Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]

[Typhoid]

Keep in mind that "Mostly in rage" part.

I was watching the BBC early this morning, and they showed a clip of her saying something to the effect of "We need to do what's right for our people, and our voters".

That right there made me think about the difference between the two groups, Republicans and Democrats. Democrats view the US as a divided country, where everyone is an American. Republicans view the US as a shrinking corporation where half the people aren't Republicans.

It was the "OUR" people/voters part that got to me (and clearly what I focused on). It's sort of like she's getting away on semantics with openly saying "Fuck everyone who doesn't agree with us, we're going to do what's right for the people who voted for us, rather than everyone in the country. Fuck those guys."

I think that is the major problem in your country right now. As bad as Republicans are in this sense [Republicans first rather than Everyone at the same time], I'm pretty sure that in the past they at least gave a little squirt of a shit about the rest of the country (The democratic part).

But now; now all they care about is beating the black guy who has control of their country. It's as if now they view the Democratic voters as ________-loving God-haters. They had clips from regular Republicans; an old man saying "we need to elect the person who can beat Barrack Obama", and a young girl (maybe woman, but she looked 17ish) "I really agree with his [Rick Santorum] views against gay marriage. I agree with that."

That is the Republican voter? People who want to elect someone who won't better a country, but will rather beat the other guy? Or someone who will remove the last 5 years of social progression in your country? It's not a fucking game. It's like the dumb people (I'm not removing Democrats from this) do just view it as a "This guy vs that guy" game, and don't even give a shit about what the effect that person will have on your country as a whole will actually be.

Yes, I'm aware not all Republicans are like that, and there are more moderate ones. Just as not all democrats are pot-smoking hippies who took liberal arts and dropped out of college before starting their own organic fruit juice company.

[Professor S]

Why do I get the feeling that you had these thoughts long before you ever heard of Michele Bachman? I mean, making blanket statements about Republicans being racist bigots who only care about evil rich people is nothing new... Just do a forum search in the politics section. :D

Keep in mind, Michele Bachman lost horribly and dropped out while a moderate pragmatist is in the lead in national polls, and a former front runner is "blacker" than our current president, to use you terminology. Santorum is next to fall, because he only seems to do well when people can't hear him speak.

[Typhoid]

Why do I get the feeling that you had these thoughts long before you ever heard of Michele Bachman?

I really didn't. Not to this degree. I have family in the US. Republican family. We get along great!

But.


Keep in mind, Michele Bachman lost horribly and dropped out while a moderate pragmatist is in the lead in national polls, and a former front runner is "blacker" than our current president, to use you terminology. Santorum is next to fall, because he only seems to do well when people can't hear him speak.

I wasn't really alluding to Republicans as a whole, or all Republican Politicians, just the ones that are up today (Because all them honestly seem to be caricatures of jokes [Seemingly Unfaithful Black Guy, Flip-Flopping Mormon, Palin v2.0, Rick Santorum]). I was basically just raging about the extreme Republicans, the people who actually vote for those Grade-A Jive Turkeys [And those Turkeys themselves]. I don't like extremism on either side. I hate hippies, too. I totally hate hippies. Creep me out. Get a job. Help the economy.

I mean, making blanket statements about Republicans being racist bigots who only care about evil rich people is nothing new... Just do a forum search in the politics section.

Despite the fact that you're Republican, can you honestly say that the Republicans [The main few, not all of them, I'm sure some of the failing ones have some good ideas; they just don't love God or hate non-whites enough :lol: <--This is joke, comrade] that are up for Possible-Presidency today care about anything other than simply getting in charge for the sake of getting in charge, or gain for Republicans alone?

I'm not ignorant to the fact it happens in other countries and other parties. It's not like I think Political Asshole-ishness is compartmentalized to the extreme American Republicans alone. But can you honestly say that there is one Republican up there that cares about, and will try improving your country for 100% of it's population? I haven't seen one Republican speech from one of those four horseman where they wanted to lower taxes for the poor, spread education, make healthcare affordable for even the people who can't afford it. I'm not saying they haven't said that, or they don't think it - just that's not what anyone is focusing on. It's all "I love God more than my republican friend here, who isn't very Republican by the way. I also think we should get Obama out of the White House. We need good Republican values back in charge."

But really, I was just raging on the people who back those clowns. Because I know those politicians might be more moderate than they make themselves seem, but they have to concentrate their Republican-ness for campaigning - what bugs me is that it works, and that there are full-grown adults who share such bigoted views on the world, as if it should be run exactly how it was in the goold 'ol days when they grew up, the 40's/50's. And I'm aware old-bigots are old-bigots because they grew up in bigoted time where it was all the rage. But it's the 90's. Some people need to get with the times. Everyone is equal; black, white, jew, mormon, child, adult, sick, healthy, educated, uneducated. We're a'll people. Billions of us, all the same.

Politics as a whole these days disgusts me. And while there no doubt are many shady Democrats who own shady corporations who launder money and break the law for self-financial gain- but you seriously can't disagree that there are more Republican candidates over the years who happen to own corporations, or have CEO positions in for-profit organizations - unless you're going to make the argument that Democrats are just better at hiding the paperwork. :lolz:


But to be clear, Michele Bachmann and Rick Scrotorum just irked me this morning. Set me over the edge. I've had my tea and smoked my joint. My rage has subsided.

[Bond]

Typhoid, it sounds like you don't like the evangelical part of the Republican party -- don't worry, no one like that part of the party except for evangelical Republicans. :)

[Professor S]

Do we really want to have this conversation again? It's been a DECADE of the same "good vs. evil" nonsense. I believe my political ideology helps society, and you believe yours helps society. Let's just agree to disagree on generalities. If you want to discuss specific policy, then I'm all for it, but these broad statements are just tired.

I do think your comments about not hearing Republican ideas about education, taxes, healthcare expose two challenges of most legitimate republican ideas: They don't fit in soundbites, and the media is biased toward simple soundbites and sensationalism, and no longer wishes to engage in complex ideas. Explaining the Republican ideology in regard to eduction is a long conversation, an doesn't fit well in today's short attention span society. I could literally write paragraphs (and I think I have), but if the media only produces headlines like "Republicans want to eliminate the department of education!" it's difficult to get the message out. The same goes for healthcare.

I will say that I am a Republican that is not a supporter of Bachman or Santorum, for many of the reasons you mention, and I am obviously not alone. Hell, I've basically called Santorum a scumbag because I've listened closely to him for a long time. He, and perhaps Bachman, are theocrats who want to tell people how they have to live their lives because people are too stupid to do it themselves. Conversely, I think those to the far left want to do the same thing but in a different way.

Typhoid, it sounds like you don't like the evangelical part of the Republican party -- don't worry, no one like that part of the party except for evangelical Republicans.

This

[Typhoid]

Typhoid, it sounds like you don't like the evangelical part of the Republican party -- don't worry, no one like that part of the party except for evangelical Republicans.

I agree.

Like I said, i was just raging over those few individuals, not the whole.

If you want to discuss specific policy, then I'm all for it, but these broad statements are just tired.

I'd love if more Politicians in general started talking more about specific policy, and less about who they are, how their campaign is doing, what they did, what religion they are, and who they're going to bash this week. I'd especially love if the media - in general, and on a broader scale - actually gave a shit about policy, rather than their own ratings. That means they'll always focus more on someone who is controversial, over than someone who has a good idea to better the country - Those speeches are usually boring, and they don't sell papers or airtime. But Herman Cain having __ chicks coming out saying he sexually harassed them or whatever? You better believe that got him coverage. I'm starting to think the best way to get the popular vote is to do a bunch of fucked up shit before you run for President, then the media will have constant coverage of all the fucked up shit you did, and never give airtime to your opponents, thusly always putting your name on the tip of America's tongue. Brilliant. :ohreilly:

I do think your comments about not hearing Republican ideas about education, taxes, healthcare expose two challenges of most legitimate republican ideas: They don't fit in soundbites, and the media is biased toward simple soundbites and sensationalism, and no longer wishes to engage in complex ideas. Explaining the Republican ideology in regard to eduction is a long conversation, an doesn't fit well in today's short attention span society. I could literally write paragraphs (and I think I have), but if the media only produces headlines like "Republicans want to eliminate the department of education!" it's difficult to get the message out. The same goes for healthcare.

Tangent warning: I agree that the attention span of Joe Q Ipad is one of the worst tragedies of the 21st century. Nobody knows the meaning of "hold on", or "One moment please". People get so incredulously mad when they get put on hold, or get stopped at a red light. People hate waiting through commercials so much they invented a device to ultimately make them obsolete, or maybe we just wanted to watch our 55 minute show in 42 minutes. Those 13 minutes add up! Who has time to relax, so many shows to watch! We hate how long it takes to cook food, so we invented the microwave. We've spent 40 years improving technology - making everything more convenient to get to the glorious point we're at today - and all we've done is create generations of people who don't have the proper attention span to properly pick a leader for their own country. This paragraph is all legitimate, and not some type of tongue in cheek joke. I think it's a tragedy how impatient people are these days, and how negatively it affects all politics because of it. (I mean fuck, I cringe at the thought of how many people are only going [or would, if it was a site with a bunch of teenagers] to scan this paragraph because it would "take too much time to read".) Give me a news channel that focuses on a positive 2-day story. I don't want a 35 second clip about an Earthquake that decimated an orphanage, how the fuck will that knowledge improve my life, or help the people around me. :lolz:

I will say that I am a Republican that is not a supporter of Bachman or Santorum, for many of the reasons you mention, and I am obviously not alone. Hell, I've basically called Santorum a scumbag because I've listened closely to him for a long time. He, and perhaps Bachman, are theocrats who want to tell people how they have to live their lives because people are too stupid to do it themselves. Conversely, I think those to the far left want to do the same thing but in a different way.

That is why I wasn't directing anything at you. I know you're not an extreme Republican to the degree they are. Like I said, I vastly dislike extremism. Maybe that's a little ironic, but whatever. Extremism typically comes with extremely closed minds, and that never helps anyone.

I just hate those fucking scrotebags, and hate the fact they A) Get attention and B) Get such seemingly odd numbers of support for the fucked up shit they say.

[Jason1]

Republicans being racist bigots who only care about evil rich people is nothing new... Just do a forum search in the politics section. :D



Uh, you forgot god loving, Nascar watching, and gun carrying.

Oh, and global warming denying!

[Professor S]

Uh, you forgot god loving, Nascar watching, and gun carrying.

Oh, and global warming denying!

Well yeah, but none of those are bad things... :D

[Bond]

I sympathize with almost everything you said Typh, although I would also add there are just as many crazy Democrats as crazy Republicans.

To play devil's advocate (pardon the pun), there are a lot of evangelicals in America and they do make up a sizable contingency in both political sway and fundraising dollars. I suppose they wouldn't be quite so irritating if they didn't want to impose their social views on everyone (what I would call "conditional conservatism") ... the Democrats try to do this as well though, just from the other side.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Well yeah, but none of those are bad things... :D


Nascar watching is always a bad thing.

[Vampyr]

I sympathize with almost everything you said Typh, although I would also add there are just as many crazy Democrats as crazy Republicans.

Even if there are (which I'm not sure of), there isn't a group so large, organized, and well funded as the evangelical Christian sect of republicans.

I don't know what it is about the Republican party that attracts the crazies, but I think it does so more than the Democrat party. I think it has to do with their prerogative to harbor and encourage intolerance. Just about any Republican congressman you ask will say they don't support gay marriage, at least not openly.

There's something fundamentally flawed with that. You can say the entire Republican party isn't composed of evangelical Christians, but they have their claws in deep enough that it's still a valid criticism to say that the party is representative of them.

[Typhoid]

Typh, although I would also add there are just as many crazy Democrats as crazy Republicans.

I acknowledged that in my second post, although less on the 'crazy' and more of the extreme.

I don't like extremism on either side. I hate hippies, too. I totally hate hippies. Creep me out. Get a job. Help the economy.


the Democrats try to do this as well though, just from the other side.

oh, oh - I'm aware. That's just politics. I get both parties just want control and their own views to come to light, I mean that's really what it's all about. The problem I have, is that [what should be] typical freedoms for everyone, are being guarded because of uneducated hate [By some] under the guise of "God". Freedom of religion? Unless you're Muslim, then get your mosque the fuck out of my town, terrorist. Freedom of speech? Unless you're disagreeing with me, then get the fuck out of my town, hippy. Free Love? Unless you're gay. Then get the fuck out of my town, faggot. Free Choices? Unless you're planning to abort your baby, then get the fuck out of my town, whore.

This is a tangent- again - but I saw an old American citizen on the news and he said "We can't let those Middle East nations get too powerful, they're nations and people ruled by religion." - A relatively fine point for the 21st century. Religion ruling a country is antiquated. If I changed the channel there, that would have been great. But then he had to end it with the gem "God Bless America." For fucks' sake, do you even realize what you're saying. :lol: I found that to be one of the most laugh-worthy news moments I've seen recently. It made me blow ash all over my table. Yeah, I watch the news and smoke. Getting two birds stoned at once.

Just about any Republican congressman you ask will say they don't support gay marriage, at least not openly.

Yes. In fact many Republicans who were openly vocal against gay marriage were gay themselves. That right there should sort of show how much 'secret power' the Republican party has. If a gay man is willing to think "I'm going to act as if I hate myself, in order for ________ (Positive Personal Gain)", there has to be a pretty massive personal gain. Unless someone is going to make the argument that there are no gay Republicans, just Gay Democrats who haven't found out they're Democrats yet. Unless Gay Republicans are against gay marriage because they like the idea of traditional marriage, yet disagree with the ratio of penises involved with it. And being that they are Republicans, it's usually a pretty safe assumption (I don't mean that as a knock, but realistically) that the person is somewhat Christian, meaning that they also believe homosexuality to not only be a sin, but to be a choice. So think about the turmoil involved in a gay republican opposing gay marriage. He woke up that morning and said "I think today I'll be sexually attracted to some men...again, despite knowing full-well that Lord Almighty, whom I pray to every night - will send me to hell simply for this act alone." I think if homosexuality is a choice, that's a lot scarier than if it's not. That means at any moment any card-carrying Republican male can just suddenly decide he wants to suck a cock. I'm glad Democrat gays are born gay. I figure, as long as you're a straight democrat you'll never have a slight chance of even being gay in the first place, unless you were born that way. Since what each party says is relayed as fact, and ultimately what you say, is what is real to your voters (IE Republican candidates saying homosexuality is a choice, and thusly their voters believing that as fact, despite the fact it's really because of religious beliefs) means that on the other side you have an (nearly) entire group of people who have no fear of ever turning gay. Imagine all the fear in the Republican party. Each time they see another Republican male, they have to think "Hey, maybe this guy will try to jerk me off." Each day they wake up they have to worry "I really hope I don't see a man soooo attractive that I suddenly decide to turn gay. I hope it's not Larry. He just got a new tie."



That entire paragraph is not serious, just a tongue-in-cheek joke - for the love of science.

[Bond]

I think you'd like this country song Typhoid:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7iDwzIB6Pn0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Seth]

I can't believe that music video exists.

I appreciate this thread for the feeling that created it. However, why are we even allotting emotional response to the likes of Bachmann? Isn't the entire political arena (the one present through media focus) simply partisan semantic confusory?
The fact is Obama had the highest corporate funded campaign in history. He was the candidate of choice for the special interests that weave Republican nostalgia as fabric for a certain political tent, and democrats likewise.
For fucks sake Obama just signed the most evil bill(NDAA), citing defense budget precedents. This type of reversal from his campaign promises reaches further than republican interference. He had two years to introduce new legislation. The best he could do was sign a corporately securing healthcare bill. and btw, Obama didn't withdraw from Iraq. That was already signed in place by Bush.

America needs to elect an independent candidate. What other boycott options are there?

[Bond]

That music video is really bad. I have to admit I enjoy the occasional country song, heard that one on the radio, and had the bad idea to look up the band. Needless to say, I won't be listening to them again.

[Jason1]

I would also add there are just as many crazy Democrats as crazy Republicans.



This is untrue. WAY more crazy Republicans than democrats.

I take that back, it definds how you define crazy. I will say this: there are more Dangerous crazy Republicans.

Crazy democrats protest in parks, smoke weed, and listen to Neil Young.

Crazy Republicans talking about killing Obama, own 4 different automatic rifles and shoot up schools and grocery stores. Republicans will try to deny this but it is true.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Since we're posting country music videos:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IZbN_nmxAGk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Bond]

That was fucking depressing.

Sly - like Kip Moore?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0bYZEh8HBTQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Professor S]

Crazy Republicans talking about killing Obama, own 4 different automatic rifles and shoot up schools and grocery stores. Republicans will try to deny this but it is true.

I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about. What Republicans have shot up schools and grocery stores? I'm trying to imagine Mitt Romney with an AK-47 and I can't stop laughing... I think you are lumping lot of fringies in with Republicans, when they aren't really Republicans at all, just as Black Panthers, Weather Underground, and ELF aren't really Democrats. They abandoned the two party system years ago and have joined their own parties based on anger and conspiracy.

When you have a two party system the fringes will always be a part of each party because there is no realistic alternative. The only saving grace is that they never have enough sway to dominate the parties.

For example, there are three major issues in republican politics: Fiscal, Social, and Security. You need to have 2 of the 3 to get the nomination. Right now Romney is strong with fiscal, moderate with security and weak with social. Santorum is strong with social, moderate with security, and weak on fiscal (although he is trying to catch up). Paul is strong on fiscal, but weak on security and social issues (this is why he has a predestined cap and will never get the nomination, and he knows it).

Bush won re-election because he was strong on social and security issues, and seemed moderate on fiscal at the time. In comparison, McCain was strong on security, was weak on social issues, and when the economy flopped in 2008 he was eviscerated on fiscal issues. Hence, his defeat.

[Typhoid]

I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about. What Republicans have shot up schools and grocery stores?


First off, he said "Republicans talking about", not "Republicans actually following through with". Just clarifying for him, and all.



I can see what he's saying though. I'm not saying it's fact, but I get his angle, I think:

Your average extreme drunk Democrat will talk about staging a rally, or a people's movement. "Man, we should totally just like...go sit outside city hall tomorrow. Go make a facebook event."

Your average extreme drunk Republican will talk about what he and his gun can do. "Man, someone needs to shoot that motherfucker."


:lol:

[Bond]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4d_FvgQ1csE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Professor S]

First off, he said "Republicans talking about", not "Republicans actually following through with". Just clarifying for him, and all.

Actually that is not what he said. He said they talk about killing Obama, but shoot up schools. And even is he did mean to say they talk about shooting up schools, where and when?



I can see what he's saying though. I'm not saying it's fact, but I get his angle, I think:

Your average extreme drunk Democrat will talk about staging a rally, or a people's movement. "Man, we should totally just like...go sit outside city hall tomorrow. Go make a facebook event."

Your average extreme drunk Republican will talk about what he and his gun can do. "Man, someone needs to shoot that motherfucker."

:lol:

The liberal view of Republicans on this forum is simply hilarious. And what is an "average extreme" anyway? This thread is off the rails to the point of retardation...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5hfYJsQAhl0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Typhoid]

And what is an "average extreme" anyway?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Bachmann2011.jpg/479px-Bachmann2011.jpg

[Professor S]

... who dropped out of the race after dropping like a rock in the polls and bombing in Iowa of all places.

[Typhoid]

... who dropped out of the race after dropping like a rock in the polls and bombing in Iowa of all places.


What the hell does that have to do with this question that you just asked?

And what is an "average extreme" anyway?


Meh. You asked. I gave an answer. Her dropping out, or where she dropped out doesn't change the fact that she's still an extreme Republitool. Palin didn't win - still an idiotic Republitool.

[Professor S]

Typh, my issue is that you continually portray the fringe s common, hence the ridiculous description of "average extreme". It's like calling someone a skinny fat person. It makes no sense.

By the way, Romney won 40% of the vote in New Hampshire, drubbing the competition. Santorum plummeted while Perry didn't even win 1 delegate. So much for the "average extreme" wing of the party...

[Typhoid]

Typh, my issue is that you continually portray the fringe s common, hence the ridiculous description of "average extreme". It's like calling someone a skinny fat person. It makes no sense.

Let's not forget a few things here.
Thing 1 [There is no thing 2] is that a few posts ago, your issue [not like it's an actual issue] wasn't with me. Why you're projecting it onto me now as if it was originally with me, I don't know. I don't portray the fringe as common. Look at my initial post and every other post. I said numerous times "I know it's a minority"/"I know it's not all Republicans"/"Im not referring to you as one of these people, thats why I'm not addressing you".

I even acknowledged in almost every post that this topic was made irrationally and in rage. Hell, the thread title has "mostly in rage" and "Michele Bachmann made me think" in it.

I also wasn't portraying the American Republic-fringe as anything other than everything it is in reality to an outsider. While I may be viewed as a Political Super-Democrat to you - I actually vote Conservative in my own country, despite being a liberal person.



You're too hung up on that "average extreme" thing. That is your Abortion-topic. You misread how I meant it.

Your average extreme-Republican/Democrat.
Not
Your average-extreme Republican/Democrat.

I'm using average as "Average person", but the "Average person" I was referring to was an "Extreme Republican" or "Extreme Democrat". Essentially I meant your average "Fringe" person, since you used that word yourself, that should clear everything up. ;)

So much for the "average extreme" wing of the party...

What are you talking about "so much for the average extreme".
Just because they didn't win doesn't mean they, nor the people who support them stop existing. Lack of votes doesn't negate existence. Maybe that's why Republicans are so obsessed with winning elections by any means necessary. If they don't win they're afraid they'll vanish! :ohreilly:


Edit: In all seriousness, I dislike Romney as a person, and hope he fails based on that alone. He's a power monger, and he doesn't even hide it. At least attempt to shield who you really are while you're campaigning.

[Professor S]

...

Are you off your meds?

[Typhoid]

...

Are you off your meds?

Nope.
Possibly you need to smoke a joint in order to chill out a little.
Utilize the knowledge that I joke all the time, and smoke joints. :lol:

Time and time again you choose to take me super seriously in a thread about Michele Bachmann (...Michele...Bachmann...) which I created simply to bitch about how I fucking hate that cunt (And I don't hate many people) and the cunts she represents (the people that actually vote for her, and believe the core values she and those like her preach).


Are you familiar with Andy Kaufman? I do this to entertain myself, if the viewers get enjoyment out of it - cool. Not my goal at this moment. I'm killing time until my tea is steeped, and this joint is done. Obviously there is the occasional truth to rare things I say [But not really], but it's usually wrapped in a blanket of outlandish comments on a bed of almost-racist remarks.

Seriously dude, re-read most of my posts, especially in this thread. The sole purpose of most of my posts is to entertain myself and kill time.

Chill.

[Professor S]

Ok, so this is a result of you being ON meds... got it.

And for the record, I only engaged because you made generic comments about all Republicans within your first few posts, not because you went after Bachman. And I don't fall for the trick of hiding baseless assertions in "jokes". Ridicule is actually one of Saul Alinsky' "Rules for Radicals" because the person making the false or ignorant assertions can't held accountable because he "is just joking". This is why I have always had an issue with Michael Moore and to an extent, Jon Stewart. They are intellectual cowards.

The bottom line is you find it your jokes funny because you think your comedy is based in truth, and I will always point out when you are being false regardless of whether or not you are "joking".

[Typhoid]

And for the record, I only engaged because you made generic comments about all Republicans within your first few posts, not because you went after Bachman. And I don't fall for the trick of hiding baseless assertions in "jokes".
That's cool. Like I said, when I ramble on the forums it's to entertain myself and kill time. Believe me or don't, I don't mind either way.


Ridicule is actually one of Saul Alinsky' "Rules for Radicals" because the person making the false or ignorant assertions can't held accountable because he "is just joking". This is why I have always had an issue with Michael Moore and to an extent, Jon Stewart. They are intellectual cowards.

See, though - the thing is I do it about everything. With my liberal friends (Dylan, for example), to stir the pot when I'm bored I'll say some anti-gay shit, or some pro-republican shit - things that the group of people I'm with would most likely disagree with. I just say outlandish things, and then like to sit back and watch what occurs. I have my own beliefs, and my own views, but I rarely seriously talk about them in my every day life. I joke about everything, all the time. Not just republicans. Not just anti-Democrats. Literally everything. :ohreilly:

It just happens that since this is a forum where I kill time, it all gets concentrated here.


The bottom line is you find it your jokes funny because you think your comedy is based in truth, and I will always point out when you are being false regardless of whether or not you are "joking".

Actually that's not it at all. I find what I do entertaining because it's so easy to get people riled up.

[Professor S]

Sorry, I come from the school of "say what you mean and mean what you say". The "say dumb shit to aggravate people" school never made sense to me...

[Typhoid]

Sorry, I come from the school of "say what you mean and mean what you say". The "say dumb shit to aggravate people" school never made sense to me...


I suppose that's the difference between us.
I was educated at both of those fine establishments.

The only times I purposely try to aggravate people is either when I'm very drunk and bored - which doesn't happen anymore- or am on the internet. It just so happens that since I stopped drinking, this is the only outlet I have.

But don't get me wrong. As after-school-special as this thread has become, the OP was legit, despite being irrational rage. I really did make this thread because those type of Republicans frustrate me. Other political people frustrate me, and especially the leaders of my own country, and some other things - so it's not like it's only that type of Republican that I dislike. It's that type of person I dislike.

It just happens that a lot of ignorant racists do tend to be very extreme on the political scale, and in your country those people are Republican. You have to admit, there aren't many offensively racist people (or people very ignorant to other cultures - having a completely closed mind) who consider themselves to be Democrats. I do mean that seriously. I doubt anyone could argue there is an equal number of racists between Republicans and Democrats. I'm not saying Democratic racists don't exist, (or racists who consider themselves to be impartial or in other parties or what-have-you) I'm just saying there are far more people that consider themselves to be some type of Republican who happen to be so ignorantly and offensively racist. And it is those people I dislike. Not their political affiliation. But when referring to them it is much easier to refer to them as "Republicans", just as it's easier to refer to a fucking hippy as a "Democrat".

Now, in reality I am aware the Republican party is not a racist party, or a pro-white party. They are a pro-business party; They are a pro-senate party. They are, in essence - a party that wants a Republic. (I guess that's what it actually is - the Democratic People's Republic of America. Much like North Korea, minus the communism...depending on who you ask.) A country run by high ranking senate members who make the best decisions for the mob. Where the Democrats aim to be a country which is run by the echo of the voters, whatever their sexual preference, religion, or skin colour. I'm fine with that. It is what it is, and it's not even my country - so really - Big deal to me.

I have nothing against "Republicans". But there are certain people who consider themselves to be Republican whom I think there is a special circle of hell reserved for; which consists of an eternity of owning nothing but failing businesses (or successful abortion clinics) in poor neighbourhoods populated by no white people who all are in same-sex marriages and nobody speaks English.

To be fair, I hate hippies. Can't stand 'em. The full on no-showering-dreadlock-having-shady-tree-sitting-guitar-strumming-no-shoe-wearing-tree-hugging-smelly-fuckin'-hippy.
I hate the college kids who do it as a statement, and I hate the people who do it for a living. They're just as ignorant, but in the exact opposite way. You can't put people 100% ahead of the 'Country'. If you have a failing economy, social policies will not pull you out of that. (Hell, in the Occupy Wallstreet thread when I was saying those people need to get a fucking job, I meant it. Not getting a job definitely isn't the way to boost your economy. Number of jobs available is a different subject, but I assume half of those jerkwads don't actively look for a job.)

This is why I believe you've got such a problem now - before when both parties worked together that achieved the perfect middle of social change and corporate growth. But now that nobody is working together, the view is seemingly "one or the other". What actually bugs me is that it appears that nobody in your country is willing to work with the other side for the betterment of future generations of people not related to themselves. IE: Bettering the country as a whole, rather than bettering part A, or part B, while diminishing part C (and of course part C is always whatever the other guy wanted to improve).

It appears like most have lost what leading a country actually means, and are simply putting winning, and their views ahead of "How will I affect my country in 10 years time" or "Will this honestly better the lives of everyone in the country I am the head of."

It seems as if these people (all of them, both sides) are slowly forgetting they're not "ruling" a Country. They're the figurehead of the masses.


Like Agent Smith said in V for Vendetta: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of it's people."

[TheSlyMoogle]

That was fucking depressing.

Sly - like Kip Moore?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0bYZEh8HBTQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Uhm lol... No.

I don't like country music.

I like Alison Krauss, I think she has a beautiful voice.

I also enjoy Lady Antebellum.

Few country music things are pleasant to my ears.