More political humor! Things you have to believe to be a Republican....

[HotRod]

Sorry for the confusion Rod, I was quoting Strong Eagle, not you.  He has been gone for quite a while and now he is back.

He only comes back when he wants something.

[stormrider]

By the way, that was the first political thread I have ever started here.  Posted lots of responses to others though.

Just thought I'd see the reaction when someone posted something other than what the 5 or 6 people who continuously post right wing political threads here usually toss out...I must say I'm a little surprised at the positive (or at least accepting) response from some.  Some of you guys are a lot more thoughtful and less reactionary than I suspected ...a bit of an eye opener for me too. Appreciate it.

That is funny coming from you Scanner. "a lot more thoughtful and less reactionay" concernig others responses. Maybe you should give it a try when responding to someone's posts you don't agree with. You always have something negative or derogatory to post concerning anything I have to say. So practice what you preach or be a hipocrit, your choice.

[SANDMAN5]

I've since gone Independent but actually wish voter registration didn't have to have any party choice, I've never voted a straight ticket in my life and I think anyone that does is missing the boat.

Me too also!! That's why I seldom vote in the primaries. They ask if you want to vote
in the Rep or Dem. Usually I want to vote a little on each side. I'm not voting for a
"party", I'm voting for (or sometimes against) a person.

[Jabba]

Aren't primary elections simply Party business?  Why are the taxpayers responsible for picking up the tab to conduct PARTY business?  That's ALL a primary is right?  the PARTY deciding who to run in the REAL election. 

Primaries cost just as much to administer as general elections, and IMO SHOULD be paid for by the parties rather than the general fund.

Just more examples of corruption by BOTH major parties as far as I am concerned.

Jabba.

[fstsix]

You know Jabba" I must share this story born and raised Southern Ca lived there 34 years and been gone sense 1992 after riots have not been back but 3 times to visit all my family just refuse to support Tax for government that was giving all my money away to non AMERICANS I know one would say i you dont like it here leave SO I DID!!.Best thing i ever did.Well fast forward 1994 moved to North East Best thing i ever did this is my home Good Conservative Democrats. Well of coarse i always was curious about the Mob kind of noticed a shift from the underground to the public office HMMMM maybe this corruption might be real not just Right Wing Loons  Let me think.(Mayor Buddy Ciance /Governor Deprete / Traffaconte/) Why are these guys are always Republicans doing this stuff???

[Charlie]

Personally, I think that the Reps and the Dems meet after hours... at least in spirit, and hoist a glass and toast the short sightedness of the American people.

Jabba

I think that has been proven with the obvious friendships we are seeing lately, I.E. George H. Bush and Bill Clinton, and all the Republicans who were praising Ted Kennedy.  My guess is more gets done at those meetings than ever gets done in a session of Congress.

[Varmintmist]

By the way, that was the first political thread I have ever started here.  Posted lots of responses to others though.

Just thought I'd see the reaction when someone posted something other than what the 5 or 6 people who continuously post right wing political threads here usually toss out...I must say I'm a little surprised at the positive (or at least accepting) response from some.  Some of you guys are a lot more thoughtful and less reactionary than I suspected ...a bit of an eye opener for me too. Appreciate it.

Thats because we aren't Democrats

 

As for the post. It was OK. Good satire needs to have a basis in reality and I think 2 lines made it. Basis in reality is why Lewinsky jokes work, and need I mention cankels?

[Varmintmist]

Aren't primary elections simply Party business?  Why are the taxpayers responsible for picking up the tab to conduct PARTY business?  That's ALL a primary is right?  the PARTY deciding who to run in the REAL election. 

Primaries cost just as much to administer as general elections, and IMO SHOULD be paid for by the parties rather than the general fund.

Just more examples of corruption by BOTH major parties as far as I am concerned.

Jabba.

FYI, funding for elections for pres. comes from the 3.00 check off on the tax return, if you dont check it you aren't paying. It IS NOT your tax dolllars at work.

Where does the money come from?
The public funding of Presidential elections is not financed by a standard Congressional appropriation. Instead, the program is funded by the three dollar checkoff that appears on federal income tax forms.

http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_public_funding.shtml

A primary determines the direction of a party. Ex, if the 2 canidates are Bob and Doug and you favor beer over back bacon then you vote for Bob in the pimary. In the general, you will probably support the Great White North party over the Cereal party (what aint fruits and nuts, is flakes) because even if the guy who supports back bacon won, it is still more REPRESENTATIVE of what you believe than the guy who is froot loops.

[Scanner]

By the way, that was the first political thread I have ever started here.  Posted lots of responses to others though.

Just thought I'd see the reaction when someone posted something other than what the 5 or 6 people who continuously post right wing political threads here usually toss out...I must say I'm a little surprised at the positive (or at least accepting) response from some.  Some of you guys are a lot more thoughtful and less reactionary than I suspected ...a bit of an eye opener for me too. Appreciate it.

That is funny coming from you Scanner. "a lot more thoughtful and less reactionay" concernig others responses. Maybe you should give it a try when responding to someone's posts you don't agree with. You always have something negative or derogatory to post concerning anything I have to say. So practice what you preach or be a hipocrit, your choice.

Stormrider, you aren't one of the "more thoughtful and less reactionary" people I was referring to. You are one of the referenced  "5 or 6 people who continuously post right wing political threads". 

[Jabba]

FYI, funding for elections for pres. comes from the 3.00 check off on the tax return, if you dont check it you aren't paying. It IS NOT your tax dolllars at work.

Then HOW does it not affect my tax return?  It says that RIGHT on the form.  Checking yes or not will not change your tax.

and that's irrelevant.  I'm talking about ALL the primaries.  All the local ones... everything.  It's funded by the public (read GOVERNMENT) and should not be.  It SHOULD be business paid for by the party who's business it is. 

You don't have the RIGHT to vote in a primary.  they are political parties bilking the people on yet another level.

Fire them ALL.  They are working for themselves not for us.  Their primary focus is to win in the next election, NOT do what's best for us.


Jabba

[asfltdncr]

LMAO.....u guys are hilarious!  Sure like to give but not much for receiving are u?

Yeah, I'm here "solly" for a rant....

So if somebody pipes up and says what they believe that means that they can't take it? Hmmmmm..........that has the scent of socialism

Do yourself a favor and learn what socialism means before putting it into a sentence.

[stormrider]

By the way, that was the first political thread I have ever started here.  Posted lots of responses to others though.

Just thought I'd see the reaction when someone posted something other than what the 5 or 6 people who continuously post right wing political threads here usually toss out...I must say I'm a little surprised at the positive (or at least accepting) response from some.  Some of you guys are a lot more thoughtful and less reactionary than I suspected ...a bit of an eye opener for me too. Appreciate it.

That is funny coming from you Scanner. "a lot more thoughtful and less reactionay" concernig others responses. Maybe you should give it a try when responding to someone's posts you don't agree with. You always have something negative or derogatory to post concerning anything I have to say. So practice what you preach or be a hipocrit, your choice.

Stormrider, you aren't one of the "more thoughtful and less reactionary" people I was referring to. You are one of the referenced  "5 or 6 people who continuously post right wing political threads". 

Is that so? Well, good. Glad you see it that way. And only 3% of the Colonists were motivated enough to reslove to stand up to King George. Glad to be counted as one of those that stand against big government which, by the Constitution, is to be limited. Here's ya some right wing politics.  www.georgiafirst.org  I dare you to read, if you're capable. I honestly believe the posts to links I've shared have not been read by you. You might take a glance but then go to slaming. So, take your best shot. I've got on my armor on.

[stormrider]

By the way, that was the first political thread I have ever started here.  Posted lots of responses to others though.

Just thought I'd see the reaction when someone posted something other than what the 5 or 6 people who continuously post right wing political threads here usually toss out...I must say I'm a little surprised at the positive (or at least accepting) response from some.  Some of you guys are a lot more thoughtful and less reactionary than I suspected ...a bit of an eye opener for me too. Appreciate it.

That is funny coming from you Scanner. "a lot more thoughtful and less reactionay" concernig others responses. Maybe you should give it a try when responding to someone's posts you don't agree with. You always have something negative or derogatory to post concerning anything I have to say. So practice what you preach or be a hipocrit, your choice.

Stormrider, you aren't one of the "more thoughtful and less reactionary" people I was referring to. You are one of the referenced  "5 or 6 people who continuously post right wing political threads". 

Re-read it. I know you weren't refering to me. duh. And if you think there are only 5 or 6 of us out here, what happened this weekend in DC? Most people on this board are bored with your retoric. I keep it up cause you are so predictable in your responses. I've challenged you numerous times to provide statistics or info to back up your claims by name calling others yet not once have you been able to produce anything but name calling. I wish you had something to add to the convesation other than name calling. But keep it up. Let's me know I'm on target.

[Varmintmist]

FYI, funding for elections for pres. comes from the 3.00 check off on the tax return, if you dont check it you aren't paying. It IS NOT your tax dolllars at work.

Then HOW does it not affect my tax return?  It says that RIGHT on the form.  Checking yes or not will not change your tax.

and that's irrelevant.  I'm talking about ALL the primaries.  All the local ones... everything.  It's funded by the public (read GOVERNMENT) and should not be.  It SHOULD be business paid for by the party who's business it is. 

You don't have the RIGHT to vote in a primary.  they are political parties bilking the people on yet another level.

Fire them ALL.  They are working for themselves not for us.  Their primary focus is to win in the next election, NOT do what's best for us.


Jabba

Jabba, there is no public funding for anything other than Pres. that I have ever seen and that has only been since 1976, your state could be different but there is no national public money for parties for any other elections. It is all donations (pay off?) from persons or corparations to the parties or canidates and is paid for by them. Again back to truth in satire, when SNL listed George Soros as the current owner of the Democratic party = funny. The only public funding is for pres and you can choose to move 3 bucks of your tax money to the general campain funds of ALL recognized parties. It doesnt change your taxes either way, however you get to choose where that portion goes. I wish thay would do that with the NEA but then we wouldnt be a representative republic. Now I could be wrong, I dont have time to look it up this morning, if I am, show me. When I get time, I will check myself but I am fairly certian that I am correct.

No you dont have the right to vote in a primary, unless you are a member of that party. Where is the problem? That is why you belong to a party so that you have a hand in steering the debate and direction of "your" party BECAUSE you have the right to vote in that primary election as a member of the party. I am confused as to why you think you would have a "right" to vote in a primary. That would be like you voting at the Elks club when you belong to the Moose of no service organazation at all. Why would you think you have the right to be heard if you have no affiliation?  Or do you think we should toss 7 canidates up against the wall in Nov. and get the guy who gets 20% of the people behind him? Bush got at least statiscly 50%, Clinton didnt, either time. I dont think he broke 45%. So we had a Pres with less than 50% of the people behind him because there was a 3rd party "canidate" to use the term loosely.

Personally I would like to see 3 elections. Primaries, run off and a general. That way if there was a decent 3rd party (or 4th-5th) canidate, they would win their primary and then get to run in the run off nationwide, then the top 2 run for the seat. To keep it cheap, the cycle starts 9 months prior and anyone who campains before that gets decertified for that election. 3 months primary to choose the direction of the parties, 3 for run off to choose the top 2, and 3 for general to pick the idiot who wants that job.

[x]

In Texas... as in most other states I think... the primary elections are administered by the party but almost all the costs of the election are picked up by the State of Texas.
 
It sucks in more ways than one.  The parties have conspired to have the public at large pay for what is essentially a party function, and then have added insult to injury by making it nearly impossible for any third party to qualify for funding.

What we need is a primary that is party neutral... all the candidates (Pubies and Dems alike) run in a single primary... top two vote getters go to the general election.  It would quickly eliminate the tendency of parties to vote in the most extreme candidates.

[woefman]

Hey Scanner, why don't you take your political rhetoric to that type of board,I think your just here Solly for a rant, I m not sure you even have a motorcycle, anyone can post a picture of the Valkyrie banner. Take it somewhere where someone might give a chit what you have to say. I'm just saying,your a trouble maker.

Gee Rod, you make it sound like you have to be a conservative Republican (which I am) to make a political post on this board.  There are sure a lot of liberal bashing posts that you don't seem to have a problem with.  I happened to think Scanners post was funny! What's good for the goose...............

Exactly, but that is expected from the RUSH WORSHIPERS .

[raja]

Hey this is great!!! How bout we take on religion and motor oil next?

[JimL]

In Texas... as in most other states I think... the primary elections are administered by the party but almost all the costs of the election are picked up by the State of Texas.
 
It sucks in more ways than one.  The parties have conspired to have the public at large pay for what is essentially a party function, and then have added insult to injury by making it nearly impossible for any third party to qualify for funding.

What we need is a primary that is party neutral... all the candidates (Pubies and Dems alike) run in a single primary... top two vote getters go to the general election.  It would quickly eliminate the tendency of parties to vote in the most extreme candidates.

Wayne I agree with your conclusion in the first paragraph that primaries are [funded] and administered by the party. while the costs of the election [infrastructure such as voting equipment, facilities, Election Commission personnel] are covered by state governments.

In your second paragraph you state that "it sucks in more way than one", but you stop short of saying that these cost should not be borne by the state or that it would be better funded by another entity.  I gathered that your biggest issue was the difficulty that parties other than Dems and Repubs have in getting on the ballot.

I don't think there is any other option than for the state governments to pay for the infrastructure necessary to hold elections.  You probably agree with this.  I don't think anyone wants the cost of elections to be funded by private companies (put out for competitive bid and awarded much like the naming rights to football stadiums), or worse yet having election officials being funded by the political parties themselves.

That leaves the question as to whether independent parties are unfairly being obstructed when it comes to gaining access to the state ballots.  I think we both agree that there has to be some method of qualifying prospective parties for being included on the ballot.  In the absence of this qualification, the ballot would become a freak show....I can now see both left wing and right wing extremist groups stepping forward vying for a place on the ballot.  I would not be at all surprised to see groups such as NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) party stepping into the ring as well as the Klu Klux Klan just to name a couple of extreme examples.  Each state has regulations established for getting their party listed on the ballot, and as I recall from the 1992 election when Ross Perot was faced with this challenge...not all states have the same criteria.

I am certain that these regulations can be made better and certainly they can be made to be uniform among the states.  Whether they should be relaxed is debatable, however if that were the case I definitely think that public funding should be abolished for all political parties; since these costs would soon spiral out of control.

Even if the aforementioned issues were resolved, I feel an even bigger change needs to be made for election reform.  Call me an elitist (a term not normally associated with conservatives) but I think that a person should be required to pass a basic test that establishes that they posses a minimal capacity for understanding the issues being voted on.  I'm not advocating that they be able to solve partial differential equations, however I do expect that they should able to articulate who they are voting for and where the candidates stand on the basic issues.

This may seem extreme for some, however when you look at the USA from a global perspective we are in some ways analogous to a "world football league" all competing against each other.  Countries like China (the fastest growing economy in the world and the fastest growing military super power) doesn't treat their decision making process like a "little league baseball game" where everyone gets a turn at bat.  As a staunch conservative I certainly am not advocating the same Communist structure of their government.  However we do have to understand their decision making process...and that the decisions on how best to invest their Gross National Product is determined by the most capable in their society; not the ones enticed by ACORN (and to be fair the NRA...which I am proudly a member) to show up at the polls on election day.

I work with several native Chinese engineers, I can assure you from talking to them that China does not make it a priority to invest in entitlement programs for those who choose not to do for themselves, but instead invest in the infrastructure which makes China better able to WIN in a global, integrated, competitive economy...or to my earlier analogy our "world football league".  Something China is doing works, considering the amount of money this nation currently borrows from them.

[Jabba]

Jabba, there is no public funding for anything other than Pres. that I have ever seen and that has only been since 1976, your state could be different but there is no national public money for parties for any other elections. It is all donations (pay off?) from persons or corparations to the parties or canidates and is paid for by them. Again back to truth in satire, when SNL listed George Soros as the current owner of the Democratic party = funny. The only public funding is for pres and you can choose to move 3 bucks of your tax money to the general campain funds of ALL recognized parties. It doesnt change your taxes either way, however you get to choose where that portion goes. I wish thay would do that with the NEA but then we wouldnt be a representative republic. Now I could be wrong, I dont have time to look it up this morning, if I am, show me. When I get time, I will check myself but I am fairly certian that I am correct.

No you dont have the right to vote in a primary, unless you are a member of that party. Where is the problem? That is why you belong to a party so that you have a hand in steering the debate and direction of "your" party BECAUSE you have the right to vote in that primary election as a member of the party. I am confused as to why you think you would have a "right" to vote in a primary. That would be like you voting at the Elks club when you belong to the Moose of no service organazation at all. Why would you think you have the right to be heard if you have no affiliation?  Or do you think we should toss 7 canidates up against the wall in Nov. and get the guy who gets 20% of the people behind him? Bush got at least statiscly 50%, Clinton didnt, either time. I dont think he broke 45%. So we had a Pres with less than 50% of the people behind him because there was a 3rd party "canidate" to use the term loosely.

Personally I would like to see 3 elections. Primaries, run off and a general. That way if there was a decent 3rd party (or 4th-5th) canidate, they would win their primary and then get to run in the run off nationwide, then the top 2 run for the seat. To keep it cheap, the cycle starts 9 months prior and anyone who campains before that gets decertified for that election. 3 months primary to choose the direction of the parties, 3 for run off to choose the top 2, and 3 for general to pick the idiot who wants that job.

I am not talking about campaign money.  I am talking about the money that it takes to ADMINISTER the election.  The polls, the voting machines, the counting and reporting... etc.  That's not donations paying for that stuff.  It's good old fashioned tax money, and paying the government workers to police it JUST like a general election.

I maintain that deciding which candidate WITHIN a partry gets access to that parties slot in the GENERAL election is PARTY business, and should NOT be paid for by the public.  period.

THAT's my beef with primaries.

Jabba