At least bring common sense to the table
Be careful what you wish for ...
Published on May 20, 2007 By BoobzTwo In Republican
I suppose that your view on this simple question defines your political affiliation more than anything else. Now you could sit back in your guise as an armchair quarterback and nitpick everything taking place in the real world as is the want of most people, but this is unproductive at best, destructive at worst, solves nothing and produces ulcers and hatred amongst your fellow countrymen.

Take a look around our country and what do you see? What kind of irrational human being develops a vitreous hatred for others based on little more that a difference of opinion? Who do you see demonstrating and rioting in the streets? Who is constantly endeavoring to repudiate the US Constitution? Who believes the wants and desires of illegal aliens and sworn enemies of the US supersedes those of the American people themselves? Who believes that pacifism and appeasement will solve all our international difficulties? Who is hell bent on the destruction of our capitalistic infrastructure? Who believes that the American people are so stupid as to be unable to make any of life’s decisions for themselves? Who promises everything to everyone as long as they are not in a majority even though they know they can never deliver? Who uses racism as a political weapon while actively working to ensure that minorities continue to stagnate and remain in poverty? Who openly supports socialism but venomously denies this truth? Of course, the answer to all these questions is the Democrat Party.

If this is really where you want to go, what you want for our Nation, then the Democrat Party is for you. But if you have half a functioning brain, minimal common sense, a desire to remain free and independent and self determining, and adhere to the principles of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then the Republican Party is for you. There are problems with all governments as it is human nature to be greedy and self serving. If this were untrue, and we lived in an IDEAL world, then it wouldn’t matter what form of government we had or if we had one at all … BUT we must live in the REAL world and must make decisions that mostly aren’t ideal. You can buffer a conservative agenda with liberal philosophy but it cannot work the other way around because the liberals are want to change and ultimately control every aspect of everyone’s lives … which is diametrically opposed to conservatism as well as impossible to achieve as has been demonstrated throughout recorded history. There has never ever been a successful socialist society of any persuasion for the simple reason that people are what they are. Power corrupts itself without checks and balances. Government controls everything in a socialist regime and cannot exist with any kind of opposition to their authority. Most people go through life with blinders on and cannot see the forest through the trees. Be real careful what you wish for, because you more often than not end up with something altogether different than you conceived or were promised.

Comments
on May 20, 2007
you have to be careful there are dictators from both sides liberal and conservitive and some from the middle of the road too

on May 21, 2007
All is true ... but I am not talking about all or any other country, I am talking about the good old USA. A socialist government will not function here unless we actively allow the left to corrupt our constitution, erode our built in protections, take away all our guns and freedoms and remove all competition. I just cannot imagine having our complete life dictated to us by a pack of liberal elitists who sit back in their ivory towers and enjoy the fruits and benefits provided by a slave nation.
on May 21, 2007
*Bweeeep! Bweeeep! Pundit alert! Pundit alert!*

Gad, this is the last thing JU needs - another sycophantic Republican butt-kisser.
on May 21, 2007
the democrats are trying to destroy the constitition completely

the republicans are trying to destroy picked parts of the constitition

i do not know of anyone trying to keep it whole
on May 21, 2007
Generalizations without generalizing.  Interesting.  Using the "democrat Party" instead of saying democrats.  ON the one hand it is a dangerous generalization (as all are), yet by making it an entity by itself, you avoid saying "all democrats", and thus remove the stigma attached to your accusations from everyone who would claim to be democrat.
on May 21, 2007
Now what kinda ass-backwards, pseudo-intellectual, Yoda-speak crap is that?


It's how you say, "I agree with you, but I'm trying to look like I'm not agreeing with you. I'm applauding your partisan bullshit, but I'm trying to cover for it."
on May 21, 2007
It's how you say, "I agree with you, but I'm trying to look like I'm not agreeing with you. I'm applauding your partisan bullshit, but I'm trying to cover for it."


Hardly. It is saying I enjoyed the use of the english language to make a point without calling into question any individual. I do understand where that would be hard for some to comprehend.
on May 21, 2007
Hardly. It is saying I enjoyed the use of the english language to make a point without calling into question any individual. I do understand where that would be hard for some to comprehend.


Ah, the infamous backpedal. Now you're saying you didn't agree with what she said? You're turning into just as much a partisan hack as boobz is.

I enjoyed her employment of lies, inflammatory statements, hyperbole and just pure, old-fashioned unadulterated bullshit to make a spurious and stupid argument.
on May 21, 2007
Ah, the infamous backpedal. Now you're saying you didn't agree with what she said? You're turning into just as much a partisan hack as boobz is.


My statements stand on their own. YOu may read into them whatever you like, that is your perogative. But as I wrote them, and they are not in some obscure dialect of some dead language, you can either read and understand, or attack as you see fit. Neither will change the meaning of the words.

Nor make me what you want me to be so that you do not have to discuss or argue the merits of the statements.
on May 21, 2007
Nor make me what you want me to be so that you do not have to discuss or argue the merits of the statements.


Blatant, blanket generalizations have no merit.
on May 21, 2007
Nor make me what you want me to be so that you do not have to discuss or argue the merits of the statements.


Blatant, blanket generalizations have no merit.


I am glad you agree. Should you care to discuss my comments in the future, I will be glad to oblige. But if you want to discuss what I write, then we will discuss what I wrote, not what someone else wants me to write.