(Sorry, had to split the title becaue it was too long ).

Not really a serious, full-out debate, so I put it in null... Ok, I'ma try and make this subject humorous and fail miserably, here I go:

In the very very right corner, we have our champion! - 8 of arguably the worst years in US history, the Patriot Act, and historic amounts of corruption under their favorite president! Iran-Contra, Watergate, 9/11! Put your hands together for... the Republican Party!


And our contestant, just chillin' out in the middle of the ring, brings to the fight a spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship, always ready to compromise with the enemy! Vietnam, NAFTA! An inch of progress in a century, if that, we have... the Democrat Party!


WHO WILL WIN?



Hehe. Man, I really need to improve on my imagery skills... but anyway, folks, you get the idea.

Is it morally ok to vote for either party, since the Democrats are conservative while the Republicans are borderline fascist? How do you feel knowing that you can either vote for fresh shit or decayed shit, or else have your vote have little to no effect?

???

Both parties are inexplicably evil and must be treated as such. There is no return from the abyss; once you vote either way, there is no redemption. The moral vacuum that comprises these two parties is one that destroys any semblance of humanity. Democrats, especially, with their communist ways and unpatriotic gestures, must be reviled; Republicans, at least, despite fighting for unbelievably selfish and evil causes, have accomplished much good in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Yes, Leeroy, Democrats are approximately equivalent to the "Conservative Party"s of other nations elsewhere.

And Centeri, I hope you were being sarcastic with the "communist ways" and "acommplished much good in the Middle East" comments .
Just in case: The democrats are NOT communist. Not even the most liberal of them come close to communism. They are in favor of regulated capitalism with giveaways to appease the corporatists, which is bad.
The Republicans have done much BAD in the Middle East. For example, they overthrew a stable, native regime in Iraq that tortured it's citizens and squelched terrorist factions with... an instable, American regime that ALSO tortured the native population.

EDIT: Whoever reported me, I laugh at you. If you are seriously offended by me, I pity you. I used to be like that, constantly offended by things I didn't agree with, until I learned that I too could assert myself.
EDIT2: Maybe it's the fascist remark. If you don't believe that Republicans are fascist, come out and say so like... er, a mature person. I say the Republicans are fascist. Details:
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
The republicans pride themselves on being very patriotic, they do. Flags aren't EVERYWHERE yet, but republicans do have a tendency to obsess over the flag (for instance, they were the ones who almost passed a constitutional ammendment to criminalize "desecration" of the flag).
Patriot Act, wiretapping, Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo.
I think this one's pretty explicit; that list of perceived common threats matches the enemies of the Republican Party perfectly - communists, socialists, liberals, and terrorists.
Should be pretty obvious. Reagan and both of the Bush's loved the military.
The Republican Party is officially against abortion, homosexuality, and it is decidedly "pro-family," which refers to the traditional morality standards.
As far as I know, this one isn't common. One could argue that Fox News would qualify, but it is a private corporation, not part of the government, so no.
Again, pretty obvious. And yes, fear was used as a motivational tool - remember how Bush's ratings shot up directly after 9/11?
Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Also, they almost got a constitutional ammendment passed that would have legalized school prayer.
One could argue that the Republicans are the corporatist party. Of course, the "bailout" idea that Bush started and Obama continued could also be viewed as an example of this trait.
Can't think of any specific examples, but if I recall correctly, the republicans are decidedly pro-management, and believe that the working class is in it's place because it deserves to be there.
This describes American culture in general, not just the Republican Party.
While we obviously don't have a national police force with unlimited power, we do have officers that abuse their power, such as in this case: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/pregnant_woman_tasered/#ixzz0jye0Jjf2
http://www.jesusnorepublican.org/Reagan
This trait we DON'T have just yet, although you could argue that the "ballot access" laws that are designed to prevent third parties from coming to power are an example of this, which would incriminate both parties.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 5 2010, 10:53 pm by Jesusfreak.

... Okay, why would it be immoral to vote for the candidate that is better for you? Voting democrat is better for the poor, voting republican is better for the rich. Where does morality come in?

Also, I really doubt anyone would be 'offended' by you; rather, they'd think you are either trolling or being stupid.

If you want to view voting in that way, I won't stop you. However, I've always thought that people should vote for who they believe is best for the country, and not themselves. Not to mention that the people benefitting from Republican policies are very few; most vote Republican due to misinformation. And deliberately feeding someone misinformation is definitely immoral.

And trolling? Hah, this thread has at least as much substance as the average null thread.

You've done it! I see it all now! Republicans are corrupt fascists! Of course!

Even though Republicans support small government, low taxation, equal rights (meaning biased towards noone; democrats seem to be biased towards minorities), and democracy.
Republicans help corporations because corporations create jobs. AND GUESS WHAT HOLY SHIT I BET MOST PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYED BY CORPORATIONS LOLOLOL
You can never stop police corruption, or any corruption for that matter.
And are you kidding? The Republican party supports working-class people. I don't really see how lower taxes hurts anyone.
Every leader makes people he likes help him. That's not just Republicans.
When people want to kill us, and have, I support a military to protect us.
Obama hasn't stopped the Patriot Act, nor Guantanamo.
And are you explicitly saying we shouldn't be patriotic? Wtf?

I conclude you are trolling hardd.

Well you have to vote for someone. If you don't vote for anyone at all you're pretty much an anarchist and that's not getting anyone anywhere.

Is it morally acceptable to eat a cheeseburger? But that poor cow! You should've ate a salad instead.
If you're going to morally question everything you do then you might as well jump off a bridge cause you're already breaking morals left and right. Of course you should always strive for the best choice but the moral choice is not always the best choice.

Plus if your seriously putting down republicans and democrats saying their both crappy then you might as well criticize the communist party since your so interested in it.

Republicans in the past and present have NEVER represented "small government" in anything other than words.
Low taxation for the rich, maybe. Republicans have raised taxes for other groups, under the faulty pretext that "the rich create jobs." This idea is faulty because THE RICH ALREADY HAVE MONEY. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CALLED "RICH." What makes you think they'll magically start investing their money and open new jobs if you just give them MORE money? (Note: The democrats are guilty of falling for this idea also)
The republicans do not represent equal rights, and the democrats do not either. Republicans discriminate by socioeconomic class and unofficially by religion, and by race in some extreme sects; democrats by race.
I sense you are mocking me, and doing a very immature job at it too. YES, MOST PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYED BY CORPORATIONS. THAT IS NOT GOOD.
Corporations don't "create" jobs, workers DO jobs FOR them so they can profit. If someone decides not to hire more workers because it wouldn't be profitableto do so, handing him money, either through bailouts or taxes, won't change the fact that it isn't profitable to hire workers.
True, but blatantly encouraging it is bad, and we CAN take measures to help stop it (like, you know, actually watching the people in charge).
[quoteAnd are you kidding? The Republican party supports working-class people. I don't really see how lower taxes hurts anyone.[/quote]
They support UPPER-class people. Again, the Republicans focus their tax breaks on the rich. Did you even read through the link on the last point? It's long, yes, but somewhere it mentions Reagan's 60% tax increase on the working class.
And, in speaking of taxes, the Republican favor a regressive tax. The idea is that if everyone pays a flat percentage in income tax, plus a sales tax, they'll all be equal. It sounds good in principle, but leaves out the fact that emphasis on the sales tax puts the weight of taxation on those who live from paycheck to paycheck, while those who hoard money instead of spend it don't pay as much. Also, if we relied too much on sales tax, as the Republican "FairTax" would have us, a black market would develop, allowing people in-the-know to circumvent taxes entirely.
Ok. How is this relevant to any of my points? (No, really, answer it. My memory occassionally fails me, or I may have missed something.)
Indeed, except that the Soviet Union wasn't nearly as much of a threat as Reagan made it out to be (as the article I linked to describes), and the modern war in Iraq is futile and making things worse. For one thing, as I said above, our invasion of Iraq effectively replaced a stable, human-rights-abusing regime with an instable, human-rights-abusing regime. Also, none of the hijackers involved in 9/11 were from Iraq. Iraq was, at best, a distraction from the War on Terror.
Also, I believe that when you want to defend, you defend, not attack, especially when you don't know exactly where the attacker is coming from.
Hence supporting my point that democrats are also do-nothing pushovers at best, and possibly collaborators in "Republican" corruption at worst.
Yes, I am, obsessive patriotism is very bad, especially when it is BLIND patriotism. One shoud at least know what America stands for before saying the pledge, for example, but no, brainwash children into saying it anyway, eh?

I conclude the same of you, good sir.

For the record, I am being completely serious here. I tried to make a humorous atmosphere in the OP, but obviously this turned into a heated debate rather fast, no?
I am a self-proclaimed far-left extremist, communist (well, libertarian socialist, more accurately), and anti-status quo radical, and proud of it.

Good point. To be quite honest, I don't know much about the official Communist Party USA. I've seen their website a couple times, however, and it seems they are pro-Obama. I have a feeling I'd be too radical for them XD.

EDIT: This topic reminds me... I really need to change my name, lol. But I only get one name-change, and I'm afraid that if I change my ideology again, I'll be stuck with another name that doesn't fit me. Heh, it seems highly unlikely at this point that I'll ever be non-leftist, but I would have said the same thing about Christianity a year ago...

The President does not have the constitutional power to strike down laws. He can only veto them as they're being passed, not once they've been legislated. There's absolutely nothing he can do to affect the Patriot Act except convene Congress.

True, but the democratic congress should have been able to get them repealled, if I remember the procedures of repealing a law correctly. It requires 60% of congress to repeal a law, right? We had that at one point, before Ted Kennedy died, I think. The fact that even one democrat was in favor of the Patriot Act speaks volumes.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Guantanomo done by executive order, and therefore could be removed by executive order?

I'm an extreme leftist. I just defend people from idiots. I believe in extreme social leftism, but economic conservatism, which means less government interference. Government should protect us and that's it.

Jesusfreak, you're such a complete idiot that I feel sorry for your mother for you having climbed out of her cesspool of a womb and entered the world.

Quote from Vrael

Quote

Obama hasn't stopped the Patriot Act, nor Guantanamo.

The President does not have the constitutional power to strike down laws. He can only veto them as they're being passed, not once they've been legislated. There's absolutely nothing he can do to affect the Patriot Act except convene Congress.

He also has no power to create them, but that didn't stop Obama, now did it?

When I clicked this thread, I thought I knew who would lie where. I figured the majority would say politicians are unalterably corrupt, not the 50% that say so. Upon reading, I found the OP to be highly democratic, and even further evidenced by following posts.

Our Democrats aren't completely liberal, true, but among non-communist nations, they are among the most liberal. Obama is screaming towards socialism, and you're trying to say our Democrats are conservative? America, as a whole, is FAR more liberal than conservative, compared to what it used to be. I'm not talking about economic policies, because only half of you seem to even begin to think someone can be a "Democrat" on economic issues (AKA better policies, more lower-class benefits, etc) and a "Republican" for social issues (AKA anti-abortion, pro-death, etc).

I'm a libertarian (meaning less government in social life) and a conservative (meaning less regulation of businesses). Basically, I want the government to get the fuck out. Sadly, it can't. It has to play Big Brother and make sure everyone in the sandbox that is Big Brother's domain is behaving nicely, according to rules that sometimes have little or no importance.

TL;DR: This is a troll topic, and I intend to treat it as such.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 6 2010, 12:59 am by poison_us.

Gee, that's not flame-baiting at all . I shouldn't even respond to this, but I'm going to anyway because I'm naive and think you might actually listen.

You aren't an extreme leftist if you believe in economic conservatism, you are a rightist. From you're description, you're a right-wing libertarian, which means you're a capitalist that believes people have rights. Good job, you're better than both of our major political parties, but you're still not a leftist, unless you're going by the archaic single-axis scale.
"Leftist" nowadays refers specifically to economic standing, whereas social standing is up/down on the graph, labelled Authoritarian/Libertarian, respectively. I am a Left Libertarian, and I believe that big business is just as oppressive as big government.

Pity, I actually thought you knew what you were talking about before you edited your post .

Frankly, if you think America is far more liberal than conservative, either you're lying or more likely, you've been misinformed. Or I've been misinformed. Tell me then: How is America, in any sense of the word, "liberal"?

Now, I have studying to do. I will be back tommorow (or in a couple hours, if I get time) to explain how the democrats are conservative. Make sure I remember.
And, for the record, I voted for the "both are corrupt scumbags" option, I don't know who voted "it's ok to vote democrat but not republican."

EDIT: I'm back! Gosh, nothing gets me riled up like reading my American Government textbook .

Now where was I... oh, yes:

I don't believe Obama is socialist. He's more of a corporatist. If he was a socialist, his handouts would have had strings attached. So far as I know, most of the bailed-out companies got off free of charge afterwards. Also, in social terms, the democratic party is approximately equivalent to Canada's Conservative Party. Depending on you viewpoint, this may say more about Canada than it does America, but I find it troubling that my political ideology isn't anywhere close to represented in US politics.
Take, for example, the fact that Obama is not vehemently against the death penalty.
Or, that he seems to have no interest in gay rights.
Some Democrats are against abortion rights, last I heard.
Now, you may say, "Those things don't make him not liberal, he's just not as liberal as you, you stupid pinko troll!" But I say that it depends on your perspective of right and wrong. Say, this is just a random example with no bearing to reality, that 35% of Democrats are against giving homosexuals the right to marry. Now, you may say, "Holy shit, that means that 65% are in FAVOR of gay marriage!" I say that that 35% is disturbing, especially since at least 90% (this number is probably accurate) of the Republicans currently in office are against gay marriage.
Now, you could say, that having a "liberal" majority makes them a "liberal" party. However, "liberal" is a matter of perspective, which is why I put it in quotation marks. To me, the fact that gays should have the right to marry is completely and utterly obvious, and anyone who disagrees with me is violating a basic human right. An example of this mindset would be, if, say, 40% of a party was in favor of slavery. Would you say, "Oh, that's alright, 60% of them are against slavery," or would you say "HOLY SHIT, 40% of those guys are in favor of SLAVERY?!?" Of course, by the American definition of "moderate," that is, being in between the two sides, this fictitious party would be considered "moderate" in a technical sense. However, most people would find the idea of supporting slavery revolting, and by now, being a hard-core abolitionist is the norm. It will be similar with these other issues in the future.

Wait a minute... sorry, that discussion was a bit of a tangent. TL;DR version: When a substantial minority of a group is against your interests, or when a group is against some of your interests, you don't register the group as being in favor of your interests.

After all the insults I hurl at the Democrat Party, I find this surprising. I have consistently stated, or at least implied, that the Democrats are nothing more than the obvious lesser of two evils, which says a lot about the choices we have. Frankly, I'm quite surprised at some of the responses here that indicate a disagreement on this issue.

I find it amusing that almost everyone posting on this thread has posted little contribution to the topic, with many of them even hurling personal insults against me, and then those same people promptly accuse me of trolling.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 6 2010, 3:34 am by Jesusfreak.

Quote from Jesusfreak

Or I've been misinformed. Tell me then: How is America, in any sense of the word, "liberal"?

Quote from poison_us

America, as a whole, is FAR more liberal than conservative, compared to what it used to be.

Lemme say that again:

Quote from poison_us

compared to what it used to be.

Quote from Jesusfreak

I voted for the "both are corrupt scumbags" option,

At least we can agree on something.

[deleted]

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:51 am by DavidJCobb. Reason: this wasn't productive

People who think that the current system needs to be less steeped in parties and more open to the people need to come out to California and see how fucked up things get when you let masses of people run a government through the proposition system.

I have edited my previous post... heh, did you think I was kidding when I said I woud be back?

Anyway, I can agree with some of the comments that have been posted since I last checked by.
Ah, alright.

Again, it is a matter of perspective. I say that we are not liberal enough; you say we are too liberal, it seems. It is a half-empty/half-full situation; unless total fullness is achieved, one will always see the parts that aren't filled.
For example, you might look at Obama and say his bailouts are too far left, because giving money to certain businesss certainly isn't a "hands off" laissez-faire idea. I, on the other hand, say it is too far right, because it is distinctly pro-business, and corporatism is the natural result of capitalism, similar to how theocracy is the result of fundamentalism. The way I see it, the changes you want to see are far-right extremist and will make this country even worse, and the way you see it, the changes I want to see are far-left extremist and will make this country even worse, and neither of us will be happy as long as the other gets an inch of their way.
However, we both agree (assuming this example is accurate of reality) that the bailouts weren't a good idea, and therefore, the democratic party wasn't representing our interests.
See what I mean?