Amen, which is why I can’t take this too seriously.
Oh, just so you know vinyl turnip, I am a jackass 
[sub]usually[/sub]
Well, you make a commitment without thinking or knowing anything. That makes you a Republican.
Sure…whatever you say.
YOU could have remained anonymous, letting people think you’re just another run-of-the mill dumb-dumb, but your raised your hand and screamed ME ME ME.
Interesting.
That was prior to the rise of the religious right. Think of the conservatives such as Barry Goldwater – who was actually pro-choice and pro-gay rights. (He also protested AGAINST the religious fundamentalists getting a foothold in government). I most likely wouldn’t have voted for him, but he’s one conservative I do admire.
Study your history, Der Trihs.
And you’re a flathead too!: Reflections on American Ideology
Today’s Republican party is a coalition between Christian and Economic Fundamentalists. The former want to ban abortion and are upset by gay marriage: these 2 concerns trump all others. Economic fundamentalists embrace crank economics: they have a monocausal theory of economic development in which tax cuts play the leading role.
In foreign policy, modern conservatives believe in responding to all US security challenges with maximum hysteria. So when jihadists from Afghanistan fly planes into US buildings, they turn around and attack Iraq.
In all cases, their rhetoric is leaden with so-called principles, sparser on empirical analysis.
Democrats and Independents make up the remainder of the American electorate, once you set aside the fringe groups.
You’re a chicken.
Frankly, THIS gun-owning, flag-waving, pro-choice, pro-universal-health-care, pro-police, pro-military, pro-balanced-budget, pro-higher-taxes, pro-marijuana-legalization guy thinks political parties are a highly ridiculous shorthand and you should be evaluating individual candidates anyway.
This poster thinks Zeriel is a figment of his own imagination. Everybody knows that the Republican and Democratic parties cover the entire scope of human thought. 
It’s still one of my favorite things to do to make the local park ranger’s head explode by showing up at the State Game Lands shooting range with a diesel Jetta full of rifles, sporting the following bumper stickers:
“Free Tibet”
“Support Amnesty International”
“NRA Member”
“Gun Control Means Hitting The Intended Target”
I feel it’s my duty to come into threads like this because dammit, Der Trihs and bri1600bv aren’t the only damn options and it’s shameful that our modern media tend to assume that’s the case.
Oh boy, a Toomey-for-Senate ad. Time to consider resubscribing to remove ads.
I’ve got Michael E. Arth for Governor of Florida in 2010- “Bringing the Future to Florida”.
This is one of the sillier notions of the modern left – somehow, a statement of a “collective right” (whatever that is) somehow got dropped into a list of guaranteed individual rights, like a sex scene from a Harry Potter slashfic somehow getting dropped into the middle of a quarterly sales report.
BZZZZTTT!! Survey Says: Come back when you have examples that match the facts of the real world.
Ok, a republican (moderate) will let all those people with no legs and one hand stay on welfare, all others go to work.
A democrat will let all the others stay on welfare too!
“Now, claszz, ve zee the venomenon ov ‘projekzshun’…”
Agreed. The second amendment says individuals can bear arms. However, similar cognitive dissonance goes on with ‘the modern right’ when they think the second amendment only applies to semi-automatics and handguns, and not to machine guns, bazookas, grenades and surface-to-surface missiles.
The second amendment needs revising. Both sides are being intellectually dishonest about what it says.
Just going by this thread, I’d say that the major difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the frothing, spittle-spraying, barking mad ideologues on the left tend to have marginally better spelling and grammar than the ones on the right.
Well, we do have the intellectual elite on our side, walking amongst us and smacking our knuckles with rulers when we get it worng.
Ow!
Disagree. Let’s go back to the text:
If I read that in a magazine, I wouldn’t know what the hell the writer was getting at. My best guess would be that it’s bad poetry.
A broad claim,
which is demonstrably false,
in an empirical sense,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
My claim here is narrow: the text of the 2nd amendment is ambiguous, which is quite awkward and somewhat unfortunate.
Please quote the Constitution where it separates government from any church or religion. You may have to look a while, but at least you will have the side benefit of actually reading the U.S. Constitution.