I Vote Democrat because ...10. I believe oil companies' 4% profits on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
9. I believe the government would do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
8. I believe Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
7. I'm too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
6. I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in 10 years if I don't start driving a Prius.
5. I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies as long as we keep all the death row inmates alive.
4. I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.
3. I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as Democrats see fit.
2. I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
1. My head is planted so firmly up my a$$ that it's unlikely I'll ever have another point of view.
Here's the link to the source.
11 comments:
Here's why I'm going to start voting republican.
10.I'm voting republican because big oil companies are our friends who really, truly feel our pain, and are being treated poorly by all these working-class American ingrates. Imagine being asked to use some of those tens of billions of quarterly profit dollars for alternative energy research and help us become less dependent on imported oil.
9. I'm voting republican because working-class Americans have a solemn duty to work hard and ensure a hefty corporate profit at minimal compensation. Said corporations likewise have no responsibility to contribute to the national treasury, and are encouraged to outsource jobs as the workers in foreign sweatshops are far more compliant to their masters and even cheaper. Those Americans who lose their jobs in such a manner shall then be considered lazy, unproductive welfare rats.
8. I'm voting republican because I believe freedom of speech should include lying through your teeth to put our country at war and kill 4141 of our troops and counting.
7. I'm voting republican so gangs and criminals can have unrestricted access to semiautomatic machine guns they can use to gun down children and anyone else they so please.
6. I'm voting republican because I believe all the climatologists in the world are making up data and lying about the effect greenhouse gases are having on our earth's climate. Drill, baby Drill! I trust Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, guys who didn't even go to college, much more than hundreds of scientists who make this their life's work.
5. I'm not concerned with the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children as long as we keep those invisible WMD's out of the wrong hands.
4. I'm voting republican because basic medical and dental care are profitable commodities and should be available only to those who can afford them. If you can't afford them and seek them out anyway, you deserve to go bankrupt.
3. I'm voting republican so nothing can stop AIG or other greedy Wall Street executives from creating a global economic meltdown. This recession has been awesome.
2. I believe men who lived 250 years ago knew exactly everything we'd be dealing with today. So let's have judges who only interpret the constitution in that fashion.
1. I want to be so ingrained in my own views I can't even entertain the thought of doing things in a better, more fair way.
Honestly I don't have a favorable view of either party right now. Neither one has done a good job when they control the white house and congress. I'm ready for a new party. The Thomas S. Monson party. We need a government that runs the country like the brethren run the church. Is that too much to ask for? Probably.
Touche Creighton, nicely done. I'm glad we all have a sense of humor and can take things like this with a grain of salt.
I'd vote for Monson any day of the week and twice on Sundays. An excellent read for the Church's interactions with every U.S. President up through W. is "Presidents and Prophets."
Any thoughts about the Tea Party? I'm thinking one of two things will happen with the Tea Party movement . . .
(1) It will become a marginally viable third option to Republicans and Democrats on the ticket, similar to Ross Perot in 92 and 96. Bill Clinton can thank Perot for getting elected twice, seeing that Perot stole many more Republican votes than Democrat. Who would be the candidate for the Tea Party in this scenario? Sarah Palin? Ron Paul? Others?
(2) Instead of becoming a separate 3rd option, the Tea Party will throw the weight of its support behind truly conservative candidates, a la Ronald Reagan, who will (hopefully) deliver when they promise to reduce the size and scope of government, unlike the so-called conservatives we had in Congress during the Bush years. I'm guessing that the Republican party would benefit more than the Democrat party would in this scenario.
There are questions under this scenario as well. Polling data suggests that there is a big split within the Tea Party itself: half lean libertarian and half lean conservative, the biggest difference arising in each segment's stance on foreign policy. Which will win out within the Tea Party itself?
One thing is for sure - the entire movement is very upset with the current party in power, and this anger will be reflected this fall at the polls.
I definitely think Sarah Palin is the face of the tea party movement right now. She is at pretty much every major rally and the tea part people love her. I think you are right, one of those two things will happen. What we're seeing in Utah is an attack on centrist republicans by farther to the right republicans claiming they (the centrists) aren't conservative enough. To me there seems to be an almost equal divide on the left. A lot of farther to the left liberals are disappointed in a lot of the decision Pres. Obama has made. No public option, no haste on gay rights, sending more troops to Afghanistan, etc. I really don't know how it will play out, but I think this divide in the republican party might hurt them in the election.
I'm voting Libertarian because Republicans and Democrats have had the Presidency and Congress since the 1850s, so Libertarians are the only ones you can't blame any problems on!
The tea party movement will continue to be a force in politics so long as: (a) the tea party movement remains focused on one thing (reducing deficits) and allows for divergent views outside that focus; and (b) the issue of deficit spending / national debt / size of government remains a principal concern of the general citizenry.
This is Devin, btw. Sarah Palin is definitely the face of the Tea Party, but does that mean she would run as a candidate independent from the Republican party? I have my doubts. I think she realizes that if she did that, the result would be Obama getting elected to a 2nd term. She'd steal votes away from whoever the Republicans put on the ticket like Perot did with Bush Sr. That's why I think the 2nd scenario I laid out is more likely than the first. So I guess the question then becomes - who wins the Republican nomination? And then - will the supporters of those who lost the primary coalesce around the winner to beat Obama in 2012? Palin? Ron Paul? Romney? Others? That's the battle I'm interested in watching.
Well played on the top ten Creighton. Funny how both sides can twist the other to sound like a heartless bunch. Sadly, I believe that these gross generalizations are held by many in our day. Hence, the political divisiveness. There seems to be no rationale discussion between the two parties. The most rationale debate I ever hear occurs on this comment board.
The three quotes below come from a talk by Elder Robert Wood. It's a great talk here's the link:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=182ae2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
"We appear to be living in an era in which many are speaking without thinking, encouraging emotional reactions rather than thoughtful responses. Whether it be on the national or international stage, in personal relations or in politics, at home or in the public forum, voices grow ever more strident, and giving and taking offense appear to be chosen rather than inadvertent"
"The first casualties of human wrath are truth and understanding"
Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?"
I wish with all my heart we could have leaders like President Monson, President Eyring and President Uchtdorf on the national scene. Zion cannot come soon enough.
I'm going to preface this comment by saying I'm still as conservative as ever, even though this comment will sound like I'm a moderate/independent. I'd like to think you don't have to be a political independent to have an open mind, and hopefully I can pull it off.
So I was reading F.A. Hayek's [Milton Friedman's mentor at Chicago] famous book "The Road to Serfdom," (btw I intend to add that book, as well as his other "The Constitution of Liberty" to the list for all you economists--unless s/one else wants to do it) and there was an interesting issue which I think is pertinent to this conversation involving the phrase he put in at the beginning of it (I forget what that's called) which says "To the socialists of ALL parties."
In the introduction it explains that Hayek was shocked and disturbed about the book's initial reception in America, because there was a political knee-jerk reaction on both sides, with liberals assuming it was just a right-wing conservative hack-job, and conservatives assuming it was merely a leftist/socialist critique. As such, when his editors saw that phrase (ALL parties obviously included Republicans), they tried desperately to convince him to remove the last part so it would affirm everyone's original prejudices.
Interestingly enough, if Hayek would have given in it would have undermined the whole purpose of the book, because the left/right mentality underlying those prejudices WAS the very "road to serfdom" he was warning against. Thus, if he would have targeted only focused on the "socialists" (which is like "statist" the way Mark Levin puts it) of the democrat party, he would implicitly be excluding (and thereby encouraging) the "socialists" of the republican party in the very process.
The bottom line was that the political environment was focusing on the wrong premises (i.e. whether policy favored the rich or the poor, etc.), rather than HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT was required to implement those policies.
Going back to my initial disclaimer, does this mean I can no longer be conservative? Not at all: I think Hayek's point was that as long as you're careful not to encourage the expansion of government (socialism/statism), IT DOESN'T MATTER where you find yourself on the political spectrum (left/right/middle).
Whatever else is said about the Tea Party movement, I think they have this point down pat: their entire platform seems to be focused on shrinking government. That's why I agree that Devin's second option is not only totally consistent (not to mention prudent, i.e. to avoid repeating Ross Perot's mistake), but it's also a preferable check on our two-party system: in other words the Tea Party is in a perfect position to put checks on Republicans AND Democrats, without even running candidates on their own.
Sorry for the long comment once again, I know most of this stuff is just repeating what was already said, but I thought it was interesting that it goes back to Hayek (the book was published in America shortly after WWII).
By the way, the show "Stossel" (any libertarians who haven't seen it should check it up 'cuz it's right up your alley) did a whole special show on the aforementioned book ("The Road to Serfdom"). So I think anyone who thinks they might be interested in reading it might want to watch the show first to get a feel for it (they had it up on Hulu at one point, but I'm sure it can find it elsewhere easily enough).
What's cool about it is he tries to apply the principles in the book (briefly described in my previous post) to currently relevant issues, which is probably a lot more interesting than reading about stuff like how exactly the Germans got mixed up in ways that resulted in the Nazi movement, for example.
Great stuff Jeff and Matt (aka Publius). You both touched on some great points. I think you're right about too many people buying into those gross generalizations. I partly blame politicians for that. Look at the campaign ads you see on TV. They are filled with false or misleading information designed to play into those stereotypes and generalizations. Also, those were some great quotes by Elder Wood. We could definitely use less divisiveness in today's political climate.
Jeff, I've been meaning to read the Road to Serfdom book for some time now. It doesn't look very long. I just wish I had more time for reading of my choosing instead of assigned reading for law school! I like how you tied that to the Tea Party, great observation on how that movement can serve to check "the socialists of both parties."
Post a Comment