NationStates Jolt Archive

Sort of different, I hope.

Sort of different, I hope.

Why are you an uneducated moron/nazi?

Why are you a Republican? Long answers are fine, but a succint selection of one the following would be good too: (A) religious (B) social (C) economic (D) personal (E) other (specify) reasons.

Why would we want to hear a meat-eating, Republican, middle-class WASP's opinion, when that is all we hear from the time we are born.

Why are you an uneducated moron/nazi?
I have no ties to German government, past or present.

I had a 4.0 in high school, made a 1500 on my SATs (750/750), am a triple major at Virginia Tech, and learned differential equations independent study. I would submit that I am more likely more intelligent than you, and at the very least realize that Nazi, as a proper noun, should be capitalized.

Sort of different, I hope.

Isn't WASP a redundant term? I mean, it'd be like saying "black, african-american, etc." Don't let the Man belittle your people with slurs! Do like the negroes did when they wanted to be called african-american, and then afro-american, and then black, and then african-american again, and now "people of color" and soon probably "african-american" again... keep 'em guessing!!

;)

Why are you a Republican? Long answers are fine, but a succint selection of one the following would be good too: (A) religious (B) social (C) economic (D) personal (E) other (specify) reasons.
I believe that in America, realism dictates you have to be a member of one of two parties. Although I don't agree with Republicans completely, they are closer to my ideal government than Democrats.

Why would we want to hear a meat-eating, Republican, middle-class WASP's opinion, when that is all we hear from the time we are born.
Because if you didn't, you wouldn't have posted in this thread.

Isn't WASP a redundant term? I mean, it'd be like saying "black, african-american, etc." Don't let the Man belittle your people with slurs! Do like the negroes did when they wanted to be called african-american, and then afro-american, and then black, and then african-american again, and now "people of color" and soon probably "african-american" again... keep 'em guessing!!
;)
Not all Whites are necessarily Anglo-Saxon, Italians aren't, Greeks aren't, and Lithuanians aren't, to name a few.

There are also the Celts, Goths, and Slavs to consider

BTW, heres a question:

What do you think of lump-sum based socialized healthcare?

I believe that in America, realism dictates you have to be a member of one of two parties. Although I don't agree with Republicans completely, they are closer to my ideal government than Democrats.

So, you agree more with their fiscal policy? Stances on social issues? International affairs?

I have no ties to German government, past or present.

I had a 4.0 in high school, made a 1500 on my SATs (750/750), am a triple major at Virginia Tech, and learned differential equations independent study. I would submit that I am more likely more intelligent than you, and at the very least realize that Nazi, as a proper noun, should be capitalized.

It was a joke. I was making fun of those on the forum who say such things. :(

There are also the Celts, Goths, and Slavs to consider

BTW, heres a question:

What do you think of lump-sum based socialized healthcare?
I don't believe there is a compelling state interest in healthcare. The government should only be concerned with doing things that people are unable to do for themselves, namely establishing and protecting the law, building interstate infrastructure, defending the country from invaders, and subsidizing things that are essential to society. Schools are essential, and should be funded accordingly. Police are essential, medicine, firefighters, farm subsidies are not.

It was a joke. I was making fun of those on the forum who say such things. :(
My apologies. In previous threads, I have gotten responses exactly like yours, except not in jest.

Not all Whites are necessarily Anglo-Saxon, Italians aren't, Greeks aren't, and Lithuanians aren't, to name a few.

Still, describing someone as a WASP necessarily repeats the distinction. It's one thing to designate White of A-S origin, kinda like "Non-White Hispanic" on surveys, but in labeling someone, it's still redundant.

Besides, how often do you think people using the term WASP have any idea whatsoever of the subject's ethnic background? They normally use the term like we used to use the term Chinaman, even if the subject were a jap, korean, etc. The term might have a use in theory, but still normally functions as a slur, as in "the type of white person we don't like," sorta. :p

One of the main reasons I'm a Republican is that the right of the political spectrum is defending my Second Amendment rights under the Constitution. What's your stance on that?

So, you agree more with their fiscal policy? Stances on social issues? International affairs?
Fiscal policy: I believe taxing should be kept to a minimal, as I believe the larger the government the worse it is for the people. Generally, the Republicans are better at going along with this than the Democrats.

Social issues: I believe that there should be no restrictions on things like alcohol, drugs, and sex. It is not the government's place to police the responsible use of the aforementioned. However, I believe if an individual uses any of these improperly, driving drunk or rape, they should be harshly punished. For example, I believe that anyone who kills someone while under the influence should be put to death, whether that death was accidental or not. However, if someone goes to a bar and gets trashed every night, that's fine, it doesn't affect me until they break a law. I am against abortion because I believe a fetus is alive. I am for euthanasia as I do not believe the government should have any say in directing people's lives, unless there is some compelling interest in them staying alive, such as if they are a parent. I am against socialized healthcare, social security, and marriage, as I don't think it's the government place to mess with these matters.

Internationally: I believe the government has the right to protect its citizens in whatever ways it may need.

One of the main reasons I'm a Republican is that the right of the political spectrum is defending my Second Amendment rights under the Constitution. What's your stance on that?
I believe everyone has the right to own a gun, until they prove themselves otherwise. Violent felons, no matter what the offense, should have this right revoked.

Are you for keeping marijuana and/or other drugs illegal?

George W. Bush has broken from what have been traditional Republican, conservative values. While Bush has voiced support for the traditional social/religious values of the right – opposition to abortion and homosexuals, government support of religious charities and schools, censorship of “immoral” material over the airwaves – he has not adhered to the traditional GOP position of smaller government and balanced budget.

During the Bush administration the Clinton surplus has become a deficit approaching $500 billion. The current government debt is over $7 trillion. His tax cuts, aimed mainly at the wealthiest 1%, are straight from the traditional GOP playbook but, combined with the out-of-control spending of the GOP Congress, are bankrupting the U.S. treasury. George W. Bush’s growing government is also a more intrusive government. The woefully misnamed “Patriot Act” interjects an unchecked government into the lives of Americans in ways no true conservative would have accepted in the past.

The president’s biggest break with traditional Republican values, however, has been in the area of foreign policy, adopting what has been called a “Neo-Conservative” philosophy. The Neo-Con foreign policy supports preemptive strikes and unilateral action. The overarching goal is to promote the development of an American Empire, which the neo-cons say is the greatest hope for world peace – a Pax-Americana. The result has been an unnecessary war costing $200 billion, 1000+ American lives, and no end in sight.

The combination of an all-powerful, ever expanding government at home and a near messianic belief in American Empire abroad indicates that this administration has broken with key Republican values.

How do you reconcile your Republican beliefs with this radical change in the Republican Party?

Are you for keeping marijuana and/or other drugs illegal?
No. That is not for the federal government to decide. Although I disapprove of both, I feel there are many who can use both responsibly, just like many people can eat unhealthy food responsibly, and who can own a gun responsibly. But if someone uses something irresponsibly, they should lose the priviledge of having it.

George W. Bush has broken from what have been traditional Republican, conservative values. While Bush has voiced support for the traditional social/religious values of the right – opposition to abortion and homosexuals, government support of religious charities and schools, censorship of “immoral” material over the airwaves – he has not adhered to the traditional GOP position of smaller government and balanced budget.

During the Bush administration the Clinton surplus has become a deficit approaching $500 billion. The current government debt is over $7 trillion. His tax cuts, aimed mainly at the wealthiest 1%, are straight from the traditional GOP playbook but, combined with the out-of-control spending of the GOP Congress, are bankrupting the U.S. treasury. George W. Bush’s growing government is also a more intrusive government. The woefully misnamed “Patriot Act” interjects an unchecked government into the lives of Americans in ways no true conservative would have accepted in the past.

The president’s biggest break with traditional Republican values, however, has been in the area of foreign policy, adopting what has been called a “Neo-Conservative” philosophy. The Neo-Con foreign policy supports preemptive strikes and unilateral action. The overarching goal is to promote the development of an American Empire, which the neo-cons say is the greatest hope for world peace – a Pax-Americana. The result has been an unnecessary war costing $200 billion, 1000+ American lives, and no end in sight.

The combination of an all-powerful, ever expanding government at home and a near messianic belief in American Empire abroad indicates that this administration has broken with key Republican values.

How do you reconcile your Republican beliefs with this radical change in the Republican Party?
I don't agree with everything Bush has done. However, in America, you don't vote for a candidate, you vote for which party you want to be passing legislation. I believe it is fine to preemptively attack someone who you believe is going to hurt you, I don't believe in attacking someone for material gain, such as oil. However, I do not believe the Iraq war was for oil, so please let's not get into that. I do like Bush's stance on education, but I am against his socialization of prescription drugs, and against the idea of Social Security entirely. As far as the Patriot Act goes, I do believe that the government has in the past been too relunctant to invade people's privacy, but in this case the door may be starting to swing the other way. I don't know. I would, ideally, only allow searches of suspects, and not a blanket informational database.

I believe everyone has the right to own a gun, until they prove themselves otherwise. Violent felons, no matter what the offense, should have this right revoked.

No matter the offense? I agree with some offenders never having access to guns.. but a felony is a broad category. I got friends, including a brother, doing 3 years right now for possession, and he'll be getting a gun upon release, even if I have to get it for him myself.. especially if he's gonna be sticking around this area, where he's more likely to need it.. You don't think non-violent offenders should keep that right? I dunno about that..

No matter the offense? I agree with some offenders never having access to guns.. but a felony is a broad category. I got friends, including a brother, doing 3 years right now for possession, and he'll be getting a gun upon release, even if I have to get it for him myself.. especially if he's gonna be sticking around this area, where he's more likely to need it.. You don't think non-violent offenders should keep that right? I dunno about that..
I do think non-violent offenders should keep that right. Any violent felon, beat someone half to death with his fists, not in self-defense, for example, should lose gun privileges forever. A CEO who commits fraud should not lose that right, someone who smoked marijuana shouldn't lose that right (as I don't believe marijuana should be illegal at all), etc. etc.

I don't agree with everything Bush has done. However, in America, you don't vote for a candidate, you vote for which party you want to be passing legislation. I believe it is fine to preemptively attack someone who you believe is going to hurt you, I don't believe in attacking someone for material gain, such as oil. However, I do not believe the Iraq war was for oil, so please let's not get into that. I do like Bush's stance on education, but I am against his socialization of prescription drugs, and against the idea of Social Security entirely. As far as the Patriot Act goes, I do believe that the government has in the past been too relunctant to invade people's privacy, but in this case the door may be starting to swing the other way. I don't know. I would, ideally, only allow searches of suspects, and not a blanket informational database.

So you are not a traditional conservative Republican? Therefore, the party's move away from its small government, libertarian domestic ideals and historically isolationist foreign policy does not concern you?

So you are not a traditional conservative Republican? Therefore, the party's move away from its small government, libertarian domestic ideals and historically isolationist foreign policy does not concern you?
The United States can no longer afford to be isolationist. I would prefer that we not have to meddle in the affairs of other nations, but in this globalist world we live in you cannot survive by hiding in a shell. I would prefer the government be smaller than it is, but based on what the Democrats are proposing the government would only get larger under them. Neither party satisfies me in that regard. The Republicans are too restrictive, but apply punishment correctly for breaking the law. The Democrats are too lax on enforcing law, but are more in line with my ideal of a free society. Because it is more dangerous to have poorly enforced laws than overrestrictive, properly used ones, I align closer to the Republicans.

EDIT: And it's bed time, I'll continue this tomorrow if it's on the front page.

The republican party has become corrupted by corporate and religious interests. Yet, people still vote for it, against self-interest. Why?

Is it a desire to become rich? Illogical and exaggerated fear for terrorism?

I believe that in America, realism dictates you have to be a member of one of two parties. Although I don't agree with Republicans completely, they are closer to my ideal government than Democrats.

The American voting system has ended up much like the Roman voting system back in The Roman Empire's days of ruling Europe. Only they had the reds and the greens, which offered the public a democratic method of voting for the people they liked, even though there was almost no difference between the two parties. It gave the feel of democracy, even though the outcome under either was usually the same.

Also, if America is anything like Britain, your government is run by your equivalent of the civil service, so any rearrangement of government makes little difference anyway

Are you evil?

Are you evil?

who is that aimed at?

can jesus cook a burrito so hot that he himself can not eat it?

Why are you so nationalistic? Can national borders really provide a difference between people?

(This is much more a question for the entire group you represent, not you in particular. I just hope that you can provide a little insight.)

national borders do define some people. just like kids at school, those kids hang out in groups and each group is different.

I had a 4.0 in high school, made a 1500 on my SATs (750/750), am a triple major at Virginia Tech, and learned differential equations independent study. I would submit that I am more likely more intelligent than you, and at the very least realize that Nazi, as a proper noun, should be capitalized.

Why did you feel the need to give your resume? Are you not confident enough in yourself that you can only dictate your intellect through numbers and standardized scoring?

Why are WASPs so defensive and cultureless?

Why do WASPs make excuses for everything, rather than finding real solutions? For example, they won't show pride in their heritage because they think they'll be labelled racist for it ... when, in reality, those of us with color don't really care if ya'll march and have parades and such.

Do you agree with the Republican Party's platform that the US is a Christian nation and should be dictated as such, even though it would mean alienating the millions of non-Christian citizens of the US?

If ordered by your goverment, would you return the land you are living on to the people your grandfathers stole it from?

I'm sure I have more, but I already know your answers. I'm just being annoying.

yay for annoying people

I have no ties to German government, past or present.

I had a 4.0 in high school, made a 1500 on my SATs (750/750), am a triple major at Virginia Tech, and learned differential equations independent study. I would submit that I am more likely more intelligent than you, and at the very least realize that Nazi, as a proper noun, should be capitalized.

good comeback
but what you should have really done is reported him for flamebaiting

national borders do define some people. just like kids at school, those kids hang out in groups and each group is different.

But those kids are much more defined by economic class than by any sort of national division. Ethnicity sometimes comes in to play in this situation, but America is a nation that cannot judge by ethnicity.

Also, would you say that being born in America is something you should be proud of?

Why are you so nationalistic? Can national borders really provide a difference between people?

(This is much more a question for the entire group you represent, not you in particular. I just hope that you can provide a little insight.)
National borders provide a great difference between people, as nations treat their people differently and have different cultures, and people change based on how they are treated and what their surroundings are.

you should be very proud to be born in america. you were lucky enough to be born in a nation that gives free speech to people so that they can talk bad about the people that gave them free speech

Americans dont seem to realize how lucky we are, I am a military brat, i have seen other countries, i have a larger understanding about the world then people who have never even been to canada

I can't think of much to ask a meat-eating, Republican, middle-class WASP. I see you guys all the time swanning about in your grey suits in the financial district, wolfing down steak lunches and discussing stock portfolios, inching your way towards eventual cardiac arrest, ulcers, or a date with Viagra, and I laugh and laugh and laugh.

What do you want people to ask you about, seeing as you're apparently so eager to provide responses?

George W. Bush has broken from what have been traditional Republican, conservative values. While Bush has voiced support for the traditional social/religious values of the right – opposition to abortion and homosexuals, government support of religious charities and schools, censorship of “immoral” material over the airwaves – he has not adhered to the traditional GOP position of smaller government and balanced budget.

During the Bush administration the Clinton surplus has become a deficit approaching $500 billion. The current government debt is over $7 trillion. His tax cuts, aimed mainly at the wealthiest 1%, are straight from the traditional GOP playbook but, combined with the out-of-control spending of the GOP Congress, are bankrupting the U.S. treasury. George W. Bush’s growing government is also a more intrusive government. The woefully misnamed “Patriot Act” interjects an unchecked government into the lives of Americans in ways no true conservative would have accepted in the past.

The president’s biggest break with traditional Republican values, however, has been in the area of foreign policy, adopting what has been called a “Neo-Conservative” philosophy. The Neo-Con foreign policy supports preemptive strikes and unilateral action. The overarching goal is to promote the development of an American Empire, which the neo-cons say is the greatest hope for world peace – a Pax-Americana. The result has been an unnecessary war costing $200 billion, 1000+ American lives, and no end in sight.

The combination of an all-powerful, ever expanding government at home and a near messianic belief in American Empire abroad indicates that this administration has broken with key Republican values.

How do you reconcile your Republican beliefs with this radical change in the Republican Party?

I am also a WASP Republican. The problem is, when I joined the Republican party, Carter was President, the Moral Majority hadnt taken over the party yet, and Republicans wanted to upgrade the military at an important time during the Cold War.

Now in many states, especially Texas (where I joined the party originally but have moved from since), the Christian Right (essentially Evangelical and very conservative on social policy) has taken over the party apparatus by mobilizing more people than moderate or relatively liberal republicans.

It is becoming clear that no matter how hard moderates attempt to hold this trend back, that they are losing. At least for now.

The best thing the Republican party could do would be to nominate some extreme candidate that got them clobbered in a national election so that the moderates could retake the party. It may be the only way to reduce the savage partisianship that has marred the last 20 years of politics in the US where the Republicans tried to empeach a President because he lied about having sex with a consenting adult, and the Democrats tried to crucify (essentially) a Supreme Court nominee for something very similar (Clarence Thomas).

So this Republican is voting for Kerry, and hoping that the Democrats manage to get the majority in the Senate (not going to happen in the House)

I am also a military brat, I have been to England, France, and Italy. My father was stationed in England for several years.

It is my opinion, though, that luck is not something to be proud of. It is my opinion that none of us born in America have anything to be proud of until we have done something to deserve pride. That is my main problem with the WASP middle-class of this nation, especially republicans. They seem to believe that having something means you must deserve it.

So this Republican is voting for Kerry, and hoping that the Democrats manage to get the majority in the Senate (not going to happen in the House)

a republican that is even thinking about voting for kerry can not call themselves a republican, you signed up for the republican party but it is obvious that you are not a strong republican. perhaps you are more independent.

Why did you feel the need to give your resume? Are you not confident enough in yourself that you can only dictate your intellect through numbers and standardized scoring?

Why are WASPs so defensive and cultureless?

Why do WASPs make excuses for everything, rather than finding real solutions? For example, they won't show pride in their heritage because they think they'll be labelled racist for it ... when, in reality, those of us with color don't really care if ya'll march and have parades and such.

Do you agree with the Republican Party's platform that the US is a Christian nation and should be dictated as such, even though it would mean alienating the millions of non-Christian citizens of the US?

If ordered by your goverment, would you return the land you are living on to the people your grandfathers stole it from?

I'm sure I have more, but I already know your answers. I'm just being annoying.

Well, this WASP, whose ancestors got here in the 17th Century, figures his ancestors conquered the place and we aren't giving it back. Since the entirity of Europe except for part of the Basque regions is settled by conquerors who stole it from someone else, if the Europeans all decide to move back to northern Central Asian Steppes, than I guess Americans can all go back to Europe and retreat with them. Just think how much room the Basques will have. I guess they should leave too, but the Neanderthals, who they replaced are extinct, so not much point in that.

I am personally proud of my heritage, which also includes Cherokee blood, along with Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English. Our culture is the American culture, some good, some bad, but roots going back to Britian, and a healthy dose of cultures from everywhere on the planet.

So feel free to generalize some more.

You know, I think the main problem with this thread is that you started it off by calling yourself a WASP, and dared anyone to say the same. If you want my oppinion, (which you don't) you should tell us something about what you think or how you act or whether you believe in worm holes instead of proclaiming your ethnicity and leaving it at that.

I am also a military brat, I have been to England, France, and Italy. My father was stationed in England for several years.

It is my opinion, though, that luck is not something to be proud of. It is my opinion that none of us born in America have anything to be proud of until we have done something to deserve pride. That is my main problem with the WASP middle-class of this nation, especially republicans. They seem to believe that having something means you must deserve it.

i agree with you that you should do something to deserve it, but it is my opinion to feel very proud to be an American wether you were born here or not. i dont understand why so many Americans bad mouth America and the American people allow it.
I do feel very strongly that living in a country like the UNITED STATES even though it isnt required to somehow serve your country. (doesnt just mean military service)

a republican that is even thinking about voting for kerry can not call themselves a republican, you signed up for the republican party but it is obvious that you are not a strong republican. perhaps you are more independent.

well, my voting record dates back to 1980 so I am comfortable with saying I am a Republican. At that time, George Bush (the first one) was running against Reagan (and would have been a better choice in my view perhaps, if he had some charisma). The other choice was Carter who might make an excellent saint but wasn't a very effective President.

Most Americans vote for the candidate, not the party, and if they can't get a decent candidate out of their primary election process, they vote for the better candidate even if it from the other party.

I'm proud of my heritage, too, but I don't feel the need to beat my chest about it. I'm a seventh-generation Scots living in Canada, my ancestors came two hundred years ago. I also have a dash of Miq'Maq blood floating about my system, no doubt picked up in the Maritime provinces many many years ago.

Big deal. Everybody's got to come from somewhere.

a republican that is even thinking about voting for kerry can not call themselves a republican, you signed up for the republican party but it is obvious that you are not a strong republican. perhaps you are more independent.

It is hardliners like you who are causing such a rift in American politics. I personally applaud him for stepping across party lines. I would disagree with any democrat who voted for Bush, but would applaud them for their open-mindedness.

And I was also a registered republican in 2000. It was the election that signaled the shift in the republican party. You had a moderate in John McCain who was light years more qualified than George Bush, but Bush operated a political, religious, and corporate machine. Bush won because of the mobilization of resources, not by merit.

What is interesting is the way in which the movement galvanized the Democratic party. Yet when presented with a candidate as radically left (Dean) as Bush is radically right, he was not accepted.

i agree with you that you should do something to deserve it, but it is my opinion to feel very proud to be an American wether you were born here or not. i dont understand why so many Americans bad mouth America and the American people allow it.
I do feel very strongly that living in a country like the UNITED STATES even though it isnt required to somehow serve your country. (doesnt just mean military service)

So far all you have said is that you are proud because you are a United States citizen. Did you earn that right, or did your ancestors? Would your ancestors be proud of the current state of affairs in America?

It is a very good thing to look at individual candidates rather then party, even George Washington warned us at his farewell address that parties will grow and elections will be based on party rather then candidates. To me calling yourself a republican or a democrat is saying you go for the party not the candidate. saying independant is more of looking at the candidates not the party. independent candidates also dont have to hold an image of a republican or a democrat and i think that helps them make wiser choices.

When I was young and didn't know any better, I was a Liberal Democrat. I didn't know how the world worked, and I went by my feelings instead of facts, like any other Liberal Democrat. Morton Downey Jr. called me and my friends "Pablum Puking Liberals" and told us to "Zip it pal!".

As I got older and learned how money worked, and learned economics, financial accounting, and started to learn the facts, I became a Moderate Republican.

The more I learn about how things work, the more Republican in views I become.

So I was a Democrat and then I was a Republican, now I am a Pirate. Pirates, are just like Democrats and Republicans, only we are honest about the looting and plundering we do. ;)

Orion Blastar, President of the Pirate Party of District 268. :D

P.S. I am voting for Bush tomorrow, because I am better off now than I was four years ago. Also I want Terrorists dead or in jail, and Kerry is too much of a wimp to do those things. Mr. "Sensative War on Terror" will just write them a strong letter or something, I want military action!

Political correctness kills the mind.

Being born in this country is one way of earning your citizenship, but not just being born here and just living here. you earn it by holding jobs, voting and voicing your opinion on what you think will make this country a better place, and for the many who have done so fighting to protect the freedoms of this great country. any way you give back to this country is a way of earning your citizenship. it takes a life time to payback for being a part of this nation.

Also I want Terrorists dead or in jail, and Kerry is too much of a wimp to do those things. Mr. "Sensative War on Terror" will just write them a strong letter or something, I want military action!

For knowing so much about how the world works, you take a very simplistic and immature view of how either candidate will handle the problem.

And remember the wimp is the one who spent his early years killing Vietcong, and speaking in front of a mostly hostile congress, not being an alcoholic and working behind the scenes of various meaningless political campaigns in the south.

that right kerry did kill vietcong didnt he, what did he do after he left the war early. thats right he bad mouthed all the other soldiers that were still there and gave to the vietcong what pows still being tortured would not give them

Not all Whites are necessarily Anglo-Saxon, Italians aren't, Greeks aren't, and Lithuanians aren't, to name a few.

But all anglo-saxons are white. Hence the redundancy in WASP.

When I was young and didn't know any better, I was a Liberal Democrat. I didn't know how the world worked, and I went by my feelings instead of facts, like any other Liberal Democrat. Morton Downey Jr. called me and my friends "Pablum Puking Liberals" and told us to "Zip it pal!".

As I got older and learned how money worked, and learned economics, financial accounting, and started to learn the facts, I became a Moderate Republican.

The more I learn about how things work, the more Republican in views I become.

So I was a Democrat and then I was a Republican, now I am a Pirate. Pirates, are just like Democrats and Republicans, only we are honest about the looting and plundering we do. ;)

Orion Blastar, President of the Pirate Party of District 268. :D

P.S. I am voting for Bush tomorrow, because I am better off now than I was four years ago. Also I want Terrorists dead or in jail, and Kerry is too much of a wimp to do those things. Mr. "Sensative War on Terror" will just write them a strong letter or something, I want military action!
Did your views change on gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, doctor-assisted suicide, cloning, etc?

that right kerry did kill vietcong didnt he, what did he do after he left the war early. thats right he bad mouthed all the other soldiers that were still there and gave to the vietcong what pows still being tortured would not give them

It sounds like I touched a sore spot.

It was not my intentions to inspire an argument on whether Kerry was right in his postwar actions. In fact, I am quite sick of that God-forsaken argument. It was merely my point that it is difficult to apply the "wimp" label to someone who risked bodily harm in the war, and then put his political and personal self on the line in front of congress after the war.

The republican party has become corrupted by corporate and religious interests. Yet, people still vote for it, against self-interest. Why?

Is it a desire to become rich? Illogical and exaggerated fear for terrorism?
The Democratic party has been corrupted by corporate and atheist interests. Yet...

But all anglo-saxons are white. Hence the redundancy in WASP.

yep your are right about that.... all anglo-saxons are white. but not all whites are anglo-saxon.... hence the full description. And some anglo-saxons are catholic.

The Democratic party has been corrupted by corporate and atheist interests. Yet...

While I believe that the post you responded to is a reactionary overstatement and that all political parties will eventually become corrupted by corporate interests, with the democratic party being no different.

It seems to me that whatever athiest coalition is out there would have trouble corrupting a democratic party which is largely religious. In fact I can't think of one member of either party has proclaimed their atheism.

Your inability to distinguish between advancing an atheist agenda and running a secular government undermines that superior intellect that you have referenced.

kerry didnt really have much of a choice on going to vietnam and who wouldnt want to be in congress and do nothing and get paid

Political correctness kills the mind.

So does religion, nationalism, and patriotism.

Are you evil?
As much as I enjoy burning rainforests, eating children, and selling poor people's organs to corporations, I would have to say not. *removes tongue from cheek


can jesus cook a burrito so hot that he himself can not eat it?
Yes, since Jesus still has a frail human body.

Why are you so nationalistic? Can national borders really provide a difference between people?
Everyone has their own best interest at heart. People in Britian don't really care if Americans are starving, if Britains are starving. And vice versa. I'm amazed a country as large and diverse as America, with so many subgroups and subinterests, has kept together for as long as it has.

Why did you feel the need to give your resume? Are you not confident enough in yourself that you can only dictate your intellect through numbers and standardized scoring?
If you'll look at the context, you'll realize my intelligence was being stereotyped incorrectly. And standardization is the only real way to measure something, as any statistian will tell you.

Why are WASPs so defensive and cultureless?
Why are you so offensive and ignorant?

Why do WASPs make excuses for everything, rather than finding real solutions? For example, they won't show pride in their heritage because they think they'll be labelled racist for it ... when, in reality, those of us with color don't really care if ya'll march and have parades and such.
We don't feel that race is a reason to through a parade. Nor do we feel that every single accomplishment needs to be celebrated every year, ritualistically.

Do you agree with the Republican Party's platform that the US is a Christian nation and should be dictated as such, even though it would mean alienating the millions of non-Christian citizens of the US?
No, and neither does the Republican party.

If ordered by your goverment, would you return the land you are living on to the people your grandfathers stole it from?
My grandfather's bought their land from the owner, so your question is invalid.

I'm sure I have more, but I already know your answers. I'm just being annoying.
Yes you are. Typical ignorant hatred that I was expecting to find in this thread.

but what you should have really done is reported him for flamebaiting
If I reported everyone for flamebaiting, we would have no members on this board :p Besides, he later said he was just kidding.

I can't think of much to ask a meat-eating, Republican, middle-class WASP. I see you guys all the time swanning about in your grey suits in the financial district, wolfing down steak lunches and discussing stock portfolios, inching your way towards eventual cardiac arrest, ulcers, or a date with Viagra, and I laugh and laugh and laugh.

What do you want people to ask you about, seeing as you're apparently so eager to provide responses?
Well, clearly you should ask something, since you seem to base all your knowledge on stereotypes. I've never discussed stocks in my life, never had a steak lunch, and if you can't see what people are asking, maybe you should try reading the thread. And please, next time you're going to make an ass of yourself, don't do in a thread having a serious discussion. K thx.

You know, I think the main problem with this thread is that you started it off by calling yourself a WASP, and dared anyone to say the same. If you want my oppinion, (which you don't) you should tell us something about what you think or how you act or whether you believe in worm holes instead of proclaiming your ethnicity and leaving it at that.
I didn't dare anyone to say anything. I asked people to ask me about myself. I don't believe in worm holes, since Steven Hawking no longer does. Ask me about anything you want.

But all anglo-saxons are white. Hence the redundancy in WASP.
Anglo-saxon shows where you were descended from, you could have been born in Germany to Blacks and still technically be Anglo-Saxon.

While I believe that the post you responded to is a reactionary overstatement and that all political parties will eventually become corrupted by corporate interests, with the democratic party being no different.

It seems to me that whatever athiest coalition is out there would have trouble corrupting a democratic party which is largely religious. In fact I can't think of one member of either party has proclaimed their atheism.

Your inability to distinguish between advancing an atheist agenda and running a secular government undermines that superior intellect that you have referenced.
I believe his statement and my statement were both equally absurd. I did not feel his "question" dictated a serious response. And you, being as enlightened as you attempt to make us believe, should have realized this.

kerry didnt really have much of a choice on going to vietnam and who wouldnt want to be in congress and do nothing and get paid

He had the same choice Bush had, plus more. He wasn't drafted he enlisted.

And his famous speech to congress came long before he was actually elected to congress, by making the speech he was jeopardizing any chance he actually had of making it to congress. He lost his first congressional campaign in large part because of his statements about the war.

I know that you dislike Kerry, and that is perfectly fine. But you can't forge arguments out of fallacies. Support your statements or abandon them. Questioning Kerry's courage or manliness will not support your arguments, so I suggest not doing it.

I believe his statement and my statement were both equally absurd. I did not feel his "question" dictated a serious response. And you, being as enlightened as you attempt to make us believe, should have realized this.

I have never felt the need to refer to my own intelligence, it is of little value to do so.

I assumed, with you being a meat-eating, Republican, middle-class WASP, and having read most of your defense of Christianity that you were defending your party with an idiotic attack on the other party. A tactic that is well employed on NS.

I am glad to see we agree on something, however. As I am most assuredly correct whenever I agree with you.

yep your are right about that.... all anglo-saxons are white. but not all whites are anglo-saxon.... hence the full description. And some anglo-saxons are catholic.

...and, OMG, some anglo-saxons are hindus, or jewish, or muslims, or - wait for it - ATHEISTS!!! I am sorry for this apparent swear, but being british i would also like to point out that the chance of anyone still being anglo-saxon in this day and age is quite remote. I somehow doubt that anyones bloodline is completely comprised of people descended only from anglo-saxons, unless some serious inbreeding has been going on in this crappy land of ours

Hello. How bout some civilized questions. Seems to be all the guy asked for.

It's pretty well polled that over 50% of republicans still believe Iraq had WMDs even though it's been well documented otherwise. Are you one of them? (I believed they did... before the war)

Normally Republicans are for smaller government, a balanced budget, and an isolationist, conservative foriegn policy. Obviously, Bush has pursued none of that, prolly based on necessity more than anything. What is your Republican view on the astounding budget deficet? Can it be balanced? Is it harmful to future generations?

Thanks for your views.

...and, OMG, some anglo-saxons are hindus, or jewish, or muslims, or - wait for it - ATHEISTS!!! I am sorry for this apparent swear, but being british i would also like to point out that the chance of anyone still being anglo-saxon in this day and age is quite remote. I somehow doubt that anyones bloodline is completely comprised of people descended only from anglo-saxons, unless some serious inbreeding has been going on in this crappy land of ours

good point.. don't forget the wiccans, moonies and a variety of others too...

the term meant more when it came into the language over a century ago anyway.... now its about as accurate as lumping all hispanics or blacks into a single group.

Hello. How bout some civilized questions. Seems to be all the guy asked for.

It's pretty well polled that over 50% of republicans still believe Iraq had WMDs even though it's been well documented otherwise. Are you one of them? (I believed they did... before the war)

Normally Republicans are for smaller government, a balanced budget, and an isolationist, conservative foriegn policy. Obviously, Bush has pursued none of that, prolly based on necessity more than anything. What is your Republican view on the astounding budget deficet? Can it be balanced? Is it harmful to future generations?

Thanks for your views.

some Republicans are still for those things (except the isolationist part, the mainstream party was internationalist but cautious pro NATO for a couple of generations)... but the party got coopted by those with a social agenda (a frequent problem with all political parties) and the party leadership is moving away from those of us who are still for those things. Ironically, Clinton did more in that department than either Bush.

...and, OMG, some anglo-saxons are hindus, or jewish, or muslims, or - wait for it - ATHEISTS!!! I am sorry for this apparent swear, but being british i would also like to point out that the chance of anyone still being anglo-saxon in this day and age is quite remote. I somehow doubt that anyones bloodline is completely comprised of people descended only from anglo-saxons, unless some serious inbreeding has been going on in this crappy land of ours
Anglo-Saxon just means of Germanic descent, which is most of Northern Europe.

Hello. How bout some civilized questions. Seems to be all the guy asked for.
Yes, and thank you. It's really sad it took six pages for someone to realize this.

It's pretty well polled that over 50% of republicans still believe Iraq had WMDs even though it's been well documented otherwise. Are you one of them? (I believed they did... before the war)
I do not believe that they now, nor ever, had nuclear weapons. I believe Iraq, like every other country in the world, would have liked to have had them. I do believe they had other weapons, such as anthrax and sarin, but that these weapons were not a direct threat to the United States.

Normally Republicans are for smaller government, a balanced budget, and an isolationist, conservative foriegn policy. Obviously, Bush has pursued none of that, prolly based on necessity more than anything. What is your Republican view on the astounding budget deficet? Can it be balanced? Is it harmful to future generations?
I believe Bush has expanded the government based on necessity, rather than desire. The NCLB act was necessary because far too many schools are appauling; at one of the high schools in my city, the number 48 guy could not speak English, he had to have an interpreter. He had lived in America for about 10 years, and could still not speak the language. That is ridiculous, I feel that if states cannot instill basic math and verbal skills in every student, then the government must step in. The Homeland Security Department seems like a dumb idea, however, in Bush's defense, if he did nothing, he would have received much more flak, and probably a bogus impeachment hearing. The deficit has always existed, and always will. I would rather have a country that had no debt to anyone, but this will never happen, nor should it be expected to. The deficit hasn't harmed anyone in 230 years, I don't see why it would start being a bad thing now.

Thanks for your views.
You're welcome.

DAmn, it's good to see some more Republicans here. I seemed to think that we didn't exist.... :(

Anyways, you seem to be almost directly on the same page as me on every issue. Like you, I HATE it when people stereotype republicans as greedy assholes or hicks. Stereotyping sucks. We could just stereotype back, but I wouldn't want to reduce to their level. Just a quick question, you voting for the good guy tomorrow?

DAmn, it's good to see some more Republicans here. I seemed to think that we didn't exist.... :(

Anyways, you seem to be almost directly on the same page as me on every issue. Like you, I HATE it when people stereotype republicans as greedy assholes or hicks. Stereotyping sucks. We could just stereotype back, but I wouldn't want to reduce to their level. Just a quick question, you voting for the good guy tomorrow?
I'm voting for Bush, because there are only two complete parties, and of the two I prefer Republicans making laws. All the third parties are one or two issue parties.

I'm voting for Bush, because there are only two complete parties, and of the two I prefer Republicans making laws. All the third parties are one or two issue parties.

Would you say that the republican is becoming far too radical, however? Is there a place in government for this much religious consideration. Does the neocon values of unilateral power before foreign cooperation worry you?

Would you say that the republican is becoming far too radical, however? Is there a place in government for this much religious consideration. Does the neocon values of unilateral power before foreign cooperation worry you?
Foreign powere are unreliable. There are no guarantees when working with others. For example, if Saddam had had nukes, France still would not have been part of the coalition. Even if the war had been justified on the original premise, our ally still would not have supported us. The only reliable parter is yourself.

Would you say that the republican is becoming far too radical, however? Is there a place in government for this much religious consideration. Does the neocon values of unilateral power before foreign cooperation worry you?

We have foreign cooperation...You don't consider Britain, Spain, Poland to be foreign? What about France and Germany, who are now helping with the rebuilding of Iraq? That's not foreign cooperation?

Honestly, I think the majority of the democratic party, and a majority of the world need to wake up. They need to realize that there's ass needed to be kicked in this world...September 11th proves that. Saddam Hussein proves that, he was a major threat in the world. Hopefully Russia will realize it as well, as they've had their own terrorist attacks. Threats must be dealt with before they can strike.

We have foreign cooperation...You don't consider Britain, Spain, Poland to be foreign? What about France and Germany, who are now helping with the rebuilding of Iraq? That's not foreign cooperation?

Honestly, I think the majority of the democratic party, and a majority of the world need to wake up. They need to realize that there's ass needed to be kicked in this world...September 11th proves that. Saddam Hussein proves that, he was a major threat in the world. Hopefully Russia will realize it as well, as they've had their own terrorist attacks. Threats must be dealt with before they can strike.

Neocons do have a position of securing unilateral power at the expense of the rest of the world, read about it here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

And as for Saddam, actually our war there proved that sanctions were working and he was not a major threat, he was much farther away from obtaining WMD's than he was 10 years ago, he was even considering scrapping all possible plans and assuming normal relations with the west after sanctions were lifted.

No one will deny that terrorism is a threat, I personally don't feel that you can fight it through conventional war like Bush Co. does.

Neocons do have a position of securing unilateral power at the expense of the rest of the world, read about it here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

And as for Saddam, actually our war there proved that sanctions were working and he was not a major threat, he was much farther away from obtaining WMD's than he was 10 years ago, he was even considering scrapping all possible plans and assuming normal relations with the west after sanctions were lifted.

No one will deny that terrorism is a threat, I personally don't feel that you can fight it through conventional war like Bush Co. does.

How the hell are we going to stop Terrorism, then, by asking them nicely? You must fight fire with fire.

Saddams WAS a threat. He had the ability to make WMD's. he murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, he had wifes/ daughters raped in front of their husbadns/ fathers if they didn't vote for him. And you tell me he did not need to be taken out? Also, jsut because they didn't find weapons, does not mean they aren't there...Iraq is big. It's like me losing my keys in my room, looking for a minutes for them, and deciding they aren't there.

You didn't understand...Iraq is NOT unilateral...we have a coalition of 30+ helping in Iraq. Tell me that's unilateral.