Is everyone here a republican?

ok now who are the people who think Obama is NOT an idiot?

Originally posted by Oscar

Coastercrazian!

Thats a religion!

Originally posted by Topthrill123

ok now who are the people who think Obama is NOT an idiot?

I'm a democrat and I am not ashamed to say I voted for Obama. Though I do not agree with the way he handles himself during speeches, at least he knows where the door is.

Honestly, it seems like most of the people on this site are some form of independent.

I would identify myself as liberal or progressive, but not necessarily as a democrat. I support democrats on a "lesser of two evils" basis, since the Republican party is full of fundamentalist Christians, war-hawks, teabaggers, and other nutcases.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Also anyone under the age of like 20 doesn't have a political opinion, they just have a "mom and dad hates this so I automatically like it" or a "my dad yells about this all day and therefore I agree" opinion.

As a 17 year old Democrat, I resent that. However, there are a few ideas that I actually agree with regarding Republican ideologies:

Strong military: The whole deterrence thing with all of our nukes has been a pretty effective tool since the 1940's. Terrorists? That won't do squat, because most of them don't care about dying. But it keeps most national governments at bay. Tens of thousands of nukes? No, we don't need that much. Enough warheads to strike most major cities and capitals of the world would be sufficient; in other words, I'd say about 1,000 max.

Separation of Powers: I am happy for this, because there have been several laws and iterations of laws in the past that I do not agree with that were fortunately dropped.

No to everyone requiring to have health care under the new law: The rest of the law, I support heavily. But not this portion. If you don't want to have it, then you shouldn't have to have it, even if it's good for you, as long as it doesn't screw over a large amount of people other than you. If there will be an option so people can opt out of requiring to have health insurance (and then request it again if they ever change their mind) I would be VERY happy, even though I want health care for myself.

Support of the Second Amendment: I am passionate about military equipment, almost as much as roller coasters. I plan to own a collection when I am older (which is why I want to get out of New York State; far too many of the items on my list are banned up here) and I have some concepts of some small arms and vehicles that I may develop when I get my Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Against welfare: I am on the fence for this one. Help those who cannot help themselves, but only until they help themselves. If there's some way to limit the freeloaders in the system, then I'm all for it.



However, most of their other ideals, no:


Laissez-faire economics: Yes, Communism isn't good, but we'll never go that far, so we don't have to worry about that. In fact, we don't have enough regulation, and we have had that problem many times in the past. The bank runs of the 1800's? Lack of government regulation of the banks. The Great Depression? Lack of government regulation of the banks and the stock market. The Great Recession? (What today is now semi-officially called) Lack of government regulation of banks/housing market, credit card companies, and the stock market. Do you happen to see a trend? Freedom is good, because that is where innovation is born. But the past ten or twenty years have had too much freedom, enabling the economy to swing ridiculously wildly.

Avoiding Deficit Spending: I'm on the fence with this one as well. Coming from a family who always pays off their debts every single month, I have strong values of being economically responsible. However, desperate times call for desperate measures. Sure, the stimuli were expensive (the health care bill is actually going to SAVE about $100 billion over the next 10 years), but virtually all economists now are convinced that if we didn't spend, then we'd be in a second Great Depression. Yeah, it sucks to have this debt, but would you rather have a crap load of debt and 10% unemployment, or slightly less debt and 25 - 30% unemployment? Remember, we only added about 20% to our debt after the stimuli, the rest was thanks to Bush and Clinton. When choosing between bad and really bad, I'd choose bad, and so would anyone else who is sane.

Banning same-sex marriage: Honestly, lose the religious doctrine. It's very obvious that this has religious influence. There are certain things that religion is very good for: ethics, regarding respect, restraint, charity, etc. But all the other crap, such as if you don't follow the traditions/holidays/services/church, etc. then you're a sinner, I don't agree with that. The purpose of all that stuff is just to prove to other people that you're a good Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, yadda yadda yadda. As long as you're otherwise being good to other people, then that's all that matters. And in reference to all that witchcraft stuff in decades and centuries past (heck even a little bit today): Why should anyone anyone else care? Really. And even if you don't believe in witchcraft, but others do think you do, that shouldn't matter, because God knows that you care about Him.

Anyways, back to same sex marriage: Sexual preference is not a choice, it is a genetic variation. They can't help it, they were born that way. Love is a beautiful thing. What a gay man feels for his partner is just as real and sincere as what I feel for a woman. To quote the Beatles, "Let it Be." Although I may feel uncomfortable if they end up making out in front of me, etc. I'm fine as long as they keep that stuff private. And as long as they don't hit on me, then I'll be fine. But that's just an issue of keeping it private. As long as they keep themselves reserved, just like any other decent heterosexual person in public, then I'm okay.



Pro-Life: I can't believe they even came up with this term in the first place. If the woman is not willing to take care of the baby, then she shouldn't take care of the baby. Period. Abstaining from consensual sex is incredibly hard, and requires an insane amount of willpower that very few people have. Safe sex is always an alternative, but it still doesn't always work, short of vasectomies. Plus, the world is going to face an overpopulation crisis within 40 years anyway, so we might as well delay it as long as possible.

Anti-Stem Cell Research: First off, if the fetus is outside the womb before the third trimester, it is almost impossible for it to survive. So before it develops to that point, then it shouldn't be considered alive, because it still requires a host (the mother) to live. After a point where a decent amount of successful preemie babies have been born (whatever that time frame is) then I'd consider them alive, because they can live successfully in the outside environment. If it can't live at that stage, you might as well put it to good use. There are so many medical advancements from which we can benefit if we research stem cells. Plus, there are several alternatives to embryonic stem cells which several recent advancements have been made, even if they are a bit more problematic.

Tax cuts: As long as the taxes actually are used for something, then I wouldn't mind paying a few extra dollars to help myself and everyone else. Bottom line, we have to pay in one way or another. Either A: we have less money to spend per person to have better roads, schools, buildings, and police departments, or B: Some of us have more money, while others have no jobs because no money was able to come in to fund their pay, AND we have crappy roads, crappy education, crappy police departments, and dilapidated buildings at the same time. Now, for the short term, I actually support tax cuts for most lower and middle class people at the minute because we need them to have some money that they can pump into the economy. Once things are better, we need to get more money into dissolving our debt and reinforcing our buildings. However, it is proven that the wealthy are smarter with their money, so they tend to invest and save. We might as well tax them because they don't use as much money proportionally, meaning there is less money being injected into the economy.

Let's say Joe Schmoe makes $50K a year, but spends $40K a year. But then Richie Rich makes $1M a year while spending only $120K a year. Richie Rich has the spending potential of twenty Joe Schmoes, but in reality only spent as much as three Joe Schmoes. Even after a 40% income tax, Richie Rich has $600K, which is still the purchasing potential of twelve Joe Schmoes. Richie Rich may not be worth twenty Joe Schmoes, but twelve Joes Schmoes is still A LOT of money.

Socialized Health Insurance: Their fears are unfounded. Medicare and Medicaid are government programs, and they are incredibly helpful and popular. Plus, there are a lot of incredibly powerful lobbyists in the insurance industries that would very easily keep that part of the government from getting out of hand. Plus, if it does get that bad, I'll be sure to vote those guys out of office. And MANY others will, too. And as long as the policies are different from other insurance policies, they will never get everyone because like food, everyone has different preferences. So even if the government does go too far, it would be pretty soon put back in check, because it would make A LOT of people REALLY pissed.

Extensive use of the military: Although this may seem conflicting with my previous statement, it really isn't. My ideology is to deter all violence if possible. Always negotiate unless there is no other option. (The stockpiles of nukes helps in negotiation because it keeps rogue nations somewhat in check by realizing that they would be screwed if they go completely overboard.) But if there is no other option, then I'm for all-out war. And I mean *ALL-OUT.* Because if we use the nastiest, scariest, most effective weapons as quickly as possible, it will demoralize the other nations quickly so that they will hopefully surrender. If they surrender earlier, then more lives will be saved because they won't have to be deployed in the long run. And, more nations will be hesitant on fighting against us after that because they realize that although we will try to work with them, they will be SCREWED if they don't cooperate. In other words, I support the big stick policy.








But that's not saying that I won't listen to a Republican. I don't care if someone has different opinions than I do. No really, I don't. As long as they listen to other people's opinions, then I'm perfectly fine. One of my best friends who is going into politics is a Republican, but he is very passionate about politics, and he listens to me. Although some of his ideas I may disagree with, I highly support his enthusiasm and his willingness to listen to the other side. (In fact, he's running for school board when he turns 18 in a few months, and I seem to have had a significant influence upon several of his views. And I will definitely vote for him. Not because he agrees with me, but because he listens to me. There are several ideas on which we disagree, but he's willing to look at the big picture.) But the problem is, that idea has been almost abandoned in today's politics, and it oftentimes makes me truly ashamed of being an American, because that means that I have to call those people my citizens. If I read news of our government being derpy and immature, I'll say a satirical parody of the pledge during school until I hear something that I feel redeems them. "Patirotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

In reality, it's both parties that have been immature. I may primarily Democratic ideologies, but I am absolutely disgusted at what's been going on over the past two years, so I've been debating over the past several months as to whether I should register as a Democrat or an Independent. I don't know whether I'm a "real" Democrat (one who actually cares about the opinions of the other side) or whether a real Democrat doesn't care at all, and I should be an Independent. I'm going to turn 18 in less than ten weeks, and I plan on voting ASAP. As I keep reading other people's posts, and as I reflect even more, I'm becoming even more unsure.

Political parties are much of what corrupts our democracy and cause bias in electing our government officials and voting in general, and i believe that the government should prohibit all candidates from stating their political party, or being endorsed companies that promote a specific political party, as a way to rid of bias. And i do not label myself as either.

^The problem with that is the primarys and the caucuses... Maybe if we have a genearl caucus instead of a Democrat and Republican one, that could work. Then eventually just choose the two most popular canidates.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Pro-Life: Why use facts when you can flat out lie?

Rape babies rule.

Originally posted by fear the four

This is absolute garbage. Almost nobody is in favor of aborting a fetus old enough to survive outside the mother if there is no threat to the mother's health.

The abortion debate is about people thinking a second or first trimester fetus should be given the same rights as a fully fledged human being. The limit of viability is maybe at the absolute maximum 5 months, but according to the "pro-life" crowd, life begins at conception, so even a 2 month old fetus should be legally a person.

Originally posted by Omnigeek6

...the Republican party is full of fundamentalist Christians, war-hawks, teabaggers, and other nutcases.

Sounds like Halo Reach online matches. They think they are high and mighty, are war-mongers, and of course the f**king nutcases will teabag you every time they kill you.

Republican Party = Halo Online? Great f**king country I live in. [xx(]

Originally posted by Tanks4me
Abstaining from consensual sex is incredibly hard, and requires an insane amount of willpower that very few people have. Safe sex is always an alternative, but it still doesn't always work, short of vasectomies.

What? Are you kidding me? Has it really come to the point that people are so short-sighted and addicted to physical pleasure that they can't realize "You know, this pleasurable thing might actually end up doing what it was designed to do in the first place, and there's no way that I want that, but screw it... Who cares if I have to reproductively castrate myself or end up having to kill something that might or might not be a person... I just have to have my fix."

God help us all...

Originally posted by cjd

Originally posted by Tanks4me
Abstaining from consensual sex is incredibly hard, and requires an insane amount of willpower that very few people have. Safe sex is always an alternative, but it still doesn't always work, short of vasectomies.

What? Are you kidding me? Has it really come to the point that people are so short-sighted and addicted to physical pleasure that they can't realize "You know, this pleasurable thing might actually end up doing what it was designed to do in the first place, and there's no way that I want that, but screw it... Who cares if I have to reproductively castrate myself or end up having to kill something that might or might not be a person... I just have to have my fix."

God help us all...

yes it has. And gods like having sex too.

[rcmaniac25]

Independent with a little bit of everything thrown in for good measure.

Originally posted by Onjin

Originally posted by Omnigeek6

...the Republican party is full of fundamentalist Christians, war-hawks, teabaggers, and other nutcases.

Sounds like Halo Reach online matches. They think they are high and mighty, are war-mongers, and of course the f**king nutcases will teabag you every time they kill you.

Republican Party = Halo Online? Great f**king country I live in. [xx(]

Thinking the same,if I can understand them,then I shut them off.Or those hystericaly screaming kiddos.BTW whats your gamertag?
Oh and Jim,change that love avatar,I was born in germany!

[gouldy]

Originally posted by cjd


God help us all...

Yes, sitting around and waiting for some kind of divine intervention will help us all to acheive personal and global betterment. [/sarcasm]

Surely even if there was a god, like a parent, he would want us to grow up and be able to help ourselves, without constantly leaning on him for assistance. Don't you think?

Sayings like "God help us all" are damaging.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm
Also anyone under the age of like 20 doesn't have a political opinion, they just have a "mom and dad hates this so I automatically like it" or a "my dad yells about this all day and therefore I agree" opinion

I partially disagree with that, having a different political opinion than my parents. Maybe I'm just the exeption to the rule, but even though I'm seventeen, I probably know more about politics than the GP. There wil always be something we call standplaatsgebondenheid, influence due to location/environment. I know too many people who just copy what their parents say and do, also concerning opinions. I'm not saying I'm not influenced by my parents, I just happen to have rational mind.

Republicans suck.
Democrats suck.

All these "parties" are only loyal to their agenda. They don't give a poop about what the people want. Honestly, we need to abolish all current politicians and have them all replaced.

Also, the "lobby" system is just retarded!

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by cjd
What? Are you kidding me? Has it really come to the point that people are so short-sighted and addicted to physical pleasure that they can't realize "You know, this pleasurable thing might actually end up doing what it was designed to do in the first place, and there's no way that I want that, but screw it... Who cares if I have to reproductively castrate myself or end up having to kill something that might or might not be a person... I just have to have my fix."

Abstinence only education is about as miserable a failure as African missionary work. Well actually no, it's more successful, the since the missionaries aren't murdering people over it in the USA at least.

I have never met the anyone that actually understands, what a fetus, zygote, child development, etc that is pro-life.

I have never met a creationist that actually knows the evolution theory. No one can explain it remotely correct.


Why understand an issue completely when you can just go to Bible instead and act like an enraged idiot?

[SauronHimself]

When you're still sheltered by your parents and don't have to live on your own, you tend to be more benevolent with other people's money. Once you start supporting yourself and actually have to work to keep yourself alive, your views will change. There seems to be a trend that those not supporting themselves and/or who are insufficiently educated on a subject will lean more to the left, whereas those supporting themselves and/or who are sufficiently educated on a subject will lean more to the right.

[Coasterkidmwm]

I live in an apartment I pay rent for and support myself as a graduate student. I'm completely financially independent and am currently a bit irritated at the Illinois state budget due to some lovely grad student cuts (arguably the most broke state in the USA. Half of California's debt with 1/3 the population). Thanks for caring.

My anti-welfare views come from interacting with a fine drunken lot that lived around the factory I worked at in the middle of the Chicago ghetto. I picked up heroine needles and enough booze bottles to fill up half a 55 gallon yardwaste bin everyday for 3 summers every day in an area that was only 1/3 of a city block. I was not a fan of arriving at work and finding the whore that was working next to the scrap bin outdoors the whole night still asleep and in a stupor while the love needle is still in her arm who looks worse than Uma Thurmon's character did in Pulp Fiction after said character OD'ed. This whore as of 2 years ago charges 2 dollars a blowjob if anyone ever wants a cheap fix. So no I wouldn't exactly consider myself sheltered.

I'd rather have my tax dollars go to stem cell research where they can do things like invent a revolutionary burn treatment that uses a persons own stem cells and not a fetus' (did that last year) as opposed to funneling money into government religious programs that support people proposing genocide legislation in Uganda (good old C Street), the catastrophic abstinence only education that doesn't work, and the faith based initiatives in Haiti that are also spectacular failures.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Abstinence only education is about as miserable a failure as African missionary work. Well actually no, it's more successful, the since the missionaries aren't murdering people over it in the USA at least.

I have never met the anyone that actually understands, what a fetus, zygote, child development, etc that is pro-life.

I have never met a creationist that actually knows the evolution theory. No one can explain it remotely correct.

Why understand an issue completely when you can just go to Bible instead and act like an enraged idiot?

When did I say anything about abstinence-only education? I actually can't stand the ridiculous scare tactics that the common abstinence-only sex ed classes use. IMO, because it is presented as being EVIL!!! It's just one more thing that kids jump on as an act of rebellion and self-assertion, because they have been given no concrete reasons why they should avoid it. If it was presented in a logical manner, as one rational alternative out of many choices, it would make the world a much better place.

I really don't like it when people just say "Because the Bible says so" and use that as their primary argument. Yes, I agree with the Biblical stances, but I also believe that there is a reason God would want us to follow those rules in the first place. Wise, logical, rational reasons, and not just "OMG IT'S EVIL!!!"

[gouldy]

^ I find it so very weird to read a post like that, where it seems to be making valid points upheld with reason... which then ends with the sentence: "Yes, I agree with the Biblical stances, but I also believe that there is a reason God would want us to follow those rules in the first place. Wise, logical, rational reasons"

I'm sorry, what?

I understand that this is now probably going to descend into a religion bashing thread, but seriously, you can't go on about how you would like to see rational and logical education put in place and then remind us all that you believe is god.


"I am a rational and logical thinker. I believe in God"

No.

Are you suggesting that it is impossible for someone to be a Christian and a rational thinker at the same time? I personally find that rather insulting. Especially since there is a wealth of highly-educated Biblical scholars who have, for the most part, dedicated their lives to historically verifying the timing, authorship, and archaeology of the Bible without finding any reason to abandon the faith.

If anything, it's a matter of front-loaded bias. In general, those who enter the archaeology from a secular standpoint have continued to say there is not enough evidence, while those who entered from a Christian standpoint looked at it and called it proof for the Biblical account. Which means that really in the end it's still all down to how you look at the data.

I see things like the discovery of Hebrew remains at Goshen, artifacts in the Sinai wilderness, and perfect matching of locations in Acts with archaeology, and I say "this provides a strong case that the Biblical account was based on fact and needs to be seriously considered." While you see things like the lack of evidence for a global flood, carbon dating of the fossil record, and the awkward timing of the destruction layers in Canaan, and say "this provides a strong case that the Bible is fiction and should be ignored."