Vagina Coastguard.

Can I ask why?



It wasn't hard to figure out, based on the context and the obsession that other conservatives I know seem to have with Barack Obama's teleprompter.

MacFarlane, I don't know why it is, but every time I see your name in one of these threads I always feel like you're a right wing ********, but I know you're not. I just always think that at first. It's weird.

When I was a kid I was pretty far right. If this board's archives went back far enough I could probably find some posts I'm really ashamed of.

Like Freelancer's old posts where he bashes gays?

Probably a lot like that.

Obi_Kwiet used to post some hilariously stupid stuff, too. He's calmed down quite a bit as well.

But yeah, Mac, that might be what I'm thinking of. Maybe you used to be a total jackass.

No maybe about it. My only saving grace is that when I was doing it, we were all a lot dumber.

sum of us r still dumbr

I am proud to be the most conservative massassian.

What gives you that distinction?

Being the most conservative massassian does.

Yes, wookie. I am more conservative than you. This is not hard : You are not conservative.

You seem more libertarian with maybe a tad bit of anarchist thrown in. And, I'm just curious, on what grounds do "conservatives" like you and Jon'C base your opinion that I am not conservative on?

Silly wookie, it's because they know they're conservative, and therefore they know you're not!

Wookie, you eat the republican party line buffet style. You are Republican. Republicans are not conservative.

You are [somewhat] correct to label me libertarian. Libertarians are more conservative than Republicans.

Since you probably don't know, this is what conservatism is : The conservation of power. The conservation of power at the lowest possible level. The individual retains as much as possible; in the US the individual grants some power to the local government. The local government grants some power to the state. And the state grants some power to Washington. Federal power is minimized.
This is not what Republicans do. In many regards Democrats are more conservative. As an example, Gay Marriage - the conservative position is that the federal government has no right to regulate this. (As if anyone should have the right to regulate it.)

And. Joncy can't be conservative. Wikipedia bots don't have political ideologies.

I'm not a Wikipedia bot, but I do contain information equivalent to the aggregated knowledge of thousands of people.

Edit:
I'm a conservative but I'm happily not as conservative as a libertarian. I believe in absolute economic efficiency and the wholesale decentralization of power - in both the private and public sectors.

You state that attacking Palin directly is important, and then at the same time espouse that the republicans (and like minded individuals) seek leaders like her, because she has the very traits she has. Totally makes logical sense. Unless you are trying to say that there are prospective voters that find the platform taken by Palin and co appealing, but aren't too keen on the leaders themselves in the first place... right. tl;dr: you still haven't stated for whose benefit critiques of Palin is for.

I'm going to don my tinfoil hat and say Palin is a giant strawman created by the left to disregard anything against their agenda. Instead of attacking the ideas, they attack some dumb hockey mom from Alaska, because she is an easier target than actually addressing the issues.

You fail to understand that the biggest reason so many people on the left are against her is because she's so dangerous.

You fail to provide backing for your argument. It's not hard. You have a stance, link to some fact that supports your opinion.

Or better yet, you fail to understand that I'm saying that this form of attack is useless to reach the people at hand. So even if she were dangerous, this news story fails to actually get a point across to the audience that matters.

You just plain fail to respond to my main point, and say the exact same thing Jon'C already said which I had already responded to, which makes your post a failure.

I already explained this. Read.

I'll help you.

You and Jon'C posted conjectures.

I'll give you an example: Palin holds X amount of favor (a poll maybe? Something you can quantify popularity with?) with Y and Z group. This, if combined with prospective votes of conservative democrats, will result in her getting somewhere. Then maybe something that says she has ANY form of broad appeal. You guys are creating a bogeyman.

Also, you seem to agree with my basic point anyway:



So even if she was dangerous, this form of attack is a giant waste of time, at least functionally speaking. Maybe it's fun to laugh at her, but if you guys are trying to say this would do anything constructive, whatever.

Oh so you want actual documented evidence that a politician is stupid?

Go back to sleep before you hurt yourself.

You know that's not what I'm saying.

Kuat, there's no way to stop her. She has followers and we can't change that. So we complain about it. Ask John Hinkley what happens when a politician pisses you off and you decide you want to put a stop to their antics.

Look dude, have fun with your Emmanuel Goldstein.

.

winston noble

2+2=5
Am i doing this right

Not sure what caused you to form such an opinion since I have never shilled for Republicans nor have I agreed with liberal policies here. But, that is the usual response I get when I pose the question.



You are obviously confused. Libertarian and conservative are ideologies. Republican is a party. There are libertarian, conservative, liberal Republicans. Generally, Republicans lose elections when they are not conservative and regain power when they campaign upon conservative principles.



You are somewhat correct and some of that is similar to how I explain the differences between liberal and conservative. I would describe myself as a Constitutional Conservative because my primary concern would be to restore our system of government to the federal system laid out in our constitution as opposed to the national system it has progressed into.

I don't even really understand why you cling to the conservative label so feverishly. I will admit that the only specific arguments I can remember you making were against Obama care and it seemed your only real problem with it was that you were afraid it was going to screw up your government provided plan and you also said that you could care less about anybody else, that they had to fend for themselves. That seemed selfish and anarchistic and I didn't get where any deeply held conservative values were influencing that.



Way to diminish an intelligent member of the forum who never backs down from debating his views. Of course he Robs-it-up a little too much but considering that I understand what it is like to lose patience with people you consider stupid, I think I can cut him some slack.

hahahahahahahahaha

Wookie scores 100 points for this post.

So Wookie is a member of the Constitution Party?

I want to join the Democratic Republican Party.

As if political labels weren't confusing enough, you're getting it a little mixed up here. Libertarian is a party. Conservative and liberal are not, Republican is.

Why don't you just drop labels and use the political compass.

The political compass uses conservative/liberal labels as well.

Edit: hey wait, it doesn't anymore! Or maybe I was thinking of something else...

If it makes you feel better just add -ism to the end of each ideology I listed. Sometimes parties are named after ideologies.



I could care less about a party that names itself after the constitution. I say I'm a constitutional conservative because I believe in the relevance of our founding document as it relates to conservatism.

Couldn't care less. It bugs me, sorry

Which is why you're not a constitutional anything.

Me too, actually. It's one of those things I say correctly but type wrong.

Speaking of the liberal compass, I seem to have moved across the line from the Libertarian Right to the Libertarian Left. I think this is probably due to my reversal on the Tax the Rich More issue.

The test is horribly flawed, though. On that question in particular; It asks if we SHOULD - not if it's MORALLY RIGHT.