Why does everyone hate Republicans?

[Kenny Bohner]

Simple thing with gun control: second amendment' date=' end of story.

 

[b']The Constitution is a dated load of crap; the Second Amendment was drafted in fear of foreign invasion, an issue which has long since passed. All that guns are used for nowadays are murder and hunting, and hunting is unneeded and barbaric.[/b]

 

Lower taxes: please look at Laffer curve.

 

Don't even get me started...

 

Unions: mobocracy, minority tyranny.

 

True, this is one thing. As it was said, though, danger lies at the other extreme, and that's why Capitolism is a bad idea to begin with!

 

Foreign Policy: "Peace through Strength" - Ronald Reagan

 

"Peace through minding your own fuckin' buisness" is a much better, much more applicable motto, and that way, no-one has to die.

 

Entitlements: It is not the government's place to fill any and all social or economic needs of the people, it is the job of the government to give a stable and readily available stage for those problems to be solved by the people themselves.

 

Again, why? This makes no sense; a Democracy is supposed to exsist to support the people, not to make some wealthy big-wigs and others smelly hoboes. This is yet another reason that Capitolism sucks.

 

State's Rights vs. Federal Rights: In recent years, there has been a growth of the term "unfunded mandate", which is used by both Congress, the White House, and the Courts as a way to circumvent the 10th amendment.

 

To be quite honest, states were a bad idea to begin with. Maybe loose reigonal policy from reigonal Congress reps, but, in effect, "state rights" is a dead issue, brought up, often times, to justify prejudices (don't deny it; every time you hear "The South will rise again!", how many times do they justify themselves by saying, "I just hate black people"?).

 

I could go on, but I am tired, and am going to sleep. You mean your argument's weak at best, and you're getting beat?

[OMGAKITTY]

 

 

Foreign Policy: "Peace through Strength" - Ronald Reagan

 

"Peace through minding your own fuckin' buisness" is a much better' date=' much more applicable motto, and that way, no-one has to die.[/b']

 

 

 

If I remember correctly...didn't Laissez Faire almost screw us over in WWII?

[Kenny Bohner]

WWII was sort of a different deal... see, the American wars in the Middle East are because of the "crusade of Democracy", lead by the Bushes, decided to invade Iraq for no reason whatsoever, so, like, now we're stuck with that. Now, Afganistan's a little different; see, back in the day, America supported Al Queda, actually financially supported them, in their early stages. But, then, relations started to fade, and the pay lessened. And, then, in the Bush administrations, they were too Muslim, because, as you know, they're (meaning the Bushes) are religious nuts, so they threatened to stop paying the royalties. They didn't like this. When America continued saying that they were serious, 9/11 happened. If you don't believe me, look up "Mercenaries in America"... seriously.

[The Dark One]

WWII was sort of a different deal... see' date=' the American wars in the Middle East are because of the "crusade of Democracy", lead by the Bushes, decided to invade Iraq for no reason whatsoever, so, like, now we're stuck with that. Now, Afganistan's a little different; see, back in the day, America supported Al Queda, actually financially supported them, in their early stages. But, then, relations started to fade, and the pay lessened. And, then, in the Bush administrations, they were too Muslim, because, as you know, they're (meaning the Bushes) are religious nuts, so they threatened to stop paying the royalties. They didn't like this. When America continued saying that they were serious, 9/11 happened. If you don't believe me, look up "Mercenaries in America"... seriously.

[/quote']

 

Now you're moving from the realm of sensibilities to the shady realm of conspiracy theories. Don't believe everything you read dude. Really.

 

Other than that though, spot on.

[Lemniscate]

Simple thing with gun control: second amendment' date=' end of story.

 

[b']The Constitution is a dated load of crap; the Second Amendment was drafted in fear of foreign invasion, an issue which has long since passed. All that guns are used for nowadays are murder and hunting, and hunting is unneeded and barbaric.[/b]

 

Lower taxes: please look at Laffer curve.

 

Don't even get me started...

 

Unions: mobocracy, minority tyranny.

 

True, this is one thing. As it was said, though, danger lies at the other extreme, and that's why Capitolism is a bad idea to begin with!

 

Foreign Policy: "Peace through Strength" - Ronald Reagan

 

"Peace through minding your own fuckin' business" is a much better, much more applicable motto, and that way, no-one has to die.

 

Entitlements: It is not the government's place to fill any and all social or economic needs of the people, it is the job of the government to give a stable and readily available stage for those problems to be solved by the people themselves.

 

Again, why? This makes no sense; a Democracy is supposed to exsist to support the people, not to make some wealthy big-wigs and others smelly hoboes. This is yet another reason that Capitolism sucks.

 

State's Rights vs. Federal Rights: In recent years, there has been a growth of the term "unfunded mandate", which is used by both Congress, the White House, and the Courts as a way to circumvent the 10th amendment.

 

To be quite honest, states were a bad idea to begin with. Maybe loose reigonal policy from reigonal Congress reps, but, in effect, "state rights" is a dead issue, brought up, often times, to justify prejudices (don't deny it; every time you hear "The South will rise again!", how many times do they justify themselves by saying, "I just hate black people"?).

 

I could go on, but I am tired, and am going to sleep. You mean your argument's weak at best, and you're getting beat?

 

I will answer in another post, like civilized people do, instead of inserting bolded commentary.

 

1- Opinion, out of realm of discussion

2- Why not?

3- Did I ever say majority tyranny was good? Capitalism =/= majority tyranny, Republicans =/= majority.

4- Right, because ignoring problems often makes them go away.

5- US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Also, stop confusing market systems with political systems.

6- The less than subtle insinuations that I hate black people are hilarious, what would you do if I said I was black, and a Republican? Also, I blame John Marshall, and of course, having a more local government managing issues makes much less sense than having federal government managing the same issues, with more inefficiency.

 

Finally, spellcheck is your friend.

[Tabris]

Right, because ignoring problems often makes them go away.

 

Neither do we accept preemptive strikes as the diplomatic norm.

 

Entitlements: It is not the government's place to fill any and all social or economic needs of the people, it is the job of the government to give a stable and readily available stage for those problems to be solved by the people themselves.

 

Which is best achieved by giving the people the best medical care, the best educational opportunities, and the best workplace benefits possible. Stop trying to separate the political and social spheres, as if they could survive without the presence of the other.

[Kenny Bohner]

Simple thing with gun control: second amendment' date=' end of story.

 

[b']The Constitution is a dated load of crap; the Second Amendment was drafted in fear of foreign invasion, an issue which has long since passed. All that guns are used for nowadays are murder and hunting, and hunting is unneeded and barbaric.[/b]

 

Lower taxes: please look at Laffer curve.

 

Don't even get me started...

 

Unions: mobocracy, minority tyranny.

 

True, this is one thing. As it was said, though, danger lies at the other extreme, and that's why Capitolism is a bad idea to begin with!

 

Foreign Policy: "Peace through Strength" - Ronald Reagan

 

"Peace through minding your own fuckin' business" is a much better, much more applicable motto, and that way, no-one has to die.

 

Entitlements: It is not the government's place to fill any and all social or economic needs of the people, it is the job of the government to give a stable and readily available stage for those problems to be solved by the people themselves.

 

Again, why? This makes no sense; a Democracy is supposed to exsist to support the people, not to make some wealthy big-wigs and others smelly hoboes. This is yet another reason that Capitolism sucks.

 

State's Rights vs. Federal Rights: In recent years, there has been a growth of the term "unfunded mandate", which is used by both Congress, the White House, and the Courts as a way to circumvent the 10th amendment.

 

To be quite honest, states were a bad idea to begin with. Maybe loose reigonal policy from reigonal Congress reps, but, in effect, "state rights" is a dead issue, brought up, often times, to justify prejudices (don't deny it; every time you hear "The South will rise again!", how many times do they justify themselves by saying, "I just hate black people"?).

 

I could go on, but I am tired, and am going to sleep. You mean your argument's weak at best, and you're getting beat?

 

I will answer in another post, like civilized people do, instead of inserting bolded commentary.

 

1- Opinion, out of realm of discussion

2- Why not?

3- Did I ever say majority tyranny was good? Capitalism =/= majority tyranny, Republicans =/= majority.

4- Right, because ignoring problems often makes them go away.

5- US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Also, stop confusing market systems with political systems.

6- The less than subtle insinuations that I hate black people are hilarious, what would you do if I said I was black, and a Republican? Also, I blame John Marshall, and of course, having a more local government managing issues makes much less sense than having federal government managing the same issues, with more inefficiency.

 

Finally, spellcheck is your friend.

 

1. I know.

 

2. Seriously. This is not good.

 

3. You didn't, no. But please remember, I don't hate you, specifically, but Republicans in general, and most do.

 

4. How was Iraq a problem? Saddam was powerless until the day he died... certainly, he was a scum bag, but we're not super heroes. I feel for the people, but it wasn't our problem.

 

5. Certain political parties are notorious for supporting certain market systems, and most of the reason I hate Republicans is for that.

 

6. Again, stop thinking I'm talking about YOU. God (lolreligion) knows that most do hate minorities, and foreigners in general. I'm not saying you do, I'm saying that a fair percentage of your fellow Rightists do. Please, try to understand that; I'm sure you're a decent guy.

 

And, as for spell check; I know xD

[Dictator7]

Simple thing with gun control: second amendment' date=' end of story.

 

[b']The Constitution is a dated load of crap; the Second Amendment was drafted in fear of foreign invasion, an issue which has long since passed. All that guns are used for nowadays are murder and hunting, and hunting is unneeded and barbaric.[/b]

 

Lower taxes: please look at Laffer curve.

 

Don't even get me started...

 

Unions: mobocracy, minority tyranny.

 

True, this is one thing. As it was said, though, danger lies at the other extreme, and that's why Capitolism is a bad idea to begin with!

 

Foreign Policy: "Peace through Strength" - Ronald Reagan

 

"Peace through minding your own fuckin' business" is a much better, much more applicable motto, and that way, no-one has to die.

 

Entitlements: It is not the government's place to fill any and all social or economic needs of the people, it is the job of the government to give a stable and readily available stage for those problems to be solved by the people themselves.

 

Again, why? This makes no sense; a Democracy is supposed to exsist to support the people, not to make some wealthy big-wigs and others smelly hoboes. This is yet another reason that Capitolism sucks.

 

State's Rights vs. Federal Rights: In recent years, there has been a growth of the term "unfunded mandate", which is used by both Congress, the White House, and the Courts as a way to circumvent the 10th amendment.

 

To be quite honest, states were a bad idea to begin with. Maybe loose reigonal policy from reigonal Congress reps, but, in effect, "state rights" is a dead issue, brought up, often times, to justify prejudices (don't deny it; every time you hear "The South will rise again!", how many times do they justify themselves by saying, "I just hate black people"?).

 

I could go on, but I am tired, and am going to sleep. You mean your argument's weak at best, and you're getting beat?

 

I will answer in another post, like civilized people do, instead of inserting bolded commentary.

 

1- Opinion, out of realm of discussion

2- Why not?

3- Did I ever say majority tyranny was good? Capitalism =/= majority tyranny, Republicans =/= majority.

4- Right, because ignoring problems often makes them go away.

5- US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Also, stop confusing market systems with political systems.

6- The less than subtle insinuations that I hate black people are hilarious, what would you do if I said I was black, and a Republican? Also, I blame John Marshall, and of course, having a more local government managing issues makes much less sense than having federal government managing the same issues, with more inefficiency.

 

Finally, spellcheck is your friend.

 

Wait a minute. I have a question for you. What is a democracy? Never mind I'll answer it. There are two democracies. INdirect and direct. Direct is were julst the people run and vote everything. Are we this, no! We are indirect, which is where the people elect an officer, in our case a president. An indirect democracy is the same thing as a republic. so your wrong. There is no difference between an indirect democracy and a republic. Which you said we are not a democracy, we are a republic. That is only partially true, because we are not a direct democracy. Please get your facts right.

[The Dark One]

Simple thing with gun control: second amendment' date=' end of story.

 

[b']The Constitution is a dated load of crap; the Second Amendment was drafted in fear of foreign invasion, an issue which has long since passed. All that guns are used for nowadays are murder and hunting, and hunting is unneeded and barbaric.[/b]

 

Lower taxes: please look at Laffer curve.

 

Don't even get me started...

 

Unions: mobocracy, minority tyranny.

 

True, this is one thing. As it was said, though, danger lies at the other extreme, and that's why Capitolism is a bad idea to begin with!

 

Foreign Policy: "Peace through Strength" - Ronald Reagan

 

"Peace through minding your own fuckin' business" is a much better, much more applicable motto, and that way, no-one has to die.

 

Entitlements: It is not the government's place to fill any and all social or economic needs of the people, it is the job of the government to give a stable and readily available stage for those problems to be solved by the people themselves.

 

Again, why? This makes no sense; a Democracy is supposed to exsist to support the people, not to make some wealthy big-wigs and others smelly hoboes. This is yet another reason that Capitolism sucks.

 

State's Rights vs. Federal Rights: In recent years, there has been a growth of the term "unfunded mandate", which is used by both Congress, the White House, and the Courts as a way to circumvent the 10th amendment.

 

To be quite honest, states were a bad idea to begin with. Maybe loose reigonal policy from reigonal Congress reps, but, in effect, "state rights" is a dead issue, brought up, often times, to justify prejudices (don't deny it; every time you hear "The South will rise again!", how many times do they justify themselves by saying, "I just hate black people"?).

 

I could go on, but I am tired, and am going to sleep. You mean your argument's weak at best, and you're getting beat?

 

I will answer in another post, like civilized people do, instead of inserting bolded commentary.

 

1- Opinion, out of realm of discussion

2- Why not?

3- Did I ever say majority tyranny was good? Capitalism =/= majority tyranny, Republicans =/= majority.

4- Right, because ignoring problems often makes them go away.

5- US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Also, stop confusing market systems with political systems.

6- The less than subtle insinuations that I hate black people are hilarious, what would you do if I said I was black, and a Republican? Also, I blame John Marshall, and of course, having a more local government managing issues makes much less sense than having federal government managing the same issues, with more inefficiency.

 

Finally, spellcheck is your friend.

 

Wait a minute. I have a question for you. What is a democracy? Never mind I'll answer it. There are two democracies. INdirect and direct. Direct is were julst the people run and vote everything. Are we this, no! We are indirect, which is where the people elect an officer, in our case a president. An indirect democracy is the same thing as a republic. so your wrong. There is no difference between an indirect democracy and a republic. Which you said we are not a democracy, we are a republic. That is only partially true, because we are not a direct democracy. Please get your facts right.

 

We are DEMOCRATIC, not a democracy. OUr lawmaking body is not the people, but a selection of elected officers. Yes, this is indirect democracy at work, but the fact remains that we the people do not ourselves vote. Thus we are a Republic.

 

This all being said, it's completely irrelevant.

 

By the way, saying everyone hates Republicans is pretty stupid considering that Republicans make up approximately half of the national population. Should I say everyone hates democrats?

[Kenny Bohner]

Look at foreign countries... the two Canadians and one Indian I know are both very anti-Republican, and supported Barack Obama in his election. You can ask anyone, other than the relatively small Republican American population; everyone agrees that Republicans suck (not intended as a flame, merely stating the fact that Republicans are widely disliked). That's the purpose of this thread, to see why it is that most of the world agrees that Republicans suck.

[OMGAKITTY]

Look at foreign countries... the two Canadians and one Indian I know are both very anti-Republican' date=' and supported Barack Obama in his election. You can ask anyone, other than the relatively small Republican American population; everyone agrees that Republicans suck (not intended as a flame, merely stating the fact that Republicans are widely disliked). That's the purpose of this thread, to see why it is that most of the world agrees that Republicans suck.

[/quote']

 

Two Canadians and 1 Indian accurately describe the opinion of the entire populations of Canada and India, respectively. Yes they do.

[The Dark One]

Look at foreign countries... the two Canadians and one Indian I know are both very anti-Republican' date=' and supported Barack Obama in his election. You can ask anyone, other than the relatively small Republican American population; everyone agrees that Republicans suck (not intended as a flame, merely stating the fact that Republicans are widely disliked). That's the purpose of this thread, to see why it is that most of the world agrees that Republicans suck.

[/quote']

 

First of all, your random friends are in no way representative of the populations of their countries of origin. Nor is the consensus of India or of Canada necessarily representative of the beliefs of the rest of the world.

 

Secondly, most people are limited in their awareness of foreign political parties. Many people across the globe are likely entirely unaware of the Republican or Democratic parties or their distinctions.

 

Lastly, parties are not transitive across countries. A variety of differing cultural and political values can create completely unrecognizable parties in different countries.

 

For example, democrats are the proponents of big government in America, yet they are also the primary supporters of free speech, religious nonfavoritism, etc. and the opponents of severe executive measures such as capital punishment. Looking through history and in different areas of the world, you'll find these combinations to be unusual.

 

Even looking back a few hundred years in our own country can startle us. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist party supported big government, economic regulation, civil work (building of roads, etc.) These positions are commonly held by the democratic party of today. Yet they were also strongly pro-business, especially big business. They were most definitely not afraid of stepping on others rights with laws such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. They also liked to keep a level of distance between the citizens of the country and the elected officials. In other words, not into democracy.

 

The Democratic-Republicans were the free-speech activists and most dedicated to democracy. However they were also entirely set against taxes, government regulation, etc. These were also the states-rights activists.

 

Oh, and for another great example look at Bush. He claimed, as did the modern Republican party, to be against big government. Well, expansion of the executive branch pretty much sums up his entire stay in office. Just go look at the Patriot Act, for example. Oh, and he led us into two wars even though the Republican party is traditionally non-interventionist. On false premises, I might add.

[Kenny Bohner]

Look at foreign countries... the two Canadians and one Indian I know are both very anti-Republican' date=' and supported Barack Obama in his election. You can ask anyone, other than the relatively small Republican American population; everyone agrees that Republicans suck (not intended as a flame, merely stating the fact that Republicans are widely disliked). That's the purpose of this thread, to see why it is that most of the world agrees that Republicans suck.

[/quote']

 

First of all, your random friends are in no way representative of the populations of their countries of origin. Nor is the consensus of India or of Canada necessarily representative of the beliefs of the rest of the world.

Not what I said, just providing an example

 

Secondly, most people are limited in their awareness of foreign political parties. Many people across the globe are likely entirely unaware of the Republican or Democratic parties or their distinctions.

That may be true, but in this instance, it's not the case... I made sure. I wouldn't have posted just for the sake of posting. Not in an important thread, anyway.

 

Lastly, parties are not transitive across countries. A variety of differing cultural and political values can create completely unrecognizable parties in different countries.

Maybe, but not in Canada! They're like us, only they speak French instead of Spanish as a widely chosen second language. 'Sides, the Indian guy is an Atheist (which would make things a lot easier, but that's another thread), and I used "political Leftism", which he was in favor of. In addition to that, ask anyone not American (in a first world country, no cheating)... we're the world's soap opera.

 

For example, democrats are the proponents of big government in America, yet they are also the primary supporters of free speech, religious nonfavoritism, etc. and the opponents of severe executive measures such as capital punishment. Looking through history and in different areas of the world, you'll find these combinations to be unusual.

Quite, but, as I said, Canada's right there, and that's basically what their Liberal party is, and... well, I just explained myself on that

 

Even looking back a few hundred years in our own country can startle us. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist party supported big government, economic regulation, civil work (building of roads, etc.) These positions are commonly held by the democratic party of today. Yet they were also strongly pro-business, especially big business. They were most definitely not afraid of stepping on others rights with laws such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. They also liked to keep a level of distance between the citizens of the country and the elected officials. In other words, not into democracy.

No, I get that, but general world opinions have greatly changed since then. Not necessarily Republican ones, but, you know.

 

The Democratic-Republicans were the free-speech activists and most dedicated to democracy. However they were also entirely set against taxes, government regulation, etc. These were also the states-rights activists.

Right, they're more liberal than today's Democrats, which is why I resent America a little...

 

Oh, and for another great example look at Bush. He claimed, as did the modern Republican party, to be against big government. Well, expansion of the executive branch pretty much sums up his entire stay in office. Just go look at the Patriot Act, for example. Oh, and he led us into two wars even though the Republican party is traditionally non-interventionist. On false premises, I might add.

You do realize that I'm on your side?

[Cowboy Dan]

Nothing.

I'm a Republican.

Now, I must say: what's wrong with Democrats?

[qwertykool]

Im just sick of all the people with no reason to hate them... I wish people would stop blameing Bush for every problem in the world...

[Dictator7]

Im just sick of all the people with no reason to hate them... I wish people would stop blameing Bush for every problem in the world...

 

YOu tell them! You're absolutly right!! Not sarcasm.

[The Dark One]

THe last two posts in this thread were stupid.

[jamesjr111]

the problem with republicans: republicans want to keep things the same, and by the looks of the economy... that isnt such a great idea.

[shamus1997]

Beacuse republicans are said to be racist pigs. But are they,:?:

[Tentacruel]

In order to avoid all of this crap, I have decided to be neither a Republican or a Democrat (if that's even possible nowadays.) In the grand scheme of things I tend to lead more towards the conservative side, but unfortunately, the term has become associated with racism, and a bunch of other crap.

 

So I say nuts to your political parties.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

I hate whatever force with George W. Bush in it.

 

Think back-George Worst Bush:

 

Terrorized Iraq for a stupid reason and killed thousands-"Me kill Iraq becas Trade Center went boom"

Literally cheered on Global Warming by not setting up a Co2 reduction target

Did nothing against the Leman Shock

 

And is therefore the worst noob mankind ever created.

 

As for Obama, who is NOT a republican:

 

Will create clean energy

Has took a Peace Prize for his nuclear stop

Put a period to black men segregation by becoming a president himself

And much more good things.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

plus this awesome video.

[Willieh]

I hate whatever force with George W. Bush in it.

 

Think back-George Worst Bush:

 

Terrorized Iraq for a stupid reason and killed thousands-"Me kill Iraq becas Trade Center went boom"

Literally cheered on Global Warming by not setting up a Co2 reduction target

Did nothing against the Leman Shock

 

And is therefore the worst noob mankind ever created.

 

As for Obama' date=' who is NOT a republican:

 

[s']Will create clean energy

Has took a Peace Prize for his nuclear stop

Put a period to black men segregation by becoming a president himself

And much more good things.[/s]

Not do anything at all.

 

I strongly disliked Bush, but Obama is hardly a good president.

 

In all honesty, democrats and republicans are both funking retarded.

[The Dark One]

Obama is progress, I think.

 

Not the end-all-be-all, certainly, and much of the hero-worship that goes on can bother me at times, but still a good leader nonetheless.

 

Personally though, I think that one of the most important characteristics a leader can have is charisma, which is certainly something he has. So even if I disagreed with his politics, I think I might still support him.

 

That being said, I'm worried about his support for the war in Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong: Afghanistan was a much more valid war than was Iraq, but nonetheless I think America should try to avoid direct conflict in these countries. If some sort of action must be taken, I think it's probably easier and better to build a grassroots insurgent movement within the country that would carry out that action.

 

And if such a movement is not possible, that simply means the people aren't exactly on our side, which in turn means that military presence will be expensive, will cost lives, will extend indefinitely, and will likely achieve very little.

 

You need popular support for success, and with popular support, the initial military action already becomes limited in its necessity.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

But I still hate Democrats in Japan.

 

Hatoyama Yukio is a m***** f***ing s*** b**** c*** a******.