Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Why I'm voting Republican

m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 11:06:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 11:02:55 AM, Caramel wrote:
some of these are pretty funny



I'm voting republican so the flag doesn't fall off of my cupcake.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 5:31:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 5:23:29 PM, jharry wrote:
If you liked that one you will love this one.

OP was better, but both were poorly written.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 5:45:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
HA HA Funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 6:24:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm voting Republican because I want the Stewarts back on the throne. Down with the Hannovers! Bring back Prince Charlie! Remember the battle of Culloden!!!
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 7:14:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 6:24:27 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Wait, wrong war.

Sorry.

All is forgiven just hail the Fuhrer.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:15:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So it's supposed to be a point of satire to not banish a store just because it is successful, to not ban people from deciding for themselves what drugs to take (lemme get this straight, the Democrats are advertising that they want to expand the drug war, and kill people whose only hope of survival may be to take a chance on a new drug that takes a while to test, correct?), that somehow despite that being a point of satire refusal to let women specifically make decisions about their own bodies is also a point of satire....

I didn't get the memo that "separate but equal" is a Republican position or has been for half a century either.

"The constitution is just one big inconvenient headache" could be used to parody the parodizers without a change in wording :P.

Mentioned a "future draftee"-- yeah, I'm pretty sure Chuck Rangel is a Democrat, not a Republican.

The parody of Dems sucked too-- "Voting democrat because he doesn't believe in public schools?" Um, the Dems are renowned for utter faith in those schools-- and the unions of their employees. It's the Repubs who try to make them less (if still) public, and stepping away from that like this is not only moronic, it pisses me off :P.

Calling democrats elitist is also stupid for an anti-welfare party, or anyone really :P.

Oh, and newsflash, the Repubs had a female vice pres nominee, not a female pres nominee. Maybe if it was the Hillary crowd running the parody they'd have an excuse, except then they couldn't parody "Democrats."

The parody of Dems did have less substance, which is why it had slightly fewer glaring areas of moronic parodizer.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:37:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 9:15:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So it's supposed to be a point of satire to not banish a store just because it is successful, to not ban people from deciding for themselves what drugs to take (lemme get this straight, the Democrats are advertising that they want to expand the drug war, and kill people whose only hope of survival may be to take a chance on a new drug that takes a while to test, correct?), that somehow despite that being a point of satire refusal to let women specifically make decisions about their own bodies is also a point of satire....

I didn't get the memo that "separate but equal" is a Republican position or has been for half a century either.

"The constitution is just one big inconvenient headache" could be used to parody the parodizers without a change in wording :P.

Mentioned a "future draftee"-- yeah, I'm pretty sure Chuck Rangel is a Democrat, not a Republican.

The parody of Dems sucked too-- "Voting democrat because he doesn't believe in public schools?" Um, the Dems are renowned for utter faith in those schools-- and the unions of their employees. It's the Repubs who try to make them less (if still) public, and stepping away from that like this is not only moronic, it pisses me off :P.

Calling democrats elitist is also stupid for an anti-welfare party, or anyone really :P.

Oh, and newsflash, the Repubs had a female vice pres nominee, not a female pres nominee. Maybe if it was the Hillary crowd running the parody they'd have an excuse, except then they couldn't parody "Democrats."

The parody of Dems did have less substance, which is why it had slightly fewer glaring areas of moronic parodizer.

I agree. I was just thought it would be fun to get both sides in there. I think both parties are full of crap. Still waiting for a real party. Until then one can only vote for the ones that best represent your beliefs.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:54:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm voting democrat because they seem to want to spend even more than republicans. I prefer the fast track to insolvency. The republicans were happy to let the country die a slow death.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 7:01:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ragnar wrote: "Calling democrats elitist..."

From what I can tell this was started by Rush Limbaugh (I could be wrong) in an effort to label the dems the "real" rich and powerful, because he loathes that the working man still associates the Republican party to big brother. He makes desperate differentiations in nearly every show to make it seem that conservatives are "earned" money while the establishment is more of the royal family/born into money type of thing. Where as someone like I would just see money vs. no money, he is trying to establish a different dichotomy in which it is instead earned money vs. aristocratic family money.
no comment
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 7:51:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That video almost had me kicked out of the house cause mom saw it and thought I was republican. Apparently she'd rather me be pregnant and gay than a republican.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 11:40:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/6/2010 7:01:36 AM, Caramel wrote:
Ragnar wrote: "Calling democrats elitist..."

From what I can tell this was started by Rush Limbaugh (I could be wrong) in an effort to label the dems the "real" rich and powerful, because he loathes that the working man still associates the Republican party to big brother. He makes desperate differentiations in nearly every show to make it seem that conservatives are "earned" money while the establishment is more of the royal family/born into money type of thing. Where as someone like I would just see money vs. no money, he is trying to establish a different dichotomy in which it is instead earned money vs. aristocratic family money.

I think you nailed it. Repubs and libertarians tend to be in favor of earning money versus having it handed to you by willing parents or unwilling tax payers.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2010 9:40:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/6/2010 7:01:36 AM, Caramel wrote:
Ragnar wrote: "Calling democrats elitist..."

From what I can tell this was started by Rush Limbaugh (I could be wrong) in an effort to label the dems the "real" rich and powerful, because he loathes that the working man still associates the Republican party to big brother. He makes desperate differentiations in nearly every show to make it seem that conservatives are "earned" money while the establishment is more of the royal family/born into money type of thing. Where as someone like I would just see money vs. no money, he is trying to establish a different dichotomy in which it is instead earned money vs. aristocratic family money.

To my knowledge, such a distinction does exist, but they're not divided by political party.

Most money is old money, because it's not that easy to make millions and it's not that easy to spend it, either.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2010 9:42:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/6/2010 7:51:52 AM, lovelife wrote:
That video almost had me kicked out of the house cause mom saw it and thought I was republican. Apparently she'd rather me be pregnant and gay than a republican.

"almost had you kicked out"?

Did she call security?