Because they're apt to be antidemocratic theocrats once they get into power. I'd think the same thing of Christian Dominionists if that ever happened here.
That's a brain-dead lie. About half the country pays no federal income tax. They still pay state (and sometimes local) income tax. They still pay sales tax. Property tax. Gasoline tax. Social Security. Medicare. Other taxes.
Get your facts straight, else you won't be taken seriously.
The point is that it's stupid to claim that the majority of a party are not the real party, ideology be damned. The romantic part of me is/sympathetic/ to the idea - gods know I want the Dems to get some balls and be "real liberals", but realistically...
You want me to believe it, fine. Get actual "republicans" elected, who aren't hawks or social conservatives. You've got history against you, though; the teabaggers haven't been too successful (not that I believe this was their true goal), and also our broken political system that ends up giving two bad choices in general elections, plus nobodies that people won't vote for because they won't win anyway (self-fulfilling prophecy).
In the past couple years, the fiscal conservatives are the dupes who've been gulled into voting for the plutocrats. Same pattern as with the social conservatives, but they're not sharp enough to notice that the GOP's been leading the evangelicals on for thirty years without actually giving them what they want.
It'd be more in keeping with Occam's Razor to say that/you/ are the fake Republican.
Seriously. You can't claim that the entire fucking national party is "fake"; they may not have your principles (or indeed many principles at all) but it's asinine to say that they're all fake. It's more like you think you're a Republican and so they should be like you.
This is true. However, I'm not sure I'd be a good politician were I elected. I might be better than the turds we have now, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily a good choice overall.
This 'merkin is just as mystified as you are. I don't see the necessary connection either, especially in a party that's not particularly fiscally conservative anyway (at least not when in the majority).
Thanks to our fucked-up political system (and because of mass hysteria), we're basically stuck with two parties, forever.
I think you'll find that this isn't so pervasive over on the other team. It's there, yes, and frankly obnoxious, but not as systematized and echoed by the commentariat.
It's because of our broken-ass political system. You end up with extremists[1] in the primary because that's what gets the base out to vote, and then in the general election you've got 1) an extremist who agrees with you on most hot-button issues, and 2) a moderate who your side has painted as extremist, agrees with you on a few things, but not on "big" items.
tl;dr: you've only got two choices, both are bad, and you hold your nose and vote for the less bad.
[1] Obviously this is more a problem with the Republicans. The Dems are not liberal, they're centrist and have been moving to the center since about the time of Reagan. Genuine liberals in the Party are few. The Republicans have been moving further and further right since the early '90s if not earlier.
Look, it's probably not possible to convince you, but let's try: look at those comments on the page you linked. Look at your comments. Count the number of loaded words.
Consider why people are using words that provoke an emotional reaction rather than reasoning, why they assume the Other is out to get them.
As to what I said about conservatives and their clannishness? It's a true fact. Psychologically speaking, conservatives tend more towards people who are of the tribe, to authority, to those like themselves, to policies that benefit people like themselves. It's part of what makes them what they are.
. How about writing to your reps instead of commenting on a movement you most likely have no actual experience with beyond your TV and radio.
I do this, but sigh. It's hard to keep motivated when most of them will ignore me and do the opposite of what I ask. It's a natural consequence of living in a very conservative area, but it's still aggravating, especially when the "liberal" (hah) party reps do it as well.
Technically it wasn't the Tea Party back then, you lot were just Ron Paul supporters. Tea Party proper didn't get set up until around the time Obama was elected, which was of course convenient for obvious reasons.
I was there, having voted for Paul in my state's primary.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be samzenpus, but it's not like any other Slashdot editor would have done better.
Because the common person doesn't know anything about Bitcoin, hence there's no trust. Trust is of paramount importance in any monetary system.
Oh, so this is another "google is evil!" non-story that the editors didn't bother to fact-check, but is good for driving page hits.
This never happened before Taco left.
Just seconds behind the first person to use that joke. Maybe if you didn't use Tor...
Vinson? Teddy Roosevelt?
Them and Reagan got carriers for political reasons.
Nimitz isn't traditional.
Traditional is naming carriers after battles (also stinging insects), not after people.
Health care's been an issue since forever, long before the current occupant was elected.
Because they're apt to be antidemocratic theocrats once they get into power. I'd think the same thing of Christian Dominionists if that ever happened here.
Half the country pays no taxes
That's a brain-dead lie. About half the country pays no federal income tax. They still pay state (and sometimes local) income tax. They still pay sales tax. Property tax. Gasoline tax. Social Security. Medicare. Other taxes.
Get your facts straight, else you won't be taken seriously.
I'm entirely aware that it's a pubic wig. As the kids say, I did it for the lulz.
You are biased. One needs only to look at your hyperbolic comments and your signature.
You've got no credibility, chummy.
The point is that it's stupid to claim that the majority of a party are not the real party, ideology be damned. The romantic part of me is /sympathetic/ to the idea - gods know I want the Dems to get some balls and be "real liberals", but realistically...
You want me to believe it, fine. Get actual "republicans" elected, who aren't hawks or social conservatives. You've got history against you, though; the teabaggers haven't been too successful (not that I believe this was their true goal), and also our broken political system that ends up giving two bad choices in general elections, plus nobodies that people won't vote for because they won't win anyway (self-fulfilling prophecy).
Also Communists who want to take their guns away.
I'm not making that up, actually.
In the past couple years, the fiscal conservatives are the dupes who've been gulled into voting for the plutocrats. Same pattern as with the social conservatives, but they're not sharp enough to notice that the GOP's been leading the evangelicals on for thirty years without actually giving them what they want.
And there you go with the name calling again. "Marxist"? "Conspiracist"? Seriously.
That's fair.
However, it's still asinine to say that they're somehow fake.
It'd be more in keeping with Occam's Razor to say that /you/ are the fake Republican.
Seriously. You can't claim that the entire fucking national party is "fake"; they may not have your principles (or indeed many principles at all) but it's asinine to say that they're all fake. It's more like you think you're a Republican and so they should be like you.
This is true. However, I'm not sure I'd be a good politician were I elected. I might be better than the turds we have now, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily a good choice overall.
This 'merkin is just as mystified as you are. I don't see the necessary connection either, especially in a party that's not particularly fiscally conservative anyway (at least not when in the majority).
Thanks to our fucked-up political system (and because of mass hysteria), we're basically stuck with two parties, forever.
I think you'll find that this isn't so pervasive over on the other team. It's there, yes, and frankly obnoxious, but not as systematized and echoed by the commentariat.
I'll take Devil's Advocate here:
It's because of our broken-ass political system. You end up with extremists[1] in the primary because that's what gets the base out to vote, and then in the general election you've got 1) an extremist who agrees with you on most hot-button issues, and 2) a moderate who your side has painted as extremist, agrees with you on a few things, but not on "big" items.
tl;dr: you've only got two choices, both are bad, and you hold your nose and vote for the less bad.
[1] Obviously this is more a problem with the Republicans. The Dems are not liberal, they're centrist and have been moving to the center since about the time of Reagan. Genuine liberals in the Party are few. The Republicans have been moving further and further right since the early '90s if not earlier.
Look, it's probably not possible to convince you, but let's try: look at those comments on the page you linked. Look at your comments. Count the number of loaded words.
Let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_word
Consider why people are using words that provoke an emotional reaction rather than reasoning, why they assume the Other is out to get them.
As to what I said about conservatives and their clannishness? It's a true fact. Psychologically speaking, conservatives tend more towards people who are of the tribe, to authority, to those like themselves, to policies that benefit people like themselves. It's part of what makes them what they are.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2002/03/22/i-hate-your-politics/
. How about writing to your reps instead of commenting on a movement you most likely have no actual experience with beyond your TV and radio.
I do this, but sigh. It's hard to keep motivated when most of them will ignore me and do the opposite of what I ask. It's a natural consequence of living in a very conservative area, but it's still aggravating, especially when the "liberal" (hah) party reps do it as well.
Technically it wasn't the Tea Party back then, you lot were just Ron Paul supporters. Tea Party proper didn't get set up until around the time Obama was elected, which was of course convenient for obvious reasons.
I was there, having voted for Paul in my state's primary.
Hey, nice name calling. Also, I reject your assertion about the will of the majority.
If you had an argument, I'm confident you'd have used that instead of going for ad homs, so I'm going to feel free to ignore you now.