- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Republicans not walking party line
Republicans not walking party lineFollow
Um. No. I simply don't build my entire ego around whether I'm right or wrong.
Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah. Ahahahah. Hah. Hahahah.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
How desperate you must be for a "wager" of some kind to even make that kind of statement. You should really seek professional help.
For being willing to take a position and believe in it? For being able to take a stand and make a call?
I can understand how it's impossible for you, you've made that abundantly clear. You have some sort of bizarre insecurity driven neurosis where not only can you not admit to ever being wrong, you can't put yourself in a position of ever taking a position on anything if there's even the slightest possiblity that you MAY be wrong.
Astonishing.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Everyone get off the streets! We got us an psychoanalysis duel! 
'Lo, there do I see, the line of my people, back to the beginning, 'lo do they call to me, they bid me take my place among them, in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave...may live...forever.
X-Box 360 Gamer Tag - Smogster
X-Box 360 Gamer Tag - Smogster
I doubt gbaji is that insecure and neurotic. He is actually debating issues with you, regardless of how you see the issues or his argument.
If you want an example of a truly insecure, neurotic, gutless coward, let me know. I'll let you know what it's like to be afraid to say anything, period.
If you want an example of a truly insecure, neurotic, gutless coward, let me know. I'll let you know what it's like to be afraid to say anything, period.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
So, Smash, are you gonna accept my bet or not?
Totem
Totem
Smoggy wrote:
We got us an psychoanalysis duel!
Sigmund Freud wrote:
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
Grady. Your observations are partically correct. But most of that is perception.
A party will have a wide variance of viewpoints within it. However, when a party is in power, it's detractors will *always* point to the hardline position of the party when attempting to villify it. Thus, when the more moderate members of that party speak they are seen as "not toeing the party line" or some such.
A party will have a wide variance of viewpoints within it. However, when a party is in power, it's detractors will *always* point to the hardline position of the party when attempting to villify it. Thus, when the more moderate members of that party speak they are seen as "not toeing the party line" or some such.
Of course each party and each person has a diversity of viewpoints and the other side is going to do their best to make them look bad. When someone votes for something that is seen as a position held by their party that is bad for their district you get mail and ads saying that "Soandso doesn't stand up for you... only for the _____" That's politics. And when they don't toe the party line (so to speak) you use that against other people who did "Even other members of Soandso's party don't agree with this position". It's basics.
Here's how the party system works. If you're not rabid on SOMETHING, you're generally not going to get involved in the higher echelons of the party. There's too much volunteer time and too much networking that has to be done. Candidate recruitment and endorsements aren't just based on whim. They're based on a group of fervent people that are ultra-involved, so to speak. By the time you get to a primary (which, let's face it, only politically aware people attend in general in non-presidential years), it's over. All that's left is the voting. Everyone that the party didn't want either went independent or got sandbagged before the primary.
Quote:
The reality is that the party line was never that hardline, but the other guys will make it seem that way to regain power if they can.
If you're talking about the platform, they are written by those ultrainvolved radicals and reactionaries. The platforms really ARE that hardline. If you're a pro-choice candidate you simply are not going to win your Primary in Minnesota (and this is now a typical state for this) unless you overcome a ton of adversity and attacks from your own party's advocacy groups. They can afford to do that because they have the House and the Governor. DFL'ers (that the Democratic Party in Minnesota) at this point want to win elections, so if it's a pro-life District, you can bet there's a pro-life DFL'er running.
Our Senate has 67 members, 35 are Dem's, 1 is Independant (after being kicked from the GOP during an endorsement battle because she is pro-choice), and 31 are GOP. There are at least 12 pro-life voting Dems (whether they are or not doesn't matter they vote that way) and there isn't a single pro-choice GOP'er.
It's a microcosm of what happens when parties get in power. It's at a state level, but those people that are rabidly involved at the state level, are also rabidly involved Federally. You're probably continuing to witness it from the reverse perspective. Take a look around and see how many pro-life Democrats there are compared to pro-choice Republicans. California is changing as well.
I picked abortion, by the way, because it's a common litmus test for a candidate.
Quote:
So, we either conclude that something like 80% of the entire Republican voting block is filled up with "suckers", or we have to conclude that maybe that line of thinking is false, and there's more to the party then the hardline position tossed out there by the Dems as an easy strawman to argue against.
You seem to be under this misguided perception that the Platforms in most states are decided by elected officials. They aren't. They're decided by the base of the party and that's why they are reactionary or radical. Hell, if I wanted to put a item on the state Democratic platform I could have during my caucus saying we should do away with the Caucus system and have a primary.
Federally, most elected officials have little to no influence on it. The Platforms are there to please the base and nothing else. It's generally campaign staff for the party that put them together, to appease their base (Joe Voter doesn't give a fuck about party platforms). There's been noteable exceptions, like the Contract with American (which can be viewed as a platform so to speak), but generally, the people that read the party platform in non-Presidential years are slim to none and in Presidential years just slim.
You and I can agree on one thing, a politicians actions are what you should be watching, not their party platform. That being said, it's unlikely that I'll be voting Republican anytime soon after seeing their actions, at least Federally and in my state.
Grady
Edited, Tue Aug 31 15:26:59 2004 by Grady
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
The word of the day is "Big Tent" you heard it here first folks
I agree Warlord. Of course, after the election it won't matter how big their tent is... it won't be in the Rose Garden.
Grady
Grady
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
Ah Grady, so sure of yourself... It looks liek a close race so far.
Positive thinking is the key to a positive life :P
Grady
Grady
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
I doubt gbaji is that insecure and neurotic. He is actually debating issues with you, regardless of how you see the issues or his argument.
You're one of those people who sees large blocks of text written by Gbaji and then doesn't bother to read them, assuming he's spent a god deal of time and made a coherent argument, aren't you.
It's ok, you can admit it, most people don't read that ****.
Hence the impression of most people that he's just making a normal argument that is the other side of mine.
People that actually read what he's written understand the deep and frightening insecurity of the man. He's unable to admit being wrong even when presented with incontribertible evidence.
He would defend being wrong about saying "I never typed the word never". Litterally. You would be unable to have him admit even with obvious blatent proof.
Go back and read some of it sometime, then come back and tell me he's not that neurotic.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
You're one of those people who sees large blocks of text written by Gbaji. . . .
Go back and read some of it sometime
Go back and read some of it sometime
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
"He's (Gbaji) unable to admit being wrong even when presented with incontribertible evidence." --Smasharoo
That actually is one of the more salient characteristics of a high caliber fighter pilot.
Totem
That actually is one of the more salient characteristics of a high caliber fighter pilot.
Totem
Damnit Maverick, you're a....a maverick! You appropriately nick-named *******.
Smasharoo wrote:
He's unable to admit being wrong even when presented with incontribertible evidence.
Um. More like: "He's unwilling to admit the other guy is right when the only evidence the other guy has submitted is conjecture, supposition, rhetoric, and innuendo".
You're problem is that you seem to see everything in black and white Smash. Bush isn't just wrong about a couple things, he's wrong about everything. Supply side economics doesn't just fail to address some economic issues, but it just fails completely (thus being "proof" that demand side is perfect despite the fact that it has just as many failues in pure form).
You assume that a counter argument must be absolute. If you say that X=5 under all circumstances and I argue that X need not always equal 5, you assume that means that X can never equal 5. You'll then find one case in which it does and insist that I'm wrong.
Case in point. I've never said I vote Republican because I'm unaware of the RR side of the party. I've never said I don't believe it's a problem. I have said on many occasions that I consider the RR to be less of a threat then the economic plans and gradual increase of government power that is the calling card of the Democratic party, so that's why I vote Republican.
I don't vote that way out of ignorance or naivete. I know the "bad side" of my party, but I still believe it's less threatening on the whole then the bad side of the Democratic party.
You simply can't seem to grasp that concept. To you, something must be absolute. You must agree with every single piece of the party, or you're a sucker. In the real world, the issues aren't that cut and dried.
And Grady. You're mixing state politics with federal politics. Your state can be as full of religious fanatics as they want, but that still does not equal federal legistlation. Also, I think you are underestimating the effect the *people* have on the process. The backers hold that strong of a position because their support does as well. They win elections with those positions because the votors vote in candidates with that platform. The Dems are forced to match that presumably because their candidate wont win otherwise. At some point in the equation, that's all being led by what issue positions the votors want.
The special interest groups certainly have their own interests at heart, but the party planners have one goal: To win. They'll adopt whatever platform gets their guy the most votes, and will rabidly chase after the interest groups needed to get those votes. The cycle doesn't just run one way.
And not to be ridiculous or anything, but I happen to be a firm believer in the process of democracy (ok. in this case a republic). If enough of a majority of people insist on only voting in pro-life candidates nationwide, and that results in the eventual oveturning of a law like Roe v. Wade, then as much as I may dislike that, I'm bound to respect the decisions reached via the process. Like it or not, there is no overriding "right" here. There is law, and in our system that's largely going to be a reflection of the will of the people. If we start thinking that we should make laws based on what you want instead of what everyone else wants (or in this case, what the legal system determined), then we may as well chuck the whole thing out the window.
That does mean that sometimes, decisions will be made and actions will be taken that you don't personally like or agree with. That's not a failure of the system. I accept that. It's one of the reasons why I'm not going to lose sleep over who wins the election. Part of being a *part* of a society like ours is that you accept that your desires have no more weight then anyone else's. Some may rail against this idea, and chant slogans and be totally filled with conviction. But the reality is that for every slogan you chant and for every closely held and absolutely believed in conviction you have, there is someone else who believes the exact opposite and who's chanting a slogan saying so. Are you more right then he is?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Um. More like: "He's unwilling to admit the other guy is right when the only evidence the other guy has submitted is conjecture, supposition, rhetoric, and innuendo".
When have you ever, in alomst 8,000 posts admitted ot being wrong?
I'm curious.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
And Grady. You're mixing state politics with federal politics. Your state can be as full of religious fanatics as they want, but that still does not equal federal legistlation. Also, I think you are underestimating the effect the *people* have on the process. The backers hold that strong of a position because their support does as well. They win elections with those positions because the votors vote in candidates with that platform. The Dems are forced to match that presumably because their candidate wont win otherwise. At some point in the equation, that's all being led by what issue positions the votors want.
Most Federal elections are driven by state politics, gbaji. It's rare to have someone not go through time as a Governor, State Rep, State Senator, or Assembly-person to become a Federal Rep or Senator. You get the occassional mayor or DA, but city politics are even more murky than state. The Presidential race is mostly exempt from that, except that the person got into a lower office by generally playing the political games they needed to.
The people have little effect on the process. If they did, you would see a bunch of 3rd party candidates winning instead of the occassional one. The only time they really have an effect is on hardcore social issues, like abortion. You're rarely going to see a pro-choice candidate in a pro-life district and the reverse is also true. If you do happen to see them, often it's an unwinnable race from the start and they are a sacrificial lamb. So you either let someone run that A) is a hardcore member of the party chomping at the bit to run or B) wants to get state matching funds to get a new computer.
People will most often vote with the two major choices in front of them and ignore the other choices. It's either party or issue based for many people. They don't want to take the time to get to "know" the candidate, that's why direct mail and phoning is still considered potent.
Grady
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
Recent Visitors: 198
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (198)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Republicans not walking party line
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC