I honestly have no idea what you think you’re saying here, other than you’re pissy that I called you an asshole.
On these boards? Hell, you’ll be pitting for a decade!
You don’t even realize that you called me out in the same thread where you’re excoriating SA for calling someone out? Are you really that stupid, or simply that lacking in basic integrity? :dubious:
Schmuck.
They’re not gratuitous, and they are not aimed at “a right-wing poster” per se. They’re aimed at you. Not because you’re a right-wing poster, but because you’re a fool and a tool.
But here’s the problem, and it’s a big one. The Republicans that we have “known and loved” up until, oh… 1994 or so, are not the Republicans that we are dealing with today. I never used to believe that Republicans would “take hostages” or “drive the U.S. off a cliff”. Republicans, back then, wouldn’t have. Sure, they espoused many positions that I disagreed with, but they weren’t controlled by bat-shit crazy splinter groups.
Now, they have allowed that to come to pass. Now, it is not hyperbole to talk about them taking hostages and not caring if they ruin this nation in pursuit of intellectually bankrupt nuttiness. Now, it isn’t partisanship to point this out and be frightened by it, it is reality. Honest old-school Republicans will admit as much behind closed doors, but then go on to say that their hands are tied.
It’s been said before, but bears repeating: the real, honest, conservatives need to find a way to shed themselves of the cancer of the Tea-Baggers and their ilk so we can all get back to honest debates about how to run this country without being dangerously sidetracked by nutburgers.
Yep, I knew you didn’t understand when I tried to explain it to you.
Well, I’d have trouble arguing with you there. Let me describe the process that let to me running as a D instead of an R.
Note: this occurs in Ohio.
Having decided to run for office I called both county party chairs and requested meeting with them.
My meeting with the head of the Democratic Party was over lunch. I told her my issues and she said they’d be happy to have me even if I wasn’t a traditional democratic candidate.
My meeting with the head of the Republican party was in my office at my newspaper. He told me that his committee had discussed me and had some concerns. He then gave me a list of 27 bullet point he told me I would have to say I believed and advocate for if I wanted their backing.
I threw him out of my office and filed my paperwork shortly thereafter. Because, well, fuck him.
Is anyone else here hearing whispers of Yeats ‘The second coming’?
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
As stated before, no one can point at me and tell me that I’m not participating…that I’m not trying to effect change in the world as I see it. Yet I consider myself a very bipartisan man and one who attempts to see the good in all and to work to bring that out. Until someone else can show me their record of running for office, campaign for others, recruiting candidates for office, organizing fundraisers and other activities then I think I score high on the ‘active in politics’ scale. Most people, in my experience, want to think they’re participating by bitching to others or on a message board…and therefore accomplish nothing.
Now I’m curious when the phrase “litmus test” was first applied to American politics, because it seems to me that if there are single issues which can disqualify a candidate, the end result is either candidates who lie (and say they feel the politic way about the issue, even if they don’t) or candidates who are useless (because they make passing the test their key qualification and ignore all else). Thus you select for candidates who can lie better than the others or true believers who believe better than the others.
Truth be told, I kinda favour the competent liar over the incompetent believer.
I’d be very interested in seeing that list. What is it you would be expected (forced) to believe as a Republican?
Can we make it a guessing game?
I figure:
- Be pro-life.
- Be tough on crime, up to and including the death penalty.
- Support the troops.
- Oppose gay marriage.
- Oppose gay adoption.
- Oppose socialism, including socialized medicine.
- Oppose the institution of “death panels” (definition appearing in appendix).
- Support tax cuts.
Anyone else want to guess? I’m curious if we can suss out all 27.
I will not discuss such in this thread. I think I’d prefer to stick to my avowed purpose of pointing out people who damage discussion. I hope you’ll understand.
Plus, you’re wrong on more than 75% of your guesses.
Party-pooper…
Indeed. Maybe another time and place. I just don’t think that this is that place.
I’ve got to find more PAs, after all, and call them on their behavior.
Since I was mentioned above:
I would like to say that I’m not a partisan asshole. I’m a *rational *asshole. There are elements of the Democratic platform I disagree with. I don’t support those things blindly.
If a national Republican would run on an intelligent platform I honestly might vote for one. I won’t hold my breath for that though.
That doesn’t surprise me. I doubt they’d actually say anything concrete or specific, but instead make a bunch of broad meaningless statements like “protect traditional values”, “preserve America’s dignity”, or “ensure a prosperous future for our children.”
You know, kind of like the way the conservative posters on this board operate. 
Ditto
Man, you’re just… really not very smart, are you?
Translation: “Dammit, Mom, will you PLEASE turn the lights on and off before coming down here to do laundry! I need my privacy!”
That from a schmuck who thinks he’s actually smarter, more logical, and better behaved than Starvy. :rollleyes: He at least does not act like a kid who leaves a burning bag of dog poop on the neighbor’s porch, rings the doorbell, and runs away giggling. Unlike you.
Now, if you have an explanation for your unsolicited drive-by threadshitting here, in somebody else’s pitting, then out with it. If you have something of more substance to discuss than fourth-grade-level invective, then out with it. If you have neither, which is the evidence, then you don’t have to do anything; we already know.
Schmuck.
The latter part is good, but to be “bipartisan” in the way you describe it is to claim that both parties’ agendas are equally valid and equally good for the country. That’s not, shall we say, a widely held view, and for good reason.
Yet discussions on even that level reach minds, provide information and reasoning, exchange values, fight ignorance, in the same way as one-on-one conversation but to a much wider audience. That’s where the battles are actually fought and won, in people’s minds, not by fundraising or sign-waving. And I think you do see some value in it, or you wouldn’t be doing it yourself here.