I'm voting republican!

Very good! But the scary thing is that a lot of people with vote Republican for the exact reasons used in that video.

Im voting Technique (as its my personal favourite). Republic had 5 decent songs to kick off but then goes downhill fast.

BonoShed wrote: Very good! But the scary thing is that a lot of people with vote Republican for the exact reasons used in that video.

yeah.... I don't think so....

EdelBrock wrote:

BonoShed wrote: Very good! But the scary thing is that a lot of people with vote Republican for the exact reasons used in that video.

yeah.... I don't think so....

Well it super simplifies the position-a rather Republican idea

Chrissy wrote:

Or, how about "I'm voting democrat because....":

1. I dig the murder of unborn children
2. I think the constitution should be bent to the whims of activist judges.
3. I think that terrorism should be treated strictly as a law enforcement issue.
4. I'm totally against a clean, safe energy source like nuclear power.(3 Mile Island being the only caveat in the US)Even though our best buddies in France have been reaping the benefits for the last 30-40 years.
5. I'm totally for renewable energy sources like wind power - unless of course it obstructs the view of my private beach. (Can't it be in someone else's back yard?)
6. I hate Big Oil and Big Agriculture.....but I love Big Law, Big Media, Big Union, Big Academia, Big Abortion....
7. I'm all about tolerance, inclusion and egalitarianism - unless you disagree with me and then I'll do everything in my power to destroy you personally.

:D :D :) :D :D :)

Tex wrote:

7. I'm all about tolerance, inclusion and egalitarianism - unless you disagree with me and then I'll do everything in my power to destroy you personally.

Ain't that the truth

EdelBrock wrote:

Tex wrote:

7. I'm all about tolerance, inclusion and egalitarianism - unless you disagree with me and then I'll do everything in my power to destroy you personally.

Ain't that the truth

Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove are the high priests of that.

and don't forget Republicans want gays back in the closet.

Larry Craig is your kind of guy.

I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

Yeah, but can you tolerate something if it's intolerable...????

So Republicans are tolerant of those who disagree or are different? That is a really bizarre argument against the Democrats. Sure there are plenty of hypocrites of all types but Republicans have plenty of examples of blanket intolerance and downright hatred towards other races, cultures, foreigners, religions, atheists, women, gays, and especially science to point fingers with much validity.

What is bothersome is arguments that are completely one sided without any middle ground, from either side. But you can hear Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly ranting one sided arguments everyday on the radio or Fox News, in which the very concept of compromise is said to be almost evil, so people get pretty paranoid about the Republican clique.

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

So you can dish it but not take it? HOW VERY REPUBLICAN!!!

I am intolerant? George Bush I brought us The Willie Horton Ad

George W Nixon was not elected by the voters but by the Supreme Court. There are more Activist conservative judges than anything. It is the McCarthy defense "there is a commie and queer under every porch."

Conservatives presided under the worst housing collapse since the depression and seek to bail out Wall Street-not anyone else. Gas Prices? Food Prices? Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

and how about the recovery of Louisiana since Katrina? Oh you mean a lot of people are still living in trailers hazardous to their health almost THREE YEARS afterward? way to go!

GW also kowtowed to religious wackos by desiring a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man one woman. The Founders gave many things, but not the right to make discrimination the law. "Brown Vs. Board of Education" anyone?

In Ohio, the anti gay marriage admendment passed in 2004 was so broad that it invalidated parts of the legal code against stalking and protection of domestic violence victims.

A ballot measure proposed in California by similar religious conservative forces may be so broad as to invalidate parts of the legal codes surrounding marriage.

Civil Liberties and The Bill of Rights are a joke. AT& T and other telecoms can give my phone records to the government and GW Bush wanted a law to retroactively pardon them for this activity.

Until y'all can admit that there are issue son both sides-please shut up...

Where to start?

Should I counter everything said, like the housing crisis has officially been blamed on HUD and the policy signed to law by Clinton? But I don't think Clinton was out to hurt the country, I think it was in the best interest, but it ended wrong.

What I find bothersome is that people are screaming for change and tolerance, but yet act in thier daily life without either.

There are extremists on both sides that are bad for our country, but that doesn't make every Democrat of Republican evil.

We NEED both parties, they are important to keeping our country balanced... if one party has too much control it hurts our country.

No need to take out your frustrations on me.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: Yeah, but can you tolerate something if it's intolerable...????

You mean, like watching Stoke City?

Obama is a Stokie*, Jeff. We've got change a-comin' too.....

[* - NB: I hear he's actually from Penkhull ]

After reading this thread,I stumbled upon this...

Whats the difference between a Democrat and a Republican anyway?

Tex wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Or, how about "I'm voting democrat because....":

1. I dig the murder of unborn children
2. I think the constitution should be bent to the whims of activist judges.
3. I think that terrorism should be treated strictly as a law enforcement issue.
4. I'm totally against a clean, safe energy source like nuclear power.(3 Mile Island being the only caveat in the US)Even though our best buddies in France have been reaping the benefits for the last 30-40 years.
5. I'm totally for renewable energy sources like wind power - unless of course it obstructs the view of my private beach. (Can't it be in someone else's back yard?)
6. I hate Big Oil and Big Agriculture.....but I love Big Law, Big Media, Big Union, Big Academia, Big Abortion....
7. I'm all about tolerance, inclusion and egalitarianism - unless you disagree with me and then I'll do everything in my power to destroy you personally.

:D :D :) :D :D :)

The only thing I have an issue with is that Democrats are not pro abortion. some may be pro choice though. but yeah i lolled

NO Regret wrote: Whats the difference between a Democrat and a Republican anyway?

not a lot that's why i love these partisan videos -- people act as if what they think matters and that their vote matters or that there's any difference between the white guy in a suit or the black dude in a suit anyway.

BonoShed wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

So you can dish it but not take it? HOW VERY REPUBLICAN!!!

I am intolerant? George Bush I brought us The Willie Horton Ad

George W Nixon was not elected by the voters but by the Supreme Court. There are more Activist conservative judges than anything. It is the McCarthy defense "there is a commie and queer under every porch."

Conservatives presided under the worst housing collapse since the depression and seek to bail out Wall Street-not anyone else. Gas Prices? Food Prices? Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

and how about the recovery of Louisiana since Katrina? Oh you mean a lot of people are still living in trailers hazardous to their health almost THREE YEARS afterward? way to go!

GW also kowtowed to religious wackos by desiring a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man one woman. The Founders gave many things, but not the right to make discrimination the law. "Brown Vs. Board of Education" anyone?

In Ohio, the anti gay marriage admendment passed in 2004 was so broad that it invalidated parts of the legal code against stalking and protection of domestic violence victims.

A ballot measure proposed in California by similar religious conservative forces may be so broad as to invalidate parts of the legal codes surrounding marriage.

Civil Liberties and The Bill of Rights are a joke. AT& T and other telecoms can give my phone records to the government and GW Bush wanted a law to retroactively pardon them for this activity.

Until y'all can admit that there are issue son both sides-please shut up...

Al Gore brought us Willie Horton. Look it up.

McCarthy has been proven right, time after time. As more items continue to be declassiifed, his detractors look ill informed at best....

GWB was elected by the voters. The SCOTUS had the unenviable task of putting down a rouge state cout like a vet puts down a rabid dog.

Gas prices? We have not built a refinery in this country in over thirty years. Oil companies are required to manufacture over 15 different blends for the summertime. We can't explore over 90% of proven US reserves. Why? Most of the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of radical environmentalist - who, by the way, are a wholly owned subsidiary of Democrats.

Katrina! Levees! Flooding! It can be said the federal government's response has been less then ideal. However, it's funny how folks really don't point fingers at Ray Nagin, Mary Landrieu or Cathleen Blanco or mention the fact that Louisiana has effectivley been under Democrat control for the last 150 years. What did the folks mentioned above and the Louisiana Democrat Machine in general do to prepare their state for inevitable? Not much it appears. The image of parking lots full of driverless busses comes to mind.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Chrissy wrote:

Tex wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Or, how about "I'm voting democrat because....":

1. I dig the murder of unborn children
2. I think the constitution should be bent to the whims of activist judges.
3. I think that terrorism should be treated strictly as a law enforcement issue.
4. I'm totally against a clean, safe energy source like nuclear power.(3 Mile Island being the only caveat in the US)Even though our best buddies in France have been reaping the benefits for the last 30-40 years.
5. I'm totally for renewable energy sources like wind power - unless of course it obstructs the view of my private beach. (Can't it be in someone else's back yard?)
6. I hate Big Oil and Big Agriculture.....but I love Big Law, Big Media, Big Union, Big Academia, Big Abortion....
7. I'm all about tolerance, inclusion and egalitarianism - unless you disagree with me and then I'll do everything in my power to destroy you personally.

:D :D :) :D :D :)

The only thing I have an issue with is that Democrats are not pro abortion. some may be pro choice though. but yeah i lolled

Hi Chrissy,

I understand your point. But I have a real problem with the word "choice". Are we talking about the right to choose to drive a car? To get botox injections? To get all tatted and pierced up? No. When a Democrat talks about "choice", they mean one thing and one thing only - abortion.

Politically, abortion is one of the largest and most immovable planks in the Democrat platform. But, now that it's general election season, let's all count how many times BHO assures us that he is personally oppposed to abortion, but that it should be "safe, legal and rare." :) (let's not even get into Democrat pliticians who proclaim to be praticing Catholics but are still "pro-choice/abortion")

BTW, are you going to pull the lever for BHO?? Just curious.

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

erm...ever heard of ann coulter?

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

erm...ever heard of ann coulter?

Or the Fox News Channel? Liberal Media? They are the biggrst news channel out there.

And what is liberal about Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage?

BonoShed wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

erm...ever heard of ann coulter?

Or the Fox News Channel? Liberal Media? They are the biggrst news channel out there.

And what is liberal about Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage?

FNC is one channel. On cable.

What's conservative - or balanced - about ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe.....

Chrissy wrote:

NO Regret wrote: Whats the difference between a Democrat and a Republican anyway?

not a lot that's why i love these partisan videos -- people act as if what they think matters and that their vote matters or that there's any difference between the white guy in a suit or the black dude in a suit anyway.

Sorry I didn't get that from the beginning.

People always find the most radical person they can of the opposing party and then classify everyone under that umbrella.... which is hogwash, since a radical is by definition outside the stance of popular beliefs...

Politics can really make enemies out of friendly people.

Tex wrote:

BonoShed wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

erm...ever heard of ann coulter?

Or the Fox News Channel? Liberal Media? They are the biggrst news channel out there.

And what is liberal about Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage?

FNC is one channel. On cable.

What's conservative - or balanced - about ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe.....

Certainly not the multinational conglomerates who own them. The media are in a constant struggle between liberal reporters and conservative owners. (I could name a number of times that so-called "liberal" reporters caved in to corporate pressure and chose not to report on certain topics that could affect their company's bottom line.) When that balance is upset and both reporters and owners fall on the conservative side, you get Fox News.

and don't forget the 'liberal' media who gave Bush a free pass when deciding to invade Iraq.

coney island baby wrote: and don't forget the 'liberal' media who gave Bush a free pass when deciding to invade Iraq.

well considering almost all Congress (Reps and Dems) backed invading Iraq, its not that surprising

EdelBrock wrote:

coney island baby wrote: and don't forget the 'liberal' media who gave Bush a free pass when deciding to invade Iraq.

well considering almost all Congress (Reps and Dems) backed invading Iraq, its not that surprising

Consider at the time that GW Bush had approval ratings of 80+% at that time and 70% of polls approved of force against Iraq, standing against W was career suicide.

fascinating now that W has approval ratings in the 20s

Let's not be changing history here. The Congress back the war, not because they were scared of loosing thier careers, but because they believed at the time it was the best course of action.

GW had good approvals then, because he reacted very well to the 9/11 attacks, remember he only had 50% of the vote to get into office... people were happy with his reation to the attack...

His approval rating now is down due to other issues, some he deserves the negative credit and some he does not fully.

Katrina is a good example. By past policies on disasters, cities are suppose to respond within 24 hours, the state within 2-3 days and the federal government within a week. The city of New Orleans dropped the ball, the state dropped the ball, and expected the federal governement to pick up all the pieces. Bush is partly to blame as he could have reacted faster, but somehow the city and state do not carry any burden of blame (though they share the majority of it).

Bush has been an easy target to stick all blame because he is so polarized. In that aspect he has failed as a president, as his leadership has not carried along public opinion... don't get me wrong, a president doesn't have to make policies that get huge approval ratings, but they have to make it up somewhere else... GW didn't do that...

In the same aspect, Obama is very polarized (in the opposite direction), and if he becomes the next president, watch and the same thing will happen to him... the one thing that Obama has going for him is that he is a better orator than GW... but the polarization will be Obama's downfall, as it was for GW.

BonoShed wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

coney island baby wrote: and don't forget the 'liberal' media who gave Bush a free pass when deciding to invade Iraq.

well considering almost all Congress (Reps and Dems) backed invading Iraq, its not that surprising

Consider at the time that GW Bush had approval ratings of 80+% at that time and 70% of polls approved of force against Iraq, standing against W was career suicide.

fascinating now that W has approval ratings in the 20s

Yeah, and have you seen the approval rating for congress?

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

Tex wrote:

BonoShed wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: I have no problem with someone being Democrat. Its a different way of thinking, but is needed to create balance in society. Why is it Democrates have this NEED to attack any Republican as if its an evil entity... but yet they scream for tolerance and understanding in the same breath? Make up yer f'ing minds... tolerance or no tolerance... pick one and stick with it.. geez...

erm...ever heard of ann coulter?

Or the Fox News Channel? Liberal Media? They are the biggrst news channel out there.

And what is liberal about Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage?

FNC is one channel. On cable.

What's conservative - or balanced - about ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe.....

Certainly not the multinational conglomerates who own them. The media are in a constant struggle between liberal reporters and conservative owners. (I could name a number of times that so-called "liberal" reporters caved in to corporate pressure and chose not to report on certain topics that could affect their company's bottom line.) When that balance is upset and both reporters and owners fall on the conservative side, you get Fox News.

The thing is though, most people who complain about FNC do so from the standpoint of their opinion driven programming - not the hard news segments. This is where I really believe that FNC is more "fair and balanced".

Here's an example of a big time CNN reporter who is not exactly objective: Christiane Amanpour http://usliberals.about.com/od/thepressandjournalist1/p/Amanpour.htm

Who here knew that she's also known as Mrs. Jamie Ruben, former Clinton aministration State Department spokesman?

Her job is to deliver the hard news. I think it would be nice if CNN divulged that sort of information so the viewer could at least be informed of possible bias.

If you read the Drudge Manifesto, he chronicles the extensive marriages and romantic relationships between govenment officials and liberal media members. (Also, let's remember that 80% of the Washington press corps votes Democrat). Even if you hate Drudge, it's not his opinion - it's fact.

you can go on and on. I'm bored .

I'm neither Democrat or Republican so fooked off.

NO Regret wrote: Whats the difference between a Democrat and a Republican anyway?

Democrat - Believe people are victims of circumstance and need help from society to solve thier problems.

Republican - Believe people are victims by thier own design and should pick themselves up with thier own bootstraps.

Granted this is a generalization, and no one fits exactly in either of these boxes. The fight is over the line at which people help themselves or when the governement steps in.

The other issue is that the country was founded on Lockean Liberalism, which falls under a Republican idealogy (thus the term conservative). The one problem with Lockean Liberalism is that it doesn't address issues like enviromentalism (the idea wasn't around at that time). Locke believed that if people owned and controled thier own land, then thier selfiness to succeed would benefit society. However, enviromentalism (and other similar ideas) encroches on property rights of Lockean Liberalism. So where exactly does the line between property ownership by individuals and control by the society is a very large fight between the two parties.

Yer probably more correct... my mascot craps bigger than yer mascot

bump!

For this video:

"John McCunt"

Lulz x 300