3150
3151

Scumbag Kansas (i.imgur.com)

mageganker が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Optimoprimo 117 ポイント118 ポイント  (47子コメント)

Sadly enough, admitting you need roads at all would deem you a RINO by this recent batch of conservativism.

[–]kks1236 119 ポイント120 ポイント  (46子コメント)

Which is why fiscal conservatives, like myself, have abandoned the republican party altogether. Things like corporate welfare and backwards social policy will destroy the republican party soon enough.

[–]MisterFanBlades 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (45子コメント)

As long as racism and religion exist, the Republican Party will exist.

[–]trinityolivas 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (44子コメント)

Minority, non religious republican checking in here, I'd say that on about 60% of social issues I agree with the left(gay marriage, immigration reform,women's rights) things that keep me voting red really boil down to liberty issues(2nd amendment, taxes, personal choice of things the government shouldn't have a say in. Not all Republicans are white, overweight, racist, and religious zealots. If independents were truly independent and posses a decent chance of winning my states senate seats or house seats they'd have my vote 100%. I say we make the libertarian party rise!!!

Edit- Grammar and punctuation... Sorry I'm driving and on mobile.

[–]ColossalJuggernaut 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I say we make the libertarian party rise!!!

Awesome! Are you willing to vote and support the Libertarian Party? You know, before it has a lot of support? Because many people who say they vote Republican, but are more Libertarian are essentially Republicans who don't want to catch the stank of that stigma.

[–]IBiteYou 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Because many people who say they vote Republican, but are more Libertarian are essentially Republicans who don't want to catch the stank of that stigma.

I am a Republican, but more conservative than some Republicans in some areas, and more liberal than some in others. It's not a monolithic bloc.

The issue with voting Libertarian is that if I do so in a general election, I take the vote away from the Republican ... and if enough people do this, the Democrat wins.

[–]just_plain_yogurt 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The Libertarian Party is a fucking joke. Source: I was a registered Libertarian for many years.

Crazy people will show up at your door & ask you to donate and/or show up at meetings.

The Libertarian philosophy is not well thought-out. AT ALL.

This would be the "I BUILT THIS" crowd. Yes, you built your company. But you did so because there were roads and laws and police and fire fighters and all that shit you don't want to pay for, you chiseling morons!

[–]IBiteYou -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm in between the "I Built this" and the "You didn't build that" folks.

[–]just_plain_yogurt 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Please elaborate.

If you build a company in this era, you're doing it on the taxpayer's dime. The roads, bridges, electric grid, etc, are all there due to the taxpayers. Hell, even the internet itself exists because of TAXPAYERS.

[–]IBiteYou -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you build a company in this era, you're doing it on the taxpayer's dime.

No. You are not. Not entirely. It is ridiculous to take the person/people who make the investment out of the picture. They ALSO pay taxes. Yes, they use some things that the taxpayers support, but they are ALSO taxpayers. They employ people and pay them.

[–]dashrendar 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You need to start voting independent before they "have a chance". That is the problem with America. Everyone wants to be apart of the "winning" team. Ignoring the fact that continuing with the two party system is causing us all to lose. I abandoned the Democratic party last presidential election. The only way things will change is if people stop voting for the big two. Maybe then we will get third party candidates in debates again, which hasn't happened since Ross Perot kicked Bill Clinton's and George H. W. Bush's ass in the last televised debate because everyone realized that the only one offering a real alternative was Perot and Bush and Clinton were essentially offering the same solutions just in slightly different shades of gray.

[–]trinityolivas 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I said a candidate that has a decent chance, like 20% support of the voting group during early polls that are several months out from the actually elections. Its a two way street though, its going to take support from people close to the middle on both party sides to make change happen. Right now though political parties are so polarizing that you are either a tea party member or Hillary Clinton supporter. Im willing to make that leap of faith but are you too?

[–]maxillo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sorry I'm driving and on mobile.

Well - that's not really socially responsible.

[–]trinityolivas 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ehh I liked the topic and wanted to contribute some discussion. Can't be perfect 100% of the time. PS I'm home now :)

[–]maxillo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well at least you made it home safe.

[–]awildslackerappeared 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (21子コメント)

Voting Republican for the second amendment is idiotic. At no point will "the left" work to ban guns outright.

Sure they may make it a slightly more difficult for the average asshole to have one but, I can't understand how making it harder for hot blooded assholes like me to have a gun is bad for you.

You're right not all republicans are white, racists and religious zealots. That's not the argument though. The argument is that some number approaching 100% of white, racists & religious zealots in the USA are republican.

[–]chiliedogg 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (9子コメント)

The reason gun nuts like me fight so hard against further restricting guns is because it really is a slippery slope. They banned assault rifles and said that was it and the NRA even supported it. Then they renamed scary-looking guns "assault weapons" to make them seem like assault rifles and banned them for a while.

We've learned that if you give a perfectly reasonable inch to the anti-gun lobby they'll demand a fucking mile. They don't want to compromise, so why should we?

[–]Droidball 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

No, no, no - they didn't ban assault rifles, they banned a bullshit, made-up class of firearms called assault weapons. The confusion with assault rifles is how it was sold to the ignorant public and many legislators.

Assault rifles are select-fire (read, capable of fully automatic or burst fire, i.e. more than one shot fired per trigger-pull) rifles chambered in an 'intermediate' cartridge (Such as 7.62x39mm, .308 Winchester, or .223 Remington). Assault rifles are extremely rare on the civilian market (No new ones manufactured for civilian sale since the 80's), extremely prohibitively priced (Upwards of $15,000+ - yes, fifteen thousand dollars - to start, easily), and the transfer/sale of them is extremely heavily regulated by the federal government, to the extent that they are all-but banned, and have been for almost a century.

Assault weapons are a bullshit, made-up class of firearms that consist of...Well...Anything that looks scary and can be called an 'assault weapon' - to include .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles (or pistols). Generally, this term is used to refer to basically any semi-automatic rifle that uses a detachable magazine, but it is such a meaningless and nebulous term that it has been applied to all manner of firearms to drum up fear and emotions in legislative or criminal settings, and to gain support for their restriction/ban, or just for the social shunning of people who own/use them.

EDIT: I'm an idiot and misread the post I'm replying to. The distinction between assault weapons and assault rifles is still an important one to note, if you're unaware that there was one, however.

[–]chiliedogg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

They did ban assault rifles. Then AWs were "invented" and they were briefly banned. Read my comment before disagreeing with the entire point of your fucking response.

[–]Droidball 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

My mistake, I jumped the gun a little.

Regardless, it's a clarification that every discussion such as this needs to have in it somewhere, for the sake of those who are unaware of the distinctions.

[–]chiliedogg 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair enough. Standing down.

[–]Nosfermarki 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

How can you so assuredly say that it's a slippery slope when the previous ban was lifted instead of expanded to include every firearm?

[–]chiliedogg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It was pulled because the pro-gun people stopped cooperating with the anti-gun folk after they got greedy following the Brady Bill and got the AWB passed before seeking legislation on other firearms. Assault rifles are still pretty much illegal.

Any assault rifle built in the last several decades is still illegal. For the assault rifles built before that you have to go through an expensive, often years-long process just for the license for that weapon, then fork over 15 grand or more for the rifle.

Assault Weapons are now legal again. The Brady Campaign invented the term in the 80s specifically (and admittedly) to confuse people into thinking normal rifles with a few cosmetic changes are weapons of war in order to get the public to support banning them.

The anti-gun lobbies absolutely want all guns to be illegal, and their publicly stated approach is to chip away at gun rights little by little. Outlaw a type of gun here, a magazine there, optics, ammo, whatever.

I do believe in sensible legislation, and I think we're mostly there. Assault Rifles are illegal for manufacture and sale in the United States and have been for nearly 80 years (the last US murder with one was in 1988 by a police officer using a department-issued gun).

Background checks do need to be improved. Right now they check against a list of people prhobitted from owning firearms, but don't verify the actual existence of the purchasing person, meaning fake IDs work 100 percent of the time.

But the reality is that people are very rarely killed with assault weapons, high-capacity mags, or with legally purchased weapons.

People are killed overwhelmingly with pistols, and the Supreme Court has already ruled specifically that we have a constitutional right to pistols and there's nothing to be done about that shy of changing the second amendment.

So the anti-gun folk are going after other weapons because pistols are off-limits and they gotta go after something.

[–]Nosfermarki 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The lobbies themselves may be for an all out ban, but you and I both know that they will never have the support to pull it off. The majority of Democrats I know are not for an all out ban, but improved legislation. Better background checks, fewer loopholes, etc. A lot of the regulations we have aren't being enforced in any meaningful way. There are a lot of things aside from banning anything that could improve the situation.

I would never advocate for banning anything, and truth be told there are more deaths by suicide than murder, I think focusing on mental health and economic equality will do more to solve our gun problem. Unfortunately many feel that any regulations simply pave the way for the government to simply collect rightfully owned firearms.

[–]just_plain_yogurt -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The NRA isn't what it once was. It used to be a sportsmen's club. It's been the lobbying arm of the firearms manufacturers for at least 25 years.

We've learned that if you give a perfectly reasonable inch to the anti-gun lobby they'll demand a fucking mile. They don't want to compromise, so why should we?

Get over yourself and your outdated/illogical opinions. The gun lobby still rules the USA.

I like guns. I own one. I don't like Sarah Brady's organization (HCI) anymore than I like the NRA. They're both a bunch of shitheads.

My message to the left is: Lobby Congress to amend the Constitution or STFU.

My message to the right would be to HONESTLY study gun violence in the USA & compare it with other first-world countries.

There's a compromise in there somewhere, if only our shitheel politicians can figure it out!

[–]Droidball 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can't compare America's crime problem or America's gun violence rates to the rest of the world, because America is such a unique situation, both in firearms availability and proliferation (Legally and otherwise), and the fact that we are a racial/cultural/religious/ethnic/national melting pot, with a long and sordid history that negatively impacts our society.

We truly do have unique circumstances - you can't compare us to France, Germany, Canada, Japan, South Korea, or any other first-world nation, for the sake of establishing precise parallels in this context.

Can it help you in studying things? Yes, but with regards to crime and gun violence, many of your broader conclusions are going to be erroneous as a result of our difference from those other nations.

What the left AND the right need to realize and accept is that private gun ownership has been skyrocketing over the last two decades, and crime in general has been plummeting to all-time record lows at the same time and for even longer.

That said, what the left AND the right still need to do is accept that we don't have a gun crime problem, we have a crime problem - and a large part of it is artificially manufactured and encouraged (directly or indirectly) through the bullshit War on Drugs.

[–]Droidball 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because what they will do is enact legislation that makes unreasonable and completely illogical, and absolutely pointless, restrictions on my liberties regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Stupid shit like an 'assault weapons ban', magazine capacity restrictions, banning of cosmetic features like telescoping/folding stocks, enlarging of or creation of more federally mandated 'gun free zones' - you know, for the children, etc.

On the more extreme end of the spectrum, there could even be things such as a banning or heavy restriction of modern 'armor piercing calibers' (Read: virtually any centerfire rifle cartridge designed in the last 80 years).

What you're missing is that it doesn't make it harder for 'hot blooded assholes like you' to have a gun. It provably doesn't. It makes it harder for level-headed and law-abiding assholes like me to have a gun.

It's like capitulating to a party that hates the First Amendment, because, well, there's no reason for you to need to look at politically inflammatory information on the internet in public spaces. Right? I mean, it's not like they're stopping you from exercising your right to read this info, they just don't want you doing it in public. Oh, and they're also going to mandate that when you look at this information in the privacy of your own home, like the political nut you are, that you only do so in 800x600 resolution. Because feelings and reasons.

[–]trinityolivas 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Idiotic to you maybe, but to me its a fine line, and until the Bloomberg's of the world stop injecting millions to pass ridiculous laws that only hurt law abiding citizens and does nothing against preventing criminals from doing their will, I won't vote Democrat sorry.

[–]awildslackerappeared 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to convince you to vote democrat. They're just a bunch of wishy washy apologists...

Still, I don't think the line is that fine, personally. And by your logic, there shouldn't be drug laws or traffic laws. Just more infringement on personal freedoms, rabble rabble rabble.

I know what you're going to say: but second amendment. Changes nothing.

[–]trinityolivas 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Still, I don't think the line is that fine, personally.

Personally, I do. Opinions my man, all of us have our own.

[–]awildslackerappeared 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes sir!

Opinions are like ass.... Stop me if you've heard this one. :p

[–]dashrendar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The difference between Republican racists and Democrat racists are Republicans are out with their racism. Democrats are closet racists (not all of course just like not all Republicans are racist). Shockingly there are racists in both parties, one is just a little more open with it.

[–]Vio_ -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

"Not just both sides, but the Democrats ARE MORE RACIST! than the Republicans!!! I mean, at least the GOP is honest about their racism."

[–]Droidball 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well, it comes down to which is worse - the racism that hates someone for their skin color and treats them like criminals by default because of it, or the racism that pities them and treats them as bumbling children who are incapable of making intelligent decisions?

Republicans hate brown people, because they're all murderers, thugs, or job-stealing illegals. Oh, well, except my one black friend that I have, or that guy that lives down the street from me, he's not one of THOSE brown people, he's a good one!

Democrats pity brown people, because they're shit on by the system and disadvantaged, and thus can't be trusted to know what's best for them, ever, even on an individual basis. Even that black guy I work with - well, he's educated and stuff, but he's still just less fortunate because he's a black.

[–]Vio_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes... that's exactly how it breaks down. The GOP are racists, but the liberals have white man's burden. There's no other way to understand how this works as long as you only frame it within those two strictures.

[–]Droidball 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was merely elaborating, because your initial response sounded like you were being sarcastic to illustrate that one party is more/less racist than the other.

If that wasn't the case, I apologize.

[–]jazaniac -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

right. It's the square-rectangle argument. While not all republicans are racist, homophobic, religious zealots, all racist, homophobic, religious zealots are republican.

[–]Jrook 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Republicans = religious racists, defined by greed

Libertarians = non religious racists, defined by apathy.

[–]trinityolivas 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Democrats= perfect? Please. Rev Jesse Jackson and All Sharpton thrive on keeping racism alive. Don't bunch people in together based on their voting groups. I also find it hypocritical that you're throwing the term racist around pretty loosely considering you're obviously prejudice against anyone who doesn't mimic your political beliefs.

[–]Jrook 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Democrats is bad because 2 black dudes are racist mkay

[–]scobot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For god's sake pull over to type, the world needs more like you not fewer ;)

[–]kawaiigardiner 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

personal choice of things the government shouldn't have a say in

And yet you vote for the Republicans who want to tell women what they can and can't do with their body, whether LGBT can get married, whether weed should be legal given the midnight deal to overturn legalised weed in Washington DC as part of the budget compromise. Lets not get started on 'independent' when you have talking heads on Fox claim they're independent yet vote Republican every single f-cking election. Reminds me of 'the worm' and in one election over in New Zealand where, as one politician from NZ First pointed out, they were undecided non-National Party voters which says something about how truly undecided the audience actually are.

[–]trinityolivas 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Did you read my post about not siding with those political points? I'm sorry I can't cherry pick my political candidates any more then you can. Do you have a list of all the democratic senators who receive lobbying funds from big corporations and get huge contributions from billionaire superpacs? Because I'm sure those candidates go against liberal values but you probably still voted for them.

[–]kawaiigardiner 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, but this is what you stated:

things that keep me voting red really boil down to liberty issues personal choice of things the government shouldn't have a say in.

So you keep voting for Republicans because they do the exact opposite of the list of things you put in the brackets in your prior post? I can understand not voting for Democrats because of nanny-statism but voting for Republicans who have they own moral crusade and yet claim you vote for the Republicans because 'personal choice of things the government shouldn't have a say in.' doesn't make any sense.

[–]maxToTheJ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

personal choice of things the government shouldn't have a say in

Aren't republicans the ones always trying to legislate the bedroom and trying to pass English only laws.

[–]duuuuumb -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thank god you cleared that up, here I thought literally every single republican was a racist homo hating jesus freak.

[–]trinityolivas 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well I do like the thought of Christianity and what the ideals are but I personally feel it's so skewed to serve modern purposes its completely opposite of the true meaning of Jesus Christ.

[–]duuuuumb 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You sound like every republican I've ever met.