Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and co mbat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense.


A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

That's good.

Straw man arguments RAWK!

Straw man arguments RAWK!

Hmmm... well no, straw man arguements suck, but since this isn't a straw man arguement, your point is just kind of stupid. It's really an informal comparison of the right's stated beliefs versus the reality of their actions. If either the beliefs or the actions where made up or false you might have a point in calling it a strawman arguement, although given that it's not a formal arguement of any kind, that's still a pretty weak analysis. Come back when you can actually refute something instead of just yell.

It's most definitely a straw man in that he is presenting distorted versions of republican positions. Some of them are not just distortions but outright fabrications. I'm not going to refute them point by point as I am not a republican and have already spent too much time on this thread.

Ok so just take ONE point and tell us how its fabricated or fallacious, you don't have to take them all, just one.....

When did a GOP official say Jesus doesn't like Hillary? Fabrication
When did Creationism become part of the GOP platform? Fabrication or at best Hasty Generalization

A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense.


A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.


They distorted the first part by omitting the fact that it was under oath and thus perjury. You lie under oath and it's an impeachable offense. Period.
And it has not been demonstrated that Bush lied to enlist support for the war. I think it has been demonstrated that some of the things he said were incorrect, but that is not identical to lying.
So chalk up two more distortions.

waiting for your rebuttle funked1

hmm...all seems to check out. Very funny.

Funked, although the whole anti-republican spin on this is kinda overdone, it still makes alot of good, funny points. Don't try and say that the reason everyone was outraged at Clinton was because he lied - it was that he had "sexual relations" outside of marriage, and that got our collective puritanical goat. However, G.dub was a druggie, drunk driver, AWOL rich kid who accepted jesus christ into his life, and then everything was A-ok. Thats odd, don't you think? Remember the huge fuss over clinton forays into the world of weed? Why no expose on G. Dub? Strikes me as odd. But hey, they don't pay me to know about the world around me.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

A real Neoconservative position would be something like, "Saddam was a bad guy all along, but enlisting his support (as well as Bin Laden's) was a calculated risk taken to fight the far greater evil of Global Communism."

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Not sure if this is a false or distorted but I don't recall ole Slick Willy trying to do anything about it during his tenure. So this one could apply equally well to Democrats if we use your logic.

To sum it up, the phrase "What Republicans have to believe" implies that all Republicans must believe all of the items on the list. Keep that in mind when evaluating the truth of Psoper's statements. If we find one or more counterexamples to that phrase, then the assertion that Republicans must believe all of those statements is false. Clearly I've found at least one counterexample, so game over, QED.

Constellation makes the point that the list is funny and some parts of it are true. I will concede that, but when you use lists like this it will only work if you are "preaching to the choir". Because as long as parts of it are false, it's not going to convince a critically-minded person that your argument is valid. In fact it may convince a thinking man that you are a misinformed fanatic, and thus do a disservice to your cause. That's why it bugs me, even thought I am not a Republican or a Neoconservative or a Bush-lover, and that's why I made the initial post. There is plenty to criticize about the GOP without resorting to a straw man argument.

A real Neoconservative position would be something like, "Saddam was a bad guy all along, but enlisting his support (as well as Bin Laden's) was a calculated risk taken to fight the far greater evil of Global Communism."


do you even know what neocons are?

Just curious

oh no, the neocons!

do you even know what neocons are?

Just curious

I haven't read any of their crappy writings but have read a few magazine articles about the movement. I think I have accurately portrayed how they would justify the ill-fated US involvement with Saddam and OBL.

oh no, the neocons!

Sweet, I'm going to have to make a bumper sticker out of that.

I think I have accurately portrayed how they would justify the ill-fated US involvement with Saddam and OBL.

We were not talking about neocons though, right?

We were not talking about neocons though, right?
We were talking about Republicans as a whole. Neocons are a subset though. I was just trying to think of what the party line would be to justify bankrolling Saddam and OBL.

neocons are liberals who have gone republican conservitive

:)

Google found this, pretty cool article. http://www.portaljuice.com/neoconservatism__united_states_.html

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=neo+conservitive&x=0&y=0

I haven't read any of their crappy writings .....

Here's a good one to start with:

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

In this document, on page 51 (like page 60 or so of the PDF) they said we'd need a "New Pearl Harbor" to get things rolling, I guess they got exactly what they were asking for on Sept 11.

I expect people like you will see this as all great and wonderful, why shouldn't America's forces be prepared and capable of ruling the entire world- right?

Although I think it is worth considering that any power that has tried to rule the world throughout recorded history has failed miserably when the rest of the world unites against them.

So that is probably what we have to look forward to as our world dominating ambitions continue unchecked.


I'll admit that you do make a good point about the Democrats being equally two-faced, I think both the major parties are little more than corporate tools.

So who do we get to pick from for the next president? its either the Skull and Bones guy,


or

guess what,


another skull and bones guy!

One thing is certain, regardless of the election suspension or outcome, either way Skull and Bones will be running the USA for at least another 4 years.

(Meanwhile I'll be partying down with them all at the Bohemian Grove)

What Democrats have to believe:

That the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding rather then a lack of morality.

That trial lawyers are selfless heroes, but doctors are overpaid.

That global temperatures are affected more by Yuppies driving SUVs than by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun.

That guns in the hands of the law abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

That businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

That self-esteem is more important than doing anything to earn it.

That there was no art before federal funding.

That the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the constitution, but the ACLU is good, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution.

That taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

That the most troubling thing you can find in a public school is a child praying.

That standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas aren't.

That any change in the weather is proof of global warming.

That national wealth is determined by what we consume, not by what we produce.

That the only wars in which America should become involved, are those in which our national security is not at risk.

That perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable if a Republican, like Richard Nixon, commits them, but harmless, private matters if a Democrat like Bill Clinton commits them.

That we can have a strong military without spending money on it.

That the way to improve public schools is to give more money and power to people who have misused it in the past.

That a mother can be trusted to decide whether to terminate the life of her baby, but cannot be trusted to choose her child's school.

That hunters and fishermen don't care about nature, but pasty-faced activists, who rarely leave the Upper West Side of Manhattan, do.

That a bureaucrat living in Washington can make better decisions about how to spend your money than you can.

That Hillary Clinton is a wonderful example for young women of feminist independence, even though almost everything she's gotten in life is a result of her marriage to Bill Clinton.

That being a movie star makes you qualified to speak out on public policy.

That a handful of religious wackos, living in rural Texas, are more of a threat to public safety than terrorists who plant bombs in major cities.

That cigarette and liquor advertising must be banned because it causes kids to smoke and drink, but we don't need to worry about adultery, promiscuity, and violence in television programming because kids aren't affect by what happens between the commercials.

That passing new laws is a better way to prevent crime than enforcing existing ones.

That the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried is because liberals like you haven't been in charge.

I expect people like you will see this as all great and wonderful, why shouldn't America's forces be prepared and capable of ruling the entire world- right?

Uh no, you expect wrong. :)
I'm a libertarian (little l). I think all our troops should be brought home as soon as possible. America's forces should only act to defend American soil. Take all the money we save on military and use it to pay off the debt, and then for tax reductions. I'd like to see us move government spending from ~30% of GDP to no more than 10%.

I'm voting for Mojo Nixon.

What Democrats have to believe:

That the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding rather then a lack of morality.

That trial lawyers are selfless heroes, but doctors are overpaid.

That global temperatures are affected more by Yuppies driving SUVs than by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun.

That guns in the hands of the law abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

That businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

That self-esteem is more important than doing anything to earn it.

That there was no art before federal funding.

That the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the constitution, but the ACLU is good, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution.

That taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

That the most troubling thing you can find in a public school is a child praying.

That standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas aren't.

That any change in the weather is proof of global warming.

That national wealth is determined by what we consume, not by what we produce.

That the only wars in which America should become involved, are those in which our national security is not at risk.

That perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable if a Republican, like Richard Nixon, commits them, but harmless, private matters if a Democrat like Bill Clinton commits them.

That we can have a strong military without spending money on it.

That the way to improve public schools is to give more money and power to people who have misused it in the past.

That a mother can be trusted to decide whether to terminate the life of her baby, but cannot be trusted to choose her child's school.

That hunters and fishermen don't care about nature, but pasty-faced activists, who rarely leave the Upper West Side of Manhattan, do.

That a bureaucrat living in Washington can make better decisions about how to spend your money than you can.

That Hillary Clinton is a wonderful example for young women of feminist independence, even though almost everything she's gotten in life is a result of her marriage to Bill Clinton.

That being a movie star makes you qualified to speak out on public policy.

That a handful of religious wackos, living in rural Texas, are more of a threat to public safety than terrorists who plant bombs in major cities.

That cigarette and liquor advertising must be banned because it causes kids to smoke and drink, but we don't need to worry about adultery, promiscuity, and violence in television programming because kids aren't affect by what happens between the commercials.

That passing new laws is a better way to prevent crime than enforcing existing ones.

That the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried is because liberals like you haven't been in charge.

Heheh battle of teh straw men!!! Be careful they are flammable!

Nice post pbchief2 :)

I especially like "That hunters and fishermen don't care about nature, but pasty-faced activists, who rarely leave the Upper West Side of Manhattan, do." LMFAO

Just because someone has Republican, Democratic or whatever type views doesn't mean they're molded into what you've posted. It is pretty funny though.

Uh no, you expect wrong. :)
I'm a libertarian (little l). I think all our troops should be brought home as soon as possible. America's forces should only act to defend American soil. Take all the money we save on military and use it to pay off the debt, and then for tax reductions. I'd like to see us move government spending from ~30% of GDP to no more than 10%.

I'm voting for Mojo Nixon.

Good for you!

no seriously-

I'm a card carrying Libertarian myself, I don't know about small "L-ing" it, although I think the hard-core rightmost fanatical wing of our party is as whacked as any of them, and I think you guys who obsess about taxes are out of touch with the scope of the vast surplus revenues that are out there that should be getting taxed, but instead are being horded by the richest .001% of our population, mostly because the whores in congress have written loopholes into the tax codes that corporations can sail cruise ship full of executive campaign contributors through.

What ever happened to the flat rate? I wouldn't be anywhere near as upset about paying the 30% of my income that goes to taxes if everyone else was, but we in the alledgedly "upper-middle" income groups, (most of whom still can only scrape by paycheck to paycheck on account of preposterous real estate and cost of living expenses) are getting raped so Halliburton and Bechtel executives can go from mere multimillionaires to being billionaires.


and why in hell do corporations get all the legal protections of a person, but none of the financial responsibility?

Frankly, I have to say that I personally agree with a lot of what the Green Party positions are these days too.

I would consider myself a strict Jeffersonian in the social context he lived in, that being the period of the dawn of our country, but I think the nation as well as our token little political party haven't really kept up with the social realities of the industrial revolution, much less most of what's followed since then.

It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that a strong national education system and medical and mental health safety nets are crucial for a strong nation to retain its standing, and I don't mind being taxed for things that actually benifit the nation, far moreso than the sordid benifits reaped from foreign military adventures.

We should have an energy policy based on promotion and development of sustainable domestic alternatives, rather than a foolhardy and preposterously expensive exercise of the blatent conquest and domination of the worlds remaining oil supplies.

Executives should be getting compensated on a level that reflects their contribution to a companies performance, but at the same time, the workers deserve a fair share of the profits their work creates, this "CEO getting thousands of times what shop floor folks get" that has become commonplace in many sectors of our corporate economy is downright criminal in my view.




I'd much prefer a 2 party system of Greens and Libertarians, to the corporate whores that we have to choose from now.

At least we'd be arguing principles, rather than this total BS of who taxed and spent more, who screwed their intern and who outted the CIA agent


But for now- its all going to skull and bones.....

(In case anyone wanted to know what I think......)

And I still think my straw man kicks your staw man's a$$!

sweet :D

And technically, this is a more apporpriate logical critique of the points I posted:

I plead guilty to posting an argument based on Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.

LOL I will have to look those up. Moderator give Psoper some points!!!!

I post-ed cause I got bored and to show the extremes can go both ways not just one. Any point of what we(psoper and I) posted is just a stereotypical picture of of what the extremist in each party wants to believe about the other. If you stay withen a party line without any look at the other cadidates you are a sheep or a lemming and will either be led off a cliff sooner or later, or possibly drowned.

disclaimer: The previous opinion may not reflect the current opinion of the author if it has been more then ten minutes, due to the chance to learn of evermore information.

Oh boy, I have a lot to say on this one, but i'll chose out the ones i belive are the most wrong
What Democrats have to believe:

That the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding rather then a lack of morality.



Yes, morality is part of the issue BUT, how is one supposed to know the full risk of AIDS if they do not have anywhere to find out that info? Letting them know takes money, and also so do the condoms that they need to have safe sex.



That global temperatures are affected more by Yuppies driving SUVs than by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun.



This is by far the BIGGEST thing i do not agree with. It is well documented that the levels of Carbon Monoxide have RISEN greatly during the industrial age. You can't deny that. So, why is it so bad to regulate emissions so that we can do our part to stop it. We are still the number one producer of Pollution in the world, mainly because of the fact that we have so many damn cars, so why shouldnt we regulate them and make the air for everyone that much cleaner. And for the your statement that it is because of documented changes in the sun, yes that is partally true. BUT, that is not the main cause that is making the Ozone go away, and contributing to the great problem of global warming.


I have so much more to say that i will save for later...

A little bump for one i just thought of for "what republicans have to belive"


We can cut taxes while increasing spending. :confused: