Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Hey, Republicans winning = Good.

Although judging by the fact that StrongRad is the only other proclaimed Republican I've met here, I'm surprised too.

_________________

No, no, no, Teff. When will you learn?

Maybe in this poll it wouldn't be so bad, because John McCain is a good guy and would have been about 400000 times better as president than Dubya (though VP Antichrist-Frist is a scary idea), but Republicans in general winning equals bad, Teff.

We've been through this.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Sure, republicans winning is great if you're a normal white hetereosexual conservative christian. If you're gay or different in any other way, tough luck.

Yup, that's me!

Ugh. Y'see, this is the reason I hate Democrats. They've stereotyped us in so many different ways that it's hard to keep track of.

JUST BECAUSE YOU KNOW A FEW OF THOSE PEOPLE, IT DOESN"T MEAN ALL OF US ARE LIKE THEM.

_________________

Well said, Teffers... I can't believe some people are as stupid as they are. If only they had the open mindedness they claimed the republicans lack.
There are gay republicans, black republicans, non-christian republicans, too. Contrary to what some may have you believe, we're not a party of hate.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Uh, no, it doesn't work like that. If you vote for conservatism, you're voting against things like gay marriage and other minority rights. There's no two ways about it.

-_-;

You do realize that different people have different views, right? Take this poll, for instance. There are some things that John McCain supports that are viewed as completely liberal.

There are definitely two ways about it. There are far more than two ways about it.

_________________

I distrust people whose views on issues line up as completely conservative or completely liberal.

Republicism as a whole is based on conservatism, which as a whole is negative for anyone that isn't "Normal". So "It's good that republicans are winning" is, in my opinion, a false statement because of that.

All right then.

Democratism as a whole is based on liberalism, which as a whole is based on letting other countries walk all over us, and continually changing their opinions to further stereotype Republicans. So, "It's a bad thing that Democrats are not winning" is, in my opinion, a false statement.

_________________

That's really a very simplistic way of looking at political orientation, imo. There's no real "left" or "right" - every politician and political party tend to have a vey complex myriad of political options. There are scarce few who will be on one side of the left/right border - unless you're talking about far-right and far-left.

Take the Netherlands - their ruling party are Christian conservatives. And yet they have gay marriage, and a sophisticated human rights system. And take the UK - who are supposedly left-wing ruled. And yet Prime Minister Blair' foreign policies are very much hand-in-hand with George Bush's, and Blair and his Home Office believe in detention without trial.

Also, you'd see how a party often overhauls their manifesto promises when they get in power. That's sometimes because of their civil service (which is apolitical as a rule), or because of public pressure. In case of the latter, would you think that even the most conservative government would overturn that country's law that allows, say, abortion, if that law is a popular one? I'd say not likely - that wouldn't be a very wise decision for a government that may hope to be re-elected one day.

So a whole lot of circumstances need to be considered regarding how to judge political orientation.

That's really a very simplistic way of looking at political orientation, imo. There's no real "left" or "right" - every politician and political party tend to have a vey complex myriad of political options. There are scarce few who will be on one side of the left/right border - unless you're talking about far-right and far-left.

Take the Netherlands - their ruling party are Christian conservatives. And yet they have gay marriage, and a sophisticated human rights system. And take the UK - who are supposedly left-wing ruled. And yet Prime Minister Blair' foreign policies are very much hand-in-hand with George Bush's, and Blair and his Home Office believe in detention without trial.

Also, you'd see how a party often overhauls their manifesto promises when they get in power. That's sometimes because of their civil service (which is apolitical as a rule), or because of public pressure. In case of the latter, would you think that even the most conservative government would overturn that country's law that allows, say, abortion, if that law is a popular one? I'd say not likely - that wouldn't be a very wise decision for a government that may hope to be re-elected one day.

So a whole lot of circumstances need to be considered regarding how to judge political orientation.

Um, have you ever heard of a color called grey?

Ahem.

There is more to Republicanism than just one issue, you know, Rosalie. Even though I disagree with just about all of their policies, you cannot make sweeping generalizations that you are unable to support with facts.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

I obviously voted Democrat. I'm a big liberal guy, and I've always been one.

Part of the reason I'm starting to lean further and further left is George Bush. The fiasco with Harriet Miers is just one reason. He's simply nominating other conservatives to push the court further right.

_________________

Yeah, but isn't that kind of like Catholics voting for the No-Nothings? It's like, a masochist interest group or something.

_________________

Not really. They're just a group of Republicans who agree with the main tenets of the Republican party, but are slightly more liberal when it comes to social issues.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

I would vote for McCain but not with Frist as the VP, that guy is not really worth voting for. I wouldn't vote for a guy who is being investigated for insider trading.

_________________

Republicanism is *still* based on conservatism in general. While gay rights is one issue, there's plenty of other things that they can use to hold the world back You can get gay people who do believe in the other conservative aspects. I knew a conservative transsexual once(who was a total female dog and completely nasty, but that's a different story).

I will never support any form of conservatism or consider it a good thing.
Republicanism is also extremely capitalist in it's nature - another reason why I dislike it.

This is interesting though -

Interesting. I get the feeling that the people in the Log Cabin are doing it to say "Hey you can be republican and gay too!" more than anything. They never release their numbers, which is suspcious. They lcaim to be in the thousands, though that means it's somewhere between 1 and 10 thousand(otherwise it would be listed as tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands etc.) which means it's probably equal to around 2-3% at most of GLBT voters at most.

Lastly, there is also such a thing as a hypocrite.

You're proving that more and more with every post you make in this thread..

You talk about tolerance, yet you're so vile and close-minded about conservatives..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Intolerance for intolerance doesn't count, I'm afraid. Otherwise, you'd never be able to tell intolerance in the first place.

I am never going to be open minding and accepting of people who wish to strip me of my rights and generally make rules which pay little regard to the "different" folk. Maybe some alternative peple are a little less hard on it as I am, but I'm tired of living as a second class citizen.

And before you say it, conservatism in principle is about holding onto "Old" ideas and refusing to be liberal and progressive. At it's essence, conservatism is negative.

Intolerance is intolerance. It doesn't matter who you're being intolerant of.
As for conservatives wanting to strip you of your rights, I'm conservative, and I don't want to strip anyone of rights.
There goes that theory.
Any more nuggets of political wisdom you wish to toss our way?

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Well, yes it does, entirely. This kind of moral relativism is what bigots use to defend themselves and holds no ground.
We are intolerant of murderers, rapists and thieves. Bigots should be added to that, as they end up calling the others on them through their hatred.



Are you sure about that? Why would you define yourself as conservative? Are you fiscally, politically, or socially conservative?

I'm fiscally conservative (something this administration WAS, til they started blowing money on the war), politically conservative, and socially conservative(well, I'm "bipolitical" here, neither side has it completely right)..
When you get right down to it (with political compass quizzes and such), I'm not very far to the right. Still, in this polarized environment, you're not allowed to be moderate, you're either conservative or liberal, and since I scored more conservative than liberal, I'm conservative...

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Rosalie: Granted, The Log Cabin Republicans are a tiny minority of their party. But my point was that you can't make sweeping statements about a group of people without knowing everything about those people.



You don't have to. I don't support conservatism either. That doesn't mean, however, that everyone who does support conservatism is a mentally deficient bigoted moron. Conservatism isn't evil. It's a point of view. You and I both disagree with it, but I am willing to co-exist with it, while you seem to favor the "My beliefs are the indisputable, absolute truth, and anyone who disagrees with me is only worthy of my disdain and contempt," approach. Wrong or not, you have to acknowledge people's rights to hold their own opinion. Feel free to disagree, but know that other people's opinions are just as good as yours.

Also, Rosalie, capitalism is the only system created thus far that works. Communism is against human nature.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

I don't believe that fiscal conservatism, or some forms of political forms of conservatism. But as a very knowledgable american friend of mine pointed out(though a little harsher perhaps that I might have put it) modern conservatism is based on right wing and religious extremism more than anything resembling conservatism in the past.

I will not, and will never stand for people that think they have the right to decide how mintorities live their lives.

Homoeseuxals aren't entitled to marriage benefits, very often job security, and aren't protected properly under hate crime laws. I will never fully respect someone who truly in their heart believes it's right.

I'm a little angrier than most of my type, but that's because I live in a country that's similiar the the U.S. in many ways, is still governed by religious conservatism(which makes it stick out like a sore thumb in more progressive europe). I am not entitled to the rights and support I need because of who I am, and most people won't even recognise me.

At the end of the day, relative to my kind, conservatives can sit in their comfy chairs with so many less worries, as their country is being run for *them* at the end of the day, and not the other half of the country.

Toastpaint.

One thing that I always thought would be better in American general elections is a proportional representation electoral system. I think it would be a lot fairer, and it might help American politics out of that two-party rut in which they sometimes get stuck.

In Ireland, we have a PR system called single transferable vote, which is widely lauded as being the fairest kind of electoral system. It's designed to minimise the amount of wasted votes, and give smaller parties a better chance. In STV, the voter makes a list of candidates s/he prefers. S/he can mark "1" beside the name of his/her favourite candidate, "2" beside the second favourite, and so on. It's all very complicated, but all the votes go through a series of rounds, and depending on how many candidates the voter chose, there's a better chance that at least one of their choices will be acknowledged in the result. Clicky here for example.

I always got the impression that the American first-past-the-post system is really unfair considering the size of the population. Say 200 million people voted in 2008 (either for the Democrats or Republicans), and Warner got 60% and McCain got 40%, there would be 80 million wasted votes. And because first-past-the-post often makes for a two-horse race in the countries in which it's implemented - like the US and the UK - smaller parties are often badly disadvantaged. (Also of course, there are other parts of the electoral system that may need some kind of re-thinking to make things fairer, like the electoral colleges.)

Though maybe the single transferable vote may not be suitable for a country as big as the US - because of the time it would take to process that volume of votes - some other PR system should be considered before US election results become any fairer, imo.

You're Irish too?

Wow, doesn't it suck here?

The Preferential Vote is great though, but it will never fly in America.

Rosalie, the point that you are continually missing here is that CONSERVATISM AS A WHOLE DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE, at least not in the US. Every single politician has different views, even if they call themselves conservative or liberal. This is the reason so much emphasis is placed on a candidate's policies in any election.

This is also a reason that some Democrats will go out to vote for a Republican. For instance, our good friend Jitka, a very staunch Democrat, said himself earlier in this thread that he wouldn't mind voting for John McCain. I, as a strong Republican, wouldn't mind voting for Wesley Clark too much myself. When you vote for a Republican, you aren't voting for conservatism. When you vote for a Democrat, you aren't voting for liberalism.

You are voting for a person.

You are not voting for an ideal.

_________________