(NSR) Republican Humor

[SledNeck]

I've never met a republican who was actually able to defend their beliefs.

Hand over ears?

Pearls to the swines...

[Honc]

Originally posted by Samwich
Good argument. I'm sold.

I've never met a republican who was actually able to defend their beliefs. They usually talk about one point, and one point only (i.e. abortion is an abomination under god so democrats are heathens) and the evils of the republican party seem to go completely unnoticed. The only valid arguments I have heard a republican make is that democrats do bad things as well.

Sure, I've met reasonable, intelligent people who also happen to be staunch republicans, but they were few and far between (and really really rich). Most of the republicans I have had the distinct pleasure () of talking politics with have been bumbling morons.

Yeah, both sides are bad, but it seems to me that nothing the republicans do makes any sense. I haven't seen one policy come out of Bush's office thus far that I agree with. Maybe the democrats don't have the solutions, but at least they don't create nearly as many new problems.

Do my own dirty work? You're a fuckwit.

Originaly Posted by Samwich
Dr Gaper-

instead of posting lists of why democrats are morons, can you categorically deny every single one of the points made in Rev's 1st list?

I am neither democrat nor republican (i'm undecided, and only 17) so i'd like you to attempt to persuade me that the republican viewpoint makes sense. As of right now, for all of the democrats' failings, their side looks more reasonable. Make a republican out of me in time for the next election, which I will be old enough to vote in.

Samwich, a few things:
1) Stop pretending not to be a Democrat in order to bait republicans into a flame war; your effort is entirely transparent and equally pathetic.
2) The above understood, you are clearly a Democrat and should take a stand on issues if you are going to attack. At minimum you might consider attacking a Republican stance, thereby clarifying that you are aware of the issues concerning national welfare.
3) While your tales of "talking politics" with "bumbling moron Republicans" might amuse you, or that Republican politics "do not make any sense," and that Republicans "only have 1 defense for their beliefs (abortion)," they are wholly unsubstantiated and certainly do not elevate you to a position where you might call Dr. Gaper a fuckwit.
4) Using profanity does not strenghten your position.

I understand that you are 17. I was uninformed at 17 and totally opposed to the "Republican Machine". If you really want to formulate an opinion, do a little research instead of demanding others defend their own stance. The fastest-talking Republican will have you on the GOP bandwagon way too easily if you base your opinion on others'.

[Tippster]

Originally posted by Mcwop
I love when people rag on Republicans and act as if their party is so great. Want to see the Democratic Party handiwork? Come visit a little cesspool called Baltimore. Dems are doing a bangup job here.

Baltimore, Maryland Top 10 List (year ending 2002)

1) Baltimore is the Most Crime Violent of the 25 largest US cities (www.FBI.gov 12/2002)

1) Mayor O'Malley proclaimed Baltimore the Juvenile Murder Capital of America (WBAL, 9/2002)
Blahblahblah...

You forgot that the "O's" suck and Angelos is a dick.

Now, mon Frere, if it's so bad, why not move? Are you shackled to a post? Have they kidnapped your family?

And the B-W area being 10th in the nation in pollution isn't bad, since we're the 6th largest metropolitan area...

[bigAK]

Originally posted by 1080Rider
And remember, if you're 19 and not a liberal you don't have a heart, if you're 39 and not a conservative you don't have a brain.

about these words, i've run into countless conservatives that claim to have been liberal in "past lives" (referring to when they were younger). on the flip side, there are people who remain liberal throughout their lives. i'm curious as to what others here think spawns this dichotomy. don't bother typing useless "the others are too stupid" responses.

since i posed the question, i'll offer one possible answer. following the defeat of goldwater in 64, the republican party made an obvious commitment to "rightify" the country through media and extreme promotion of conservative ideals. this forward thinking was a direct counter to the leftist attempts of the 60s/70s to mobilize the population into creating a peacenik idealistic culture, with apparently little effort to conceptualize 40 years into the future. the repubs, on the other hand, made a choice to slowly mold the country's collective thought. no question, they have shifted the demographics of the voting populace to their side (today, approximately: 30% right, 20% left and 50% in that meaty part of the curve right in the middle). the democratic party seems to have believed that if they were right (correct), people would naturally follow without the thought that people believe what is repeated to them, not what is necessarily true. in sum, it seems as though they gave the populace too much credit in the intelligence department and just assumed everyone would see their side. the republican party has made a strong commitment to a "PR campaign" which seems to be directed mostly to 30-50 year old middle-upper class caucasians. it's just like advertising, as long as you can motivate a percentage to buy into your product, the campaign is a success.

i think it's pretty obvious how this would affect the shift 1080 was talking about in his post. other's thoughts on the subject?

i'm extremely liberal (think the way left tail of that 20%) and wasn't alive for most of the time period mentioned in this post. i'm almost absolutely dissatisfied with the democratic party in recent years. i thought clinton was overall pretty medicore in terms of policy yet he was possibly the greatest politician of our time. that charisma and motivation to focus on the possibilities of government for the people (one that everyone can live with) as well as an eye towards the future is severely lacking from today's dems. until they sack up, grow a spine, and learn to promote themselves and their platform in a meaningful and significant way, i have a hard time voting for any of them. the way i see it, the playbook has been around for years, it's about time someone other than clinton copied it...

[Mcwop]

Originally posted by bigAK
about these words, i've run into countless conservatives that claim to have been liberal in "past lives" (referring to when they were younger). on the flip side, there are people who remain liberal throughout their lives. i'm curious as to what others here think spawns this dichotomy. don't bother typing useless "the others are too stupid" responses.

since i posed the question, i'll offer one possible answer. following the defeat of goldwater in 64, the republican party made an obvious commitment to "rightify" the country through media and extreme promotion of conservative ideals. this forward thinking was a direct counter to the leftist attempts of the 60s/70s to mobilize the population into creating a peacenik idealistic culture, with apparently little effort to conceptualize 40 years into the future. the repubs, on the other hand, made a choice to slowly mold the country's collective thought. no question, they have shifted the demographics of the voting populace to their side (today, approximately: 30% right, 20% left and 50% in that meaty part of the curve right in the middle). the democratic party seems to have believed that if they were right (correct), people would naturally follow without the thought that people believe what is repeated to them, not what is necessarily true. in sum, it seems as though they gave the populace too much credit in the intelligence department and just assumed everyone would see their side. the republican party has made a strong commitment to a "PR campaign" which seems to be directed mostly to 30-50 year old middle-upper class caucasians. it's just like advertising, as long as you can motivate a percentage to buy into your product, the campaign is a success.

i think it's pretty obvious how this would affect the shift 1080 was talking about in his post. other's thoughts on the subject?

i'm extremely liberal (think the way left tail of that 20%) and wasn't alive for most of the time period mentioned in this post. i'm almost absolutely dissatisfied with the democratic party in recent years. i thought clinton was overall pretty medicore in terms of policy yet he was possibly the greatest politician of our time. that charisma and motivation to focus on the possibilities of government for the people (one that everyone can live with) as well as an eye towards the future is severely lacking from today's dems. until they sack up, grow a spine, and learn to promote themselves and their platform in a meaningful and significant way, i have a hard time voting for any of them. the way i see it, the playbook has been around for years, it's about time someone other than clinton copied it...

A lot is based on personal practices. Example, someone that likes to do drugs recreationally might not like the hard Republican stance against drugs (e.g. minimum sentencing guidelines). Small business owners that pay the full FICA payroll tax of 15.3% tend to favor the tax cutting tendencies of Republicans so their marginal rate declines (income tax plus payroll taxes). Small business owners are heavily Republican. It may well be likely that gun owners tend to be Republicans too, and people against guns probably Democrat. Just my observations.

[KQ]

Court To Hear Case To Reopen Roe V. Wade

Federal Appeals Court To Hear Request To Reopen 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Decision Roe V. Wade
DALLAS 2.19.04, 2:18p -

A federal appeals court has agreed to hear a request from the woman formerly known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

Norma McCorvey, who joined with anti-abortion activists nearly 10 years ago, is seeking to have the decision overturned, citing what she says is more than 30 years of evidence that abortions are psychologically harmful to women.

A federal district judge threw out her initial request in June, saying it was not made within a reasonable time. But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear McCorvey's arguments March 2.

"It's something that I've wanted ever since Day One, and it's happening," McCorvey said from her Dallas home.

Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill, whose predecessor Henry Wade who was named in the original lawsuit, has not filed a response to McCorvey's appeal. That may put the appeals court in the unusual position of hearing arguments from only one side.

Wade was named in the original case because he was charged with enforcing the Texas law that prevented McCorvey from having an abortion. Hill's office has argued that since that law no longer exists, Hill has no authority to prosecute and should not be sued.

More than 20 Texas law school professors concerned about an unbalanced hearing filed a brief Wednesday asking to be allowed to argue the other side of the case.

"It's important that the court hear from somebody representing the position that the district court took, which I think is clearly right," said David Schenck, a lawyer representing the professors. "At this point, the case is moot, and she's presenting at best a political question."

The Supreme Court decision came after McCorvey had her baby. The baby was the third child McCorvey put up for adoption; she was a 21-year-old carnival worker at the time.

She publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980.

The Associated Press

[Tippster]

Originally posted by bigAK
...the democratic party seems to have believed that if they were right (correct), people would naturally follow without the thought that people believe what is repeated to them, not what is necessarily true. in sum, it seems as though they gave the populace too much credit in the intelligence department and just assumed everyone would see their side. the republican party has made a strong commitment to a "PR campaign" which seems to be directed mostly to 30-50 year old middle-upper class caucasians. it's just like advertising, as long as you can motivate a percentage to buy into your product, the campaign is a success...

Therein lies the power of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the WSJ Editorial page, et al. If you repeat a falsehood often enough it starts echoing in the public and slowly transforms into "fact." Remember how supposedly the Clinton White House staffers vandalized the offices before leaving? Or that Bill & Hillary took donated furniture out of the WH for their private home in NY? According to the GAO (General Accounting Office) neither one of these things ever happened.

If you have not read Al Franken's latest book: "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" I highly recommend you do. As a person who works in the "Liberal Media" I can personally vouch that he's right on.

[iceman]

Originally posted by dipstik
Oh, and as for being illiterate, its "moderator" not "moderater"

I will continue to pick on you as long as you continue to be abrasive, self-righteous and ill-informed. I also went to a prep school (clearly a better one than you attend, judging by your literary skills or lack thereof), so that has nothing to do with it.

As to your crack about my spelling of "moderator", the board is set up so that it is impossible to put the word "moderator" in the "member type" field. Try it and see. So, "moderater" is there to fool the unwary and annoy the humorless. Looks like it worked just fine in your case.

[DougW]

Originally posted by Cornholio
And, 5 extra points if you have a clue what she's talking about.

[see below

[Tippster]

Originally posted by DougW
http://www.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1085/10239_0004.jpg

not sure if that movie coined the phrase or not

edit only shows up as red X , so try link

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1085/10239_0004.jpg

[bad_roo]

Ask the guys working in the meat packing industry what they think of 'small government'. The Democrats have a far more sophisticated understanding of the need to curb the excesses of the free market yet pure capitalism has yet to become as discredited a concept as pure communism.

[iceman]

Originally posted by bad_roo
...pure capitalism has yet to become as discredited a concept as pure communism.

The day is coming, though. And the sooner the better.

Thus also with trade: Free Trade sounds good but in the end will drag us all down to the lowest common denominator. Open markets are all to the good but only when combined with intelligent management, something the Republicans profess not to understand.

[Clack]

Just to poke some fun from the other side I've got to rerun the old ant and grasshopper. Pretty amusing and while not fresh, I think it's effective in conveying it's point.


The Fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper
CLASSIC VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.


MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing "We Shall Overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Al Gore, re-emerging from his self-imposed exile, exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him
pay his "fair share."

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Senator Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed, during a Senate recess, from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.----------

[Clack]

Originally posted by iceman
The day is coming, though. And the sooner the better.

Thus also with trade: Free Trade sounds good but in the end will drag us all down to the lowest common denominator. Open markets are all to the good but only when combined with intelligent management, something the Republicans profess not to understand.

If someone in Mexico can put on a lugnut as well as someone in Flint, why shouldn't they have the job, especially if they're willing to do it for less?

In my eyes, it comes down to a sense of entitlement. People truely believe the government owes them something.

Guy in Flint now has to find employment in a field that actually needs people. He becomes economically viable. Or does he go on wellfare? After all the gubament should have protected his job. Cus he's 'merican.

Maybe the hard line comes because I'm just starting in a new field and working so hard I've only been able to ski 7 days so far this year. I'm still fucking broke and I feel like the ant. Things will be better next year, I'll break 50 days again and take a lot of trips. I could have made things easier before and collected unemployment but didn't. I could have collected wellfare too but didn't. My ski sebatical last year was wholey funded by savings. Maybe I spent too much and am paying for it now.

Who am I kidding. I just like guns.

[bad_roo]

Originally posted by monster dump.
If someone in Mexico can put on a lugnut as well as someone in Flint, why shouldn't they have the job, especially if they're willing to do it for less?

Here's a great idea. How about a few bosses in the lugnut industry get talking, form a little cartel, shut out the unions, pay the lugnut workers no money and give them no employment rights or benefits. Prioritise a rapid turnover of workforce and deskill the job as far as possible. Ramp up throughput at the expense of workplace injury. The few get fat and wealthy and the many get screwed. And you know what? The lugnuts aren't any cheaper on the shelves.

Everyone's a winner.

[up an down]

Originally posted by monster dump.


In my eyes, it comes down to a sense of entitlement. People truely believe the government owes them something.

the main problem is that the "people" that think government owes them something are usually the business owners and republicans.. look at where the tax dollars are spent, look at the industries that give the legal bribes to politicians, look at who the tax cuts benefit.. look at the article in wednesdays wsj about which states get more tax dollars than they give.
reagan and now shrub continue the hypocracy of towting smaller federal government , while at the same time increasing the size and spending of the federal governmant,, and they pass the money along to the bribers and the politically connected, 90% of which are republicans.

[Honc]

Originally posted by up an down
the main problem is that the "people" that think government owes them something are usually the business owners and republicans.. look at where the tax dollars are spent, look at the industries that give the legal bribes to politicians, look at who the tax cuts benefit.. look at the article in wednesdays wsj about which states get more tax dollars than they give.
reagan and now shrub continue the hypocracy of towting smaller federal government , while at the same time increasing the size and spending of the federal governmant,, and they pass the money along to the bribers and the politically connected, 90% of which are republicans.

I might be mistaken as I only skimmed that article, but I thought the gist was that federal and state governments are puliing in opposite directions. As the federal government is freeing money by cutting back taxes, the state governments are taking a larger chunk, which has a state-taking-from-federal effect.

Also the bribe issue is hardly a valid one to argue since American politicians have been taking bribes since the Declaration of Independence, Republican, Democrat or otherwise.

[Clack]

The fact that the republican party no longer follows a lot of its ideals doesn't make the ideals any less valid, only the candidates.


And roo, no one forces anyone into the lugnut industry. I like Nikes. Would even consider buying from K2. It's young people spending their parents money on college tuition that protest the working conditions in Malaysia, not the wokers there who are happy to have a job paying twice the going wage. Who do these protesters think they are? It's so out of touch it makes me think of Antoinette and "let them eat cake".


Are Nikes less expensive? No. Stockholders don't do too bad though. Does that make you sick? Paint a sign. :shrug: I'm going back to work.

[up an down]

Originally posted by monster dump.
The fact that the republican party no longer follows a lot of its ideals doesn't make the ideals any less valid, only the candidates.

wrong,, their hypocracy and actions of party members makes the entire party invalid, not just the candidates.

[hobo]

Originally posted by DaveTV
And for those who throw the term "Liberal" around like it's something to be ashamed of:


liberal --adjective
1 relating to or having social and political views that favor progress and reform
.....

8 a person who has liberal ideas or opinions

Let me add one more definition, and the one that IMO makes most modern "liberals" unworthy of the term:

9. Favoring civil and political liberties, democratic reforms, and protection from arbitrary authority.

Not that I like the conservatives either. Noone speaks for the crotchety old bastards of the world.

[up an down]

Originally posted by Honc
I might be mistaken as I only skimmed that article, but I thought the gist was that federal and state governments are puliing in opposite directions. As the federal government is freeing money by cutting back taxes, the state governments are taking a larger chunk, which has a state-taking-from-federal effect.

Also the bribe issue is hardly a valid one to argue since American politicians have been taking bribes since the Declaration of Independence, Republican, Democrat or otherwise.

honc, i don't have the article memorized, and i threw out the paper, but i think the gist was that of the states that receive more fed tax dollars than they pay, the vast majority of them have more republican legislators representing them in the senate and the house..

bribery has been around as long as humans have been politically organized, but we live in a time in this country where legal bribery controls and influences so much of our tax money, and just as importantly, the bribery controls and/or influences regulation of business, consumer safety and enviromental law, i think the point is valid, and the republicans take the lead when it comes to obstructing attempted reforms.. yes i know the democrats are ciorrupt as well,, but by their actions ( not their rhetoric) the republicans have proven themselves to be the greater of the 2 evils imo.

[iceman]

I rarely get involved in these debates: I know what I think, and I know how unlikely it is that I will change anyone's mind.

But monster, I will say this - I don't begrudge the guy in Malaysia his job. If he is willing to make lugnuts for a dime a day, so be it. I do however object to a system that gives a competitive advantage to countries that suppress organized labor, which either do not have or do not enforce environmental regulations, which do not have or do not enforce worker-safety programs, etc.

Is the answer to remove these restrictions from U.S. industry? Or is the answer to insist that goods imported to the U.S. be produced in accordance with standards that would be required here?

In other words, is total capitalism simply a boon to consumers and workers in low-wage countries or is it a sytsem that will inevitably lead to worker oppression, environmental destruction and the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many?

You tell me.

[1080Rider]

Originally posted by up an down
wrong,, their hypocracy and actions of party members makes the entire party invalid, not just the candidates.

Relax Francis, you're a couple days too late for this.

Roo, we do have antitrust laws in the states. It is actually not easy to conspire w/ other people in your industry. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just saying that people do get caught and its not fun when it happens, ask Gates, although it prolly only cost him like $2 billion, pretty easy to make that up in a month or two.

I think we've all seen what happens when the gov't gets involved in the market and holds prices artificially high or low. Businesses start to go under and can't make ends meet. I honestly think the market works. There will eventually be some companies that make big profits, but that's to be expected. If its on their own ingenuity then I say all the better. It forces other companies to make better products. If it comes from predatory pricing or through conspiring, that's illegal and is not the market at work.

Sorry Ice and Roo, I respectfully disagree w/ your position on free market capitalism.

Edit: up and down- how much of your tax $ do you really think goes to the homeless person. I recall a study a long time ago (about 10 yrs) that showed about $.25 goes to the recipients of benefits programs. Where does the rest of the $$$ go? To the salaries of the people oporating the program. I'd rather see not-for-profit programs working and having closer to $.70 of donations go to the needy.

[iceman]

Originally posted by 1080Rider
Sorry Ice and Roo, I respectfully disagree w/ your position on free market capitalism.

Yeah, well, when they outsource all the lawyering to the Phillipines I bet you'll sing a different tune!

[Will]

I'm all for jokes about the other party (whichever one that may be), and I thought it was kinda lame when this thread turned into a (semi) serious political debate.

You wanna debate, start a debate thread.

Jokes by their nature are unbalanced and unfair to the other side. Liberal commie-pinko democrat greenie treehuggin' bastard though I may be, Dr. Gaper's jokes cracked me up. As did the Rev's. My uncle and cousin (republicans) send me jokes about lefties, and I send jokes right back at them.

So to bring back some levity, here's a swing at my own party.

http://www.wonkette.com/images/fuckable-tm.jpg