In America, we are electing our Congressmen

[Sand]

I don't and will never agree with Republican backwards 19th century ideology.

you mean like, property rights, capitalism, etc... right?

 

I will be voting Democrat down the board until the Republican party is no more or third party that I can agree with more than Democrats take a sizable chunk out of both parties and have an actual chance to win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i.e. baaaa.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope. I mean by using religion as a excuse to hold back technological and medical advancement. I mean by using religion to justify bigotry and making constitution amendments to support it. I mean using outdated "conservative" traditions and prejudices that have no place in a modern civilization.

 

The Democrats are a step in the right direction but we can go farther and make sure we can have a society free of hate, prejudice, and backwards thinking. If the majority of the Republicans had their way we would be a Christian nation much like Iran is a Islamic nation. Last thing I want to live in is a theocracy.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

Which you're essentially saying all Republicans have. Right? But good luck wiping out the Republican party anyway.

[Sand]

Which you're essentially saying all Republicans have.  Right?  But good luck wiping out the Republican party anyway. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not all but enough of them to sour the whole bunch. I know it will never happen, but it is good to have goals.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Sand

[Lucius]

Eeeew, my site reeks of contamination as Mothie is harrassing my PM folder. I sure hope some of that christy stuff doesn't rub off on me.

 

Oh and btw. I'm fairly sure this guy...

 

 

... wants you over for a private "prayer" session, you know, the american way. :joy:

[Sand]

Lucius, I think you are going a tad overboard.

[Lucius]

Naaaaaaaah, really? You should see the stuff he writes to me then, creepy **** dude! :D

[Plano Skywalker]

Lucius, I think you are going a tad overboard. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

eh, yeah, let's take it easy on the ad homs, eh?

[Dark Moth]

I was just trying to see if he really was stubborn enough to keep spamming up the thread. His actions are almost report-worthy, but it's just too damn funny to stop.

 

ANYWAY...

 

Not all but enough of them to sour the whole bunch. I know it will never happen, but it is good to have goals.

Well, at least you're not a mindless nutjob, then. I will say though I don't think like the idea of voting for a party just for the sake of voting for a party. (except in some specific cases)

Edited November 10, 2006 by Dark Moth

[taks]

Nope.  I mean by using religion as a excuse to hold back technological and medical advancement.  I mean by using religion to justify bigotry and making constitution amendments to support it.  I mean using outdated "conservative" traditions and prejudices that have no place in a modern civilization.

 

The Democrats are a step in the right direction but we can go farther and make sure we can have a society free of hate, prejudice, and backwards thinking.  If the majority of the Republicans had their way we would be a Christian nation much like Iran is a Islamic nation.  Last thing I want to live in is a theocracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this is why i'm a libertarian. if the democratic party would ever drop the nanny gov't attitude, and learn economics, i'd be all over it.

 

of course, you're doing the same thing you accuse the conservatives of... pushing your "modern society" agenda/morals on them. just because YOU think that's the best way, does not make it so for everyone.

 

oh, and thinking that the US could ever become a theocracy is the worst slippery slope ever.

 

taks

[Lucius]

I was gonna write something really nice, as I always do, but it's getting very late now.

 

Anyway good to see that the republicans are now the minority, it's refreshing. ^_^

 

Oh and good idea Mothie, PM harrasment is definitely report worthy! :D

[Dark Moth]

The Democrats are a step in the right direction but we can go farther and make sure we can have a society free of hate, prejudice, and backwards thinking.  If the majority of the Republicans had their way we would be a Christian nation much like Iran is a Islamic nation.  Last thing I want to live in is a theocracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That though is going a little too far. First off you're generalizing the majority of the Republican and pretty much accusing them all of living in the dark ages. You're saying that to be Republican is to be Christian, which is untrue. Also, as much as it may seem easy to believe, the chances of the U.S. becoming a theocracy even under Republican control would be slim to none. That'd be like saying American would be a communist nation if the Democrats took control.

[Lucius]

Just as the dutch aren't danes, dems aren't communists.

 

Now on the other hand there's at least 30 million evangelicals, that's a pretty ****ing scary mob.

 

And no, I'm still not gonna answer your twisted PM's.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Lucius

[taks]

where'd you get the 30 million figure from?

 

taks

[Pidesco]

First off you're generalizing the majority of the Republican and pretty much accusing them all of living in the dark ages. 

 

But being Republican means being against gay marriage homosexuality, abortion, and non-marital sex, or am I wrong in this? :ph34r:

[Dark Moth]

 

Yes. It just tends to be commonly associated with the Republican party. For the record, I'm against abortion too. But I don't live in the dark ages.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Pidesco]

Doesn't the Republican Party have a general policy that goes against gay marriage, for example? And, as such wouldn't it be dumb for someone to be Republican and vote for Republicans if that person is in favour of gay marriage?

[taks]

But being Republican means being against gay marriage homosexuality, abortion, and non-marital sex, or am I wrong in this? :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i don't think any generalization really holds true. certainly there are more republicans that are against these things than democrats, but the rule does not hold for everyone. based on country voting records, more than just party liines are voting against gay marriage. many churches openly allow gays as pastors/preachers, etc., and i'm willing to be more than a few of those people are republican. as for pre-marital/non-marital sex... heck, not many at all care about that anymore. abortion isn't necessarily restricted to GOP opposition, either.

 

taks

[taks]

Doesn't the Republican Party have a general policy that goes against gay marriage, for example? And, as such wouldn't it be dumb for someone to be Republican and vote for Republicans if that person is in favour of gay marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this is the same as saying that everyone should vote party line. if a voter truly thinks for himself, he'll vote based on who he thinks is the best candidate for the job overall, regardless of a few stray ideals.

 

taks

[Pidesco]

But why would one vote for a congressman that will pursue something in congress that goes against the voter's own beliefs?

 

P.S.: What this all means, I think, is that a person should always vote for individuals not political parties. Because political parties kind of defeat the point of democracy.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Pidesco

[Pop]

Doesn't the Republican Party have a general policy that goes against gay marriage, for example? And, as such wouldn't it be dumb for someone to be Republican and vote for Republicans if that person is in favour of gay marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this is the same as saying that everyone should vote party line. if a voter truly thinks for himself, he'll vote based on who he thinks is the best candidate for the job overall, regardless of a few stray ideals.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense.

 

If a voter thinks for himself, but likes his politics pragmatic rather than idealistic (as well he should), he'll vote for candidates based on their party. If you're looking at independents, then yes, look at their ideals, so you can best align them with a party and vote accordingly. Democrats and Republican candidates don't join their caucusses for the recognition their titles give them, they join because those parties have platforms and theses they are willing to uphold through their legislation. A Democrat/Republican wouldn't be a Democrat/Republican if he wasn't committed to at least basic Democrat/Republican values, and voters would do well to remember that, and take into account exactly what being a Democrat/Republican entails, rather than what a Democrat/Republican promises on the campaign trail.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Pop

[Dark Moth]

Doesn't the Republican Party have a general policy that goes against gay marriage, for example? And, as such wouldn't it be dumb for someone to be Republican and vote for Republicans if that person is in favour of gay marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But why would one vote for a congressman that will pursue something in congress that goes against the voter's own beliefs?

 

P.S.: What this all means, I think, is that a person should always vote for individuals not political parties. Because political parties kind of defeat the point of democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no 'policy' of the Republican party, at least the way you seem to be implying. It's more like a set of opinions or beliefs that or more commonly associated with members of said party. It's not as if though that someone who's a Republican is compelled to vote Republican.

 

As for you example of gay marriage, a person can be supportive of gay marriage but still vote Republican. For example the candidate the person's voting for my be in support of gay marriage as well, despite being a Republican. It also depends on why the person's voting for that candidate. The candidate might be against gay marriage, but a person might vote for that person because he or she thinks that candidate would be best suited to govern a city/state/nation than the other candidate. The voter might disagree with the person on some issues, but still believe him or her to be a better choice than the democratic candidate. It's not as if gay marriage is the only deciding issue in said election.

[alanschu]

First off you're generalizing the majority of the Republican and pretty much accusing them all of living in the dark ages. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But being Republican means being against gay marriage homosexuality, abortion, and non-marital sex, or am I wrong in this? :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not necessarily.

 

THe party I'd probably vote for would be Republican, because I'm right wing economically, but I'm far left socially. Which I guess would make me a libertarian.

 

And I am not against homosexuality, abortion, nor non-marital sex.

[Pidesco]

Doesn't the Republican Party have a general policy that goes against gay marriage, for example? And, as such wouldn't it be dumb for someone to be Republican and vote for Republicans if that person is in favour of gay marriage?

But why would one vote for a congressman that will pursue something in congress that goes against the voter's own beliefs?

 

P.S.: What this all means, I think, is that a person should always vote for individuals not political parties. Because political parties kind of defeat the point of democracy.

There's no 'policy' of the Republican party, at least the way you seem to be implying. It's more like a set of opinions or beliefs that or more commonly associated with members of said party. It's not as if though that someone who's a Republican is compelled to vote Republican.

 

As for you example of gay marriage, a person can be supportive of gay marriage but still vote Republican. For example the candidate the person's voting for my be in support of gay marriage as well, despite being a Republican. It also depends on why the person's voting for that candidate. The candidate might be against gay marriage, but a person might vote for that person because he or she thinks that candidate would be best suited to govern a city/state/nation than the other candidate. The voter might disagree with the person on some issues, but still believe him or her to be a better choice than the democratic candidate. It's not as if gay marriage is the only deciding issue in said election.

 

In that case I don't see the point of belonging to a political party in the US. A political party, by the definition has a certain political agenda that it adheres to, more or less faithfully, and that agenda is what sets congressmen votes in Congress. And that's why it's important for a political party to get an absolute majority in Congress (or any other form of assembly). So that it can pass any bills regardless of the opposition's agenda. This means that a lesbian woman who votes Republican is effectively screwing herself.

 

 

Edit: Fixed a terrible faux pas. :hand covering face in shame smilie:

Edited November 10, 2006 by Pidesco

[Pop]

Doesn't the Republican Party have a general policy that goes against gay marriage, for example? And, as such wouldn't it be dumb for someone to be Republican and vote for Republicans if that person is in favour of gay marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But why would one vote for a congressman that will pursue something in congress that goes against the voter's own beliefs?

 

P.S.: What this all means, I think, is that a person should always vote for individuals not political parties. Because political parties kind of defeat the point of democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no 'policy' of the Republican party, at least the way you seem to be implying. It's more like a set of opinions or beliefs that or more commonly associated with members of said party. It's not as if though that someone who's a Republican is compelled to vote Republican.

 

As for you example of gay marriage, a person can be supportive of gay marriage but still vote Republican. For example the candidate the person's voting for my be in support of gay marriage as well, despite being a Republican. It also depends on why the person's voting for that candidate. The candidate might be against gay marriage, but a person might vote for that person because he or she thinks that candidate would be best suited to govern a city/state/nation than the other candidate. The voter might disagree with the person on some issues, but still believe him or her to be a better choice than the democratic candidate. It's not as if gay marriage is the only deciding issue in said election.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In that case I don't see the point of belonging to a political party in the US. A political party, by the definition has a certain political agenda that it adheres to, more or less faithfully, and that agenda is what sets congressmen votes in Congress. And that's why it's important for a political party to get an absolute majority in Congress (or any other form of assembly). So that it can pass any bills regardless of the opposition's agenda. This means that a lesbian woman who votes Republican is effectively screwing itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lesbian is a "she" not an "it"

 

But yes, you're essentially correct. The official view of the Republican party is that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The dissension within the party on the matter of gay marriage comes with whether or not the constitution should be amended to say that explicitly. Paleoconservatives and libertarians, while not being huge on gay rights, are huge on keeping the constitution as static as possible. It's the reason why the issue was killed in the Republican Congress and left to the states.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Pop

[Pidesco]

Not necessarily.

 

THe party I'd probably vote for would be Republican, because I'm right wing economically, but I'm far left socially.  Which I guess would make me a libertarian.

 

And I am not against homosexuality, abortion, nor non-marital sex.

 

But aren't Democrats actually Libertarians? From where I'm standing they seem to be economically right wing, and socially left wing. As opposed to republicans who appear to be right wing on both counts.