One of the best Republican scams

[coRtALoS]

Republicans are against big government right? They're against expanding and increasing government spending? So why exactly are they then working to make our country a military regime? And why do they feel the need to impose their views and beliefs into the private lives of our citizens?

Exactly how does that tie into making the government smaller if they're promoting restricting what certain people wish to do in their private ****ing lives, and want to amend the Constitution to make gay marriages illegal? How does two women getting married in California affect someone's private life in Florida?

I must admit the Republicans were very wise in coining the whole "flip-flopping" term first to avoid being called ones themselves.

Please, someone try to "enlighten" me.

[c9h13no3]

John Kerry is supposedly the liberal, but he had conservative views in this campaign. All political parties have been doing a lot of flip-flopping lately. It's getting pretty lame, because you cannot vote for a party anymore and expect them to hold their stance on certain issues.

PS - That whole "military regime" thing is just dumb. Stop using those words.

PSS - Calm the hell down too. You act like they're coming in with swiss army knives to cut out your kidneys.

[coRtALoS]

You failed to directly address the thread topic sir.

[c9h13no3]

Originally Posted by coRtALoS

You failed to directly address the thread topic sir.

Actually I did. You just can't figure it out. Allow me to explain it to you.

You're all nuts because individual republicans have views different from party lines. I'm informing you that A) it's not uncommon and all the other parties do it too B) that many of your arguements only rely on charged language such a "regime" to support it, and have no substance whatsoever.

Thus, you should not be all nuts about it. I don't see how you can get more direct than that.

Sorry I didn't post "OMFG TEH BUSH IS GOING TO REINSTATE TEH DRAFT AND MAKE US ALL CHRISTIANS!!!!", but I'm not that stupid.

[Forged]

the partys have morphed. The republicans have been that way since around 1912 The democrats really morphed after losing to nixon, that was a big turning point for them.

[RuneyPoo]

Republicans don't know how to run a country, they just want to get into our lives and ruin them in my opinion. I believe that gay marriage should be allowed, who the hell cares what me or anyone else thinks though, surely not the f'n goverment. The goverment could give two shits about our thoughts, they only care about themselves and no one else.

Which is why I am hoping Hillary runs in 2008 and wins! We need a democratic president again!

[coRtALoS]

Originally Posted by c9h13no3

Actually I did. You just can't figure it out. Allow me to explain it to you.

You're all nuts because individual republicans have views different from party lines. I'm informing you that A) it's not uncommon and all the other parties do it too B) that many of your arguements only rely on charged language such a "regime" to support it, and have no substance whatsoever.

Thus, you should not be all nuts about it. I don't see how you can get more direct than that.

Sorry I didn't post "OMFG TEH BUSH IS GOING TO REINSTATE TEH DRAFT AND MAKE US ALL CHRISTIANS!!!!", but I'm not that stupid.

You just further steered this discussion away from my questions.

I'll assume that means you read the first two sentences of my post and skipped down because once again, you've done nothing but attack me personally without addressing the thread topic again.

*Lookie here! I can use lettering to make my post look intimidating too!!!!11111oneoneoneoneeleveneleven*

A) Where the hell does anything having to do with the draft appear in any of my posts? Someone's getting defensive over a touchy subject and looking for a fight in a completely unrelated thread.

B) If you feel like discussing something other than this topic, please use the search feature to find an existing thread, or post a new thread. Do not start posting your own mindless babble while in the middle of some religious jihad to try to prove me wrong through subverting the topic of this thread. If you can't keep up with the 'big people' topics, please don't post at all. Should you need further assistance with what the guidelines are when posting in a forum, please refer to this announcement, as you seem to be unfamiliar with how topics work.

Yes, I have teeth too, and I'm not going to sit back and let you try to blast me in my own thread. You've twice tried to carry this discussion away from my original inquiries, and tried to turn it into some kind of vendetta you have against the draft or liberals in general. This is my last attempt at getting you to stay on topic should you choose to continue to post in here before I have to take action. If you feel the need to further this discussion in a hostile fashion, feel free to do so in the Asylum, not here. Your belligerent attitude is not welcome here.

BOT: Again, Republicans vaunt how they're against big government, and believe in promoting the privacy of U.S. citizens by eliminating gun restrictions, yet seek to limit what certain people choose to do in the privacy of a bedroom. On who's authority does anyone have to tell someone what they can and can't do in their own life?

Morality? Your own personal beliefs?

If there's something I've come to accept in life, it's that not everyone shares your own beliefs, c9 being an excellent example of this. So what the **** is the point in trying to force someone to agree with your opinions?

Debate exists to state opinions and help to learn from another person. Mindless arguing and belligerent behavior is a way of exhausing pent up frustration and anger as our friend c9 has demonstrated. Something that serves the solitary purpose of preventing someone from going out and killing a family.

One is constructive, and works toward making this world a better place.

The other keeps us all sane.

Please direct all insanity to the Asylum.

[l33t 0n3]

Republicans are against big government right? They're against expanding and increasing government spending? So why exactly are they then working to make our country a military regime? And why do they feel the need to impose their views and beliefs into the private lives of our citizens?

I believe there's a big difference between the US and a military regime. Most of our military actions are to avoid getting attacked by terrorists. Watch the clips of the Russian school being overtaken by terrorists, or the many decapitations, or the Madrid train bombing. What if that were to expand to a greater extend, and come across seas? Thats what seems to be happening. And I think TV advertisements don't count for imposing their views on citezens. You sound like you're calling the Bush administration totalitarianist, but they are quite the opposite. If TV ads is imposing their views, I believe ever republican and democratic candidate is guilty. And everyone else who runs TV ads. They do nothing more to imply their views.

Exactly how does that tie into making the government smaller if they're promoting restricting what certain people wish to do in their private ****ing lives, and want to amend the Constitution to make gay marriages illegal? How does two women getting married in California affect someone's private life in Florida?

They don't restrict what you do in your private life, other than obvious stuff that both sides agree on. The only time I'd say you were being restricted by the government is if you are running a terrorist cell or have large amounts of kiddy porn. You've mixed up monitoring and restricting, pal. The patriot act is not used for them to monitor us. It's there so that terrorists can't claim mistrial after a sting operation.

For gay marrage, this is for a number of reasons. Some I agree with and some I do not. Legalizing gay marrage would require revamping laws against monopoly, since marrage and divorce laws could be abused to allow a legal monopoly. For example:
Business A wants to be a monopoly.
Business A sends someone to make Business B in the same industry.
The leaders of Business A and B marry eachother, and divorce after 30 days or so, whatever the legal limit is.
Business B leader gives Business A leader his or her business.
voila, with a little bit of legal magic sprinkled in, you get a monopoly.
Well, I guess the republicans are generally homophobic. Then again, legalizing it could eventually speed up the demise of our society. Marrage would be turned into a joke.

I must admit the Republicans were very wise in coining the whole "flip-flopping" term first to avoid being called ones themselves.

To Flip-flop is to change sides. That is what the democrats did. Republicans masked their actions with what they say. Totally different concept.

[The_Raven7]

You are republican if you believe that the constitution is the holy grail and should not be amended unless extremely nessasary (or gay people are trying to get married) and you believe that our economy is the gross national product.

[cxoli]

To Flip-flop is to change sides. That is what the democrats did. Republicans masked their actions with what they say. Totally different concept.

Heh, wrong, both political parties flip-flopped. The first two political parties were The Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. The Federalists were a large political party until they were severely weakened after the War of 1812 and ceased to be a major force in the elections. In 1828 (when Jackson was elected), the Democratic-Republican party split and the other part became the National Republicans. Democratic-Republicans, or Democrats, supported states' rights and feared a strong central government. National Republicans, or Republicans, supported a strong central government and projects funded by the federal government, such as protective tariffs and internal improvements. Today, it's the complete opposite. So yeah, I would call that flip-flopping on the parts of both parties.

But anyway, back on topic.

Republicans are against big government right? They're against expanding and increasing government spending? So why exactly are they then working to make our country a military regime? And why do they feel the need to impose their views and beliefs into the private lives of our citizens?

The first two statements are true, which is odd. Democrats are usually thought of as taxing and spending, but now it seems that the Republican party supports increasing government spending (while decreasing taxes for the only people who are actually wealthy enough to afford paying them, apparently). I don't know about the "military regime" thing. I don't understand why they feel the need to impose their beliefs on others, but it's annoying. Personally, I don't want other peoples' beliefs dictating what I can and can't do.

I don't get it.

Did I actually debate in this post...? I'm not sure.

[Lights]

It's rather simple. Both parties are for 'big government.' It is just that we are talking about two different aspects of government: Social and Economical. Democrats are all for a big Economical Government and small Social, whereas the Repub's are opposite. I have a rather serious problem with both. That is why you should *drum roll* VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

I must admit, Republicans are much more devious with their 'bigness'.

[Nicholas The Slide]

i think that if we actually listed to G.W. we would be in a better political situation right now. he said, in his final speesh, that he did not want or govenment to have polititcal factions (a.k.a. parties), could you imageing how much better it would be if we didnt have political parties

[Lights]

Originally Posted by I Hate Trap assns

i think that if we actually listed to G.W. we would be in a better political situation right now. he said, in his final speesh, that he did not want or govenment to have polititcal factions (a.k.a. parties), could you imageing how much better it would be if we didnt have political parties

With our current Representative Democracy, that wouldn't be so grand. You need oppositions to hear the pro's and con's of things. If a sole party had complete control, the views of nearly half the nation wouldn't be heard nor fought for. Quite the contrary, I believe we need more parties, more voices to be heard beside the big two.

[Gedrin]

I agree with cortalos the government is expanding and spending quite a lot. As for the remark about a military regime there is some weight behind that argument. The patriot acts give much more control than ever to the military. We have also been aggressively engaging in a military conflict that a large amount of people consider unnecessary. Not to mention the nuclear weapons expansion that is currently going on in the U.S.A. http://slate.msn.com/id/2099425/ http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...096298,00.html

This is what your tax dollars are going towards. Would you rather put them towards cancer research? I myself would rather fund medical research.

This is why scary movies aren't scary anymore; reality is far more terrifying. We have a regime that has shown that it is not only reckless but that it is aspiring to become even more so. This research hasn't been done in 10 years for a reason and it hasn't been necessary for more years than that.

We don't need a bigger military, we don't need to prove tothe world that it works by attacking other nations needlessly, and the military doesn't need more power.

[coRtALoS]

Originally Posted by Lights

With our current Representative Democracy, that wouldn't be so grand. You need oppositions to hear the pro's and con's of things. If a sole party had complete control, the views of nearly half the nation wouldn't be heard nor fought for. Quite the contrary, I believe we need more parties, more voices to be heard beside the big two.

I think it was Washington, who said when he resigned after the end of his second term, that creating political parties would divide the country, and weaken national unity.

While I agree with what you said, I agree with Washington's equally.

On one hand you could end up with a one-party system should a group of people organize, on the other hand, you'd just have a group of people not knowing who to vote for.

Regarding the Patriot Act: I have nothing to hide, however giving the military/police force the authority to simply walk into your house without having to have a warrant is an invasion of my privacy.

What if you had a fight with some kid in highschool over something stupid, and he ended up being a cop in your town? He could **** with you at will.

It also paves the way for the authorities to be able to plant whatever evidence they'd like on someone they're trying to arrest, whether justly or injustly. How is having a corrupt justice system supposed to make us feel safer?

[dreamcrusader]

Originally Posted by coRtALoS

Republicans are against big government right? They're against expanding and increasing government spending? So why exactly are they then working to make our country a military regime? And why do they feel the need to impose their views and beliefs into the private lives of our citizens?

Exactly how does that tie into making the government smaller if they're promoting restricting what certain people wish to do in their private ****ing lives, and want to amend the Constitution to make gay marriages illegal? How does two women getting married in California affect someone's private life in Florida?

I must admit the Republicans were very wise in coining the whole "flip-flopping" term first to avoid being called ones themselves.

Please, someone try to "enlighten" me.

Big Government means "increasing taxes" or a bigger "wellfare" program. And until your city goes into martial law dont say the country is rules by a military regime.

[l33t 0n3]

Heh, wrong, both political parties flip-flopped. The first two political parties were The Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. The Federalists were a large political party until they were severely weakened after the War of 1812 and ceased to be a major force in the elections. In 1828 (when Jackson was elected), the Democratic-Republican party split and the other part became the National Republicans. Democratic-Republicans, or Democrats, supported states' rights and feared a strong central government. National Republicans, or Republicans, supported a strong central government and projects funded by the federal government, such as protective tariffs and internal improvements. Today, it's the complete opposite. So yeah, I would call that flip-flopping on the parts of both parties.

But anyway, back on topic.

We're discussing the people currently representing the parties, not the 1800's. They "flip flopped" because the nation was moving into isolationism and preparing for the industrial revolution. The parties were not quite defined, they were still being born.

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by Runexten

Republicans don't know how to run a country, they just want to get into our lives and ruin them in my opinion. I believe that gay marriage should be allowed, who the hell cares what me or anyone else thinks though, surely not the f'n goverment. The goverment could give two shits about our thoughts, they only care about themselves and no one else.

Which is why I am hoping Hillary runs in 2008 and wins! We need a democratic president again!

lol ok man youve got the wrong idea here..... democrats want the goverment more involved in your every day life..... Republicans tend to be religious and in the bible its not right to be gay.....