matter now basic will always exist. You can't fight that and so you must educate your populace and make sure they know when the goverment is pulling crap or who to go with. Thats the only real way it can work no matter what.

that's true.

I'm not sure if you are just swallowing what you are fed Silent Hunter, but I sincerely hope you are wrong. You are correct in that we must educate the populace, very much correct. We must intuitively remain wary of any 'no matter what' claims as well.

I'm not here for a debate. I have said all I care to. We all have a right to believe what we do. I don't like discussing politics and would prefer to keep my views to myself, but apparently Ter doesn't like that too much.

Wselfwulf wrote:I'm not sure if you are just swallowing what you are fed Silent Hunter, but I sincerely hope you are wrong. You are correct in that we must educate the populace, very much correct. We must intuitively remain wary of any 'no matter what' claims as well.

I am being fed reality and I must wonder what you are being fed yourself. You are trying to argue against common human nature. Humans form themselves into a basic hierarchy as I said. There is always one leader of the tribe, always one group leader or alpha. People always take this postion so its not like you can have leaderless group so to speak. You seem to think I am just trying to blindy accept authority which I am not. Governance is needed for the good of society and what goverments need is the will, threat or moral hazard to act in good nature so that they act for the people and clearly. A smart populace will not fall for goverment tricks so easily and can weigh up who is the best to lead.

Ter doesn't like that too much.

He has a point. A lot of people b**** and moan about the goverment but are not very often politically active. Even if you made a small change at least you can say you tried. Maybe if people made and effort it would help a lot instead of just walking in and spreading their views which really do not put much into the now political disscussion.

It's not what I'm being fed but more like a hunger. 'Man's Nature' as you cite is what I take to be the propensity for freedom. But even if I take your account of man's nature (which is in dire need of some empirical backing) I think it then becomes quite necessary to argue against it.
I do not really think you are accepting anything blindly and am sure you have thought about it to some extent. And I concede that for all my posturing this representative democracy (if I dare call it that at the moment) may be the most viable and fair system (again I really hope not). My idea is that if you simply cease believing alternatives are possible, but they are, you have fashioned a mental cage for yourself. If you were simply say 'but they are not' you miss the point of entertaining an idea just to test your moors every now and then and make sure you stay out of cycles of control.
If there's one thing I'm to guess human nature won't let you achieve? It's a smart populace.

PariahPoet wrote:I don't really think I have to justify what I believe to you, but just for kicks I'll clue you in.

I am conservative in general, but I also support gay rights. I am pro-life, so I will not support a candidate who will make it easier for women to get an abortion as a form of birth control(I think that should only be a worst case scenario option if the girl was raped or if the pregnancy puts her life in danger. Otherwise, don't be an idiot and just get on the pill.) I also will not support Obama because he can not stand on his own platforms. He just puts down every one else. He says what people want to hear, yelling "Change! Change!", but gives no strategy for achieving it.

On the other hand I will not support McCain because of Palin. They will do everything in their power to thwart gay rights just because they don't like the idea of two dudes or two ladies being in love. And if you've read my signature you know the other reason I despise Palin.

Now, does my lengthy explanation meet your satisfaction or do you just want to run around yelling "O NOeSS! TeH EMO!!!1111" some more?

You're basing your decision entirely on. . . Gay marriage and abortion? Seriously? Those two useless soapbox issues are all you care about?!

Who are you and what have you done with Pariah?!

Yes, I support gay marriage, and yes, I support a woman's right to an abortion. Know why?

Because it's none of my damn business, that's why. They are both entirely moral issues, and the government has no right pissing taxpayer money away in order to force their citizens to be more Christian.

I could expand on abortion since you're against it and point out all the flaws and hypocrisy involved with being pro-life, but frankly, it's not even an issue worth having an argument about, so I pity yet despise anyone that would decide an entire election based upon it.

So Pariah, now that we've got that out of the way, what about the economy? How about foreign policy? The environment? Are any of these worth giving your arse some oxygen for a few minutes while you vote?

Doesn't this scare you enough?