• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
ryutaro's mama said:
This pic is the embodiment of what America is.

Those Rep rallies are a clear opposite of this, visually.

LIES!!!!11


This is America! Yours is probably the Canadia!

2cxzwq8.jpg
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Yeah, if Obama somehow manages to lose this election, I'm going to blame AARP/old people, or turn into some whacky conspiracy theorist and claim the election was rigged.

Conservatives NEED the Republicans to fail so that their party changes and actually adheres to at least a few conservative stances.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
teh_pwn said:
Conservatives NEED the Republicans to fail so that their party changes and actually adheres to at least a few conservative stances.
So basically we need the Republicans to come further to the right again instead of positioning themselves as the Democratic Lite party? Well said, I completely agree.

Well, if it's for the country I guess we can sit through 4 years of Obama to get our conservative party back.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
mAcOdIn said:
So basically we need the Republicans to come further to the right again instead of positioning themselves as the Democratic Lite party? Well said, I completely agree.

Well, if it's for the country I guess we can sit through 4 years of Obama to get our conservative party back.
Nah, Republicans are going the way of the Whigs!
 

NomarTyme

Member
teh_pwn said:
Yeah, if Obama somehow manages to lose this election, I'm going to blame AARP/old people, or turn into some whacky conspiracy theorist and claim the election was rigged.

Conservatives NEED the Republicans to fail so that their party changes and actually adheres to at least a few conservative stances.
I'm going to blame the young people if Obama loses this election. They better get their ass out and vote.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
teh_pwn said:
Yeah, if Obama somehow manages to lose this election, I'm going to blame AARP/old people, or turn into some whacky conspiracy theorist and claim the election was rigged.

Conservatives NEED the Republicans to fail so that their party changes and actually adheres to at least a few conservative stances.

And let's face it, a lot of Republicans actually support Obama.

Here's another one to the list, from two days ago:

Republican Rep. Endorses Obama

s-WAYNE-large.jpg


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/republican-rep-endorses-o_n_127471.html
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a maverick Republican from Maryland, endorsed Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president in an interview with WYPR, Baltimore's National Public Radio station Wednesday.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
mAcOdIn said:
Well, if it's for the country I guess we can sit through 4 years of Obama to get our conservative party back.

Back?

What version of the Republican party was actually dedicated to conservative principles, in a way that the Bush edition wasn't?
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
mAcOdIn said:
So basically we need the Republicans to come further to the right again instead of positioning themselves as the Democratic Lite party? Well said, I completely agree.

Well, if it's for the country I guess we can sit through 4 years of Obama to get our conservative party back.

I'm not specifically referring to McCain's history, if the closer to Dems is what you're talking about. I'm talking about a shift from neo-con to paleo conservative.

Republicans have been spending too much money, and the whole neo-con foreign policy thing isn't very compatible with fiscal conservatism...
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Frank the Great said:
Pretty sure America isn't half black.

Actually, as a non-US citizen myself, that picture of the Obama rally in Florida reminds me of what I saw of the US on 9-11; a country of ethnic diversity unmatched by any other.

So yeah to me and I'm sure many other people around the world, that rally's pictures is closer to our view of America's constituency than the Republican rallies.
 
ryutaro's mama said:
Now you see what you did there?

You took my obvious sentiment and twisted around to try and make me look silly.

Rick Davis, is that you?

Of course I would make you look silly, this thread is about personality and not issues.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Holy crap anyone had seen this? Fox News debating about how "bad, or terrible", was John McCain's speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4&feature=related

McCain sounds so fucking fake, seriously, it makes me uneasy just listening to him. And then the fake smiles, and the "friends" thing.

EDIT: And the blinking!

EDIT: Even Kristol and Rove can't say it was a good one.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
teh_pwn said:
I'm not specifically referring to McCain's history, if the closer to Dems is what you're talking about. I'm talking about a shift from neo-con to paleo conservative.

Republicans have been spending too much money, and the whole neo-con foreign policy thing isn't very compatible with fiscal conservatism...
Nah, fiscal conservatism has pretty much been a buzzword since before I was born, that I do subscribe to, but all the candidates never seem to follow through on.

True enough that no Republican since maybe Eisenhower or Nixon was remotely fiscally conservative but at least they say what I want to hear. I don't even want to hear what Obama says. To put it another way. When I hear the a Republican speak my greatest fear is they won't accomplish what they say, when I hear a Democrat speak my biggest fear is that they will accomplish what they say.

That said, in reality, a fiscal conservative is a myth so I'll give you that.


The neocon bullshit I can agree with you on, if it moves away from that I think that's good for us all.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
PROTIP: Neocons and their war-loving brand of foreign interventionism aren't new developments in the Republican party.

See the Reagan administration and 1950's rightwing critics of containment.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
mAcOdIn said:
Nah, fiscal conservatism has pretty much been a buzzword since before I was born, that I do subscribe to, but all the candidates never seem to follow through on.

True enough that no Republican since maybe Eisenhower or Nixon was remotely fiscally conservative but at least they say what I want to hear. I don't even want to hear what Obama says. To put it another way. When I hear the a Republican speak my greatest fear is they won't accomplish what they say, when I hear a Democrat speak my biggest fear is that they will accomplish what they say.

That said, in reality, a fiscal conservative is a myth so I'll give you that.


The neocon bullshit I can agree with you on, if it moves away from that I think that's good for us all.

Sounds like you need to vote for a third party!
 

Arde5643

Member
mAcOdIn said:
Nah, fiscal conservatism has pretty much been a buzzword since before I was born, that I do subscribe to, but all the candidates never seem to follow through on.

True enough that no Republican since maybe Eisenhower or Nixon was remotely fiscally conservative but at least they say what I want to hear. I don't even want to hear what Obama says. To put it another way. When I hear the a Republican speak my greatest fear is they won't accomplish what they say, when I hear a Democrat speak my biggest fear is that they will accomplish what they say.

That said, in reality, a fiscal conservative is a myth so I'll give you that.


The neocon bullshit I can agree with you on, if it moves away from that I think that's good for us all.
Quick, someone show this poor soul the cartoon with the graphs between the presidents from Reagan to Bush Jr. on the deficit and surplus.

Protip: it's not the reps who are fiscal conservatives.
 
Mandark said:
PROTIP: Neocons and their war-loving brand of foreign interventionism aren't new developments in the Republican party.

See the Reagan administration and 1950's rightwing critics of containment.

The Neoconservative movement didn't exist until the 1960s.
 

LuCkymoON

Banned
mAcOdIn said:
Nah, fiscal conservatism has pretty much been a buzzword since before I was born, that I do subscribe to, but all the candidates never seem to follow through on.

True enough that no Republican since maybe Eisenhower or Nixon was remotely fiscally conservative but at least they say what I want to hear. I don't even want to hear what Obama says. To put it another way. When I hear the a Republican speak my greatest fear is they won't accomplish what they say, when I hear a Democrat speak my biggest fear is that they will accomplish what they say.

That said, in reality, a fiscal conservative is a myth so I'll give you that.


The neocon bullshit I can agree with you on, if it moves away from that I think that's good for us all.
Are you afraid that you might like what he has to say?
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
mAcOdIn: A link you should check out.

Deals with how a minority faction should behave in a large political party.

It actually is about libertarians for Obama, but I'm not evangelizing here. I'm a bit sympathetic towards someone who realizes they're on the fringe of American politics and wonders what to do about it.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Arde5643 said:
Quick, someone show this poor soul the cartoon with the graphs between the presidents from Reagan to Bush Jr. on the deficit and surplus.

Protip: it's not the reps who are fiscal conservatives.
Did you read what I wrote? I basically acknowledge the fact that the Republicans have been terrible and not as fiscally conservative compared to their Democrat rivals. The thing is that Republicans say how they want smaller government and spend less money which I agree with and Democrats want to spend more money and want bigger government something I disagree with. It just so happens that the Democrats have historically been able to do more with less, but that doesn't mean I will stop wanting a candidate that does less for even less.
 

thekad

Banned
Hitokage said:
It's a variation of "She can see Russia next door."
To be fair, she has been heavily engaged in the (wrong side of) the energy debate. Plus, she was on the Oil & Gas Commission in Alaska. Energy expert may be an overstatement; oil champion would probably be the more apt title.
 

LuCkymoON

Banned
Mandark said:
mAcOdIn: A link you should check out.

Deals with how a minority faction should behave in a large political party.

It actually is about libertarians for Obama, but I'm not evangelizing here. I'm a bit sympathetic towards someone who realizes they're on the fringe of American politics and wonders what to do about it.
Wow... it was like I was in the twilight zone reading the comments on that page. i was expecting smh but it was intelligent and thoughtful. Well thats what I get for reading that religious zealot board first. =p

mAcOdIn said:
Did you read what I wrote? I basically acknowledge the fact that the Republicans have been terrible and not as fiscally conservative compared to their Democrat rivals. The thing is that Republicans say how they want smaller government and spend less money which I agree with and Democrats want to spend more money and want bigger government something I disagree with. It just so happens that the Democrats have historically been able to do more with less, but that doesn't mean I will stop wanting a candidate that does less for even less.

The why vote republican if you know they are saying one thing and doing another?
Over the past 28 years republicans have grown government more than the democrats.
 

Jak140

Member
mAcOdIn said:
Did you read what I wrote? I basically acknowledge the fact that the Republicans have been terrible and not as fiscally conservative compared to their Democrat rivals. The thing is that Republicans say how they want smaller government and spend less money which I agree with and Democrats want to spend more money and want bigger government something I disagree with. It just so happens that the Democrats have historically been able to do more with less, but that doesn't mean I will stop wanting a candidate that does less for even less.
Isn't it counterproductive for you to vote for the party that gives lip service to shrinking government, but actually expands it more than the opposing party? Seems like that would just encourage them to keep lying since you seem to be fine with them shitting on you as long as they say it's chocolate.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
I'll check out the link, we'll see. Not happy with either candidate so my vote still is in the air.


As for why I still skew Republican? Funny you ask. Because outside of what I call, hope is, fringe shit like gay marriage bans I actually support the majority of the platform. I want less government, less taxation and less spending. Well the Democrats flat out disagree with 2 of those. So on the face of it, I can't in good conscious agree with the Democrats.

Because the Republican party has traditionally been more irresponsible than the Democrats also doesn't really matter since that doesn't really say how well or bad either McCain or Obama would do if elected. So that's a non issue to me. I mean, it works on a statistical level but not on a personal level you know?

Further, just once I'd like to see a candidate deliver on their promises, just once. Us voting on what we think a candidate will do versus what they say is a dangerous precedent in my opinion. I think that basically they should be forced to deliver, if it fails it fails but at least it was put forth, and I frankly don't understand why Democrats aren't mad at the Democratic party for being so half-assed with their proposals as they sure as hell aint what you guys wanted either. It would be nice if there was a way to make a President accountable for what they say they will do versus what they actually try to do. I think lying to gain votes from special interest groups and shit like that should be illegal.


This time I really am fucked because McCain is basically staying just to the left of the Democrats which is really pissing me off because I think that if you are going to spend the money and make the program you should go all out on it. So if we are going to do shit like universal health care and all these other issues I disagree with, I at least want lots of money thrown at them and for them to be effective instead of joke bullet points some candidate gets approved for good marks that sucks ass and ends up being a pain in the ass for the average American. I mean, if we're going to go socialism at least go all the way I guess.
 

Boogie

Member
Mandark said:
PROTIP: Neocons and their war-loving brand of foreign interventionism aren't new developments in the Republican party.

See the Reagan administration and 1950's rightwing critics of containment.

I'm not sure how much current Republican foreign policy can be compared with Cold War foreign policy, considering how broad the anti-communist and interventionist sentiment was during the Cold War.
 
Jak140 said:
Isn't it counterproductive for you to vote for the party that gives lip service to shrinking government, but actually expands it more than the opposing party? Seems like that would just encourage them to keep lying since you seem to be fine with them shitting on you as long as they say it's chocolate.


The real logical position to take is that he shouldn't particpate in voting until the Republicans actually do what they say. (Since they don't) If you continue to vote Republican and then whine about Democrats then you have no leg to stand on.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Stoney Mason said:
The real logical position to take is that he shouldn't particpate in voting until the Republicans actually do what they say. (Since they don't)
Then no-one anywhere gets to vote.

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats may be more fiscally conservative but they still spend more than I want, take more than I want, and have several different issues I disagree with. So by the very nature of Obama being a Democrat I will not agree with him but if I'm lucky he might be a little more fiscally responsible on the Government side of things.

Ok, well, I guess that's not a total end of the world but I do choose my pick on a lot more than just fiscal responsibility as I assume everyone here does as well.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Jak140, LuCkymoON: mAcOdIn knows what he's doing.

While modern Republicans never make the tough decisions necessary to cut government, Obama and other liberal Democrats just have a different philosophy from him.

The best thing he can do is to consistently vote in primaries and general elections for the candidates that are closest to him ideologically. Voting for Obama wouldn't send a signal that fiscal conservatism is the way to win elections, which is the signal mAc should be trying to send.
 
mAcOdIn said:
Then no-one anywhere gets to vote.

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats may be more fiscally conservative but they still spend more than I want, take more than I want, and have several different issues I disagree with. So by the very nature of Obama being a Democrat I will not agree with him but if I'm lucky he might be a little more fiscally responsible on the Government side of things.

Ok, well, I guess that's not a total end of the world but I do choose my pick on a lot more than just fiscal responsibility as I assume everyone here does as well.

No the difference is that Democrats are being relatively true to their platform which isn't inherently based on the concept of shrinking goverment spending. As I mention above if you constantly vote for Republicans you are rewarding them for doing exactly what they said they wouldn't. Which continues to happen of course. Which is why Republicans keep lying about government spending and saying one thing and doing another. Not saying you should vote Democratic of course. Just saying your current vote is essentially wasted.

challenges01.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom