Jump to content

Which Side of the Fence


mission vending

Recommended Posts

Which side of the fence?

 
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

 
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

 
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

 
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

 
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.

 
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
A Democrat demands that those they don't like be shut down.

 
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

 
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.

 
If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

 
Well, I forwarded it

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

Which side of the fence?

 

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

 

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

 

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

 

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

 

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.

 

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
A Democrat demands that those they don't like be shut down.

 

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

 

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.

 

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

 

Well, I forwarded it

 

Now look what you've started  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget to add this one....

 

 

If a Republican takes advantage of a tax break to protect his finances, he is a smart business man.

If a Democrat takes advantage of a government program to not be hungry, he is a moocher.

The difference is

the republican is protecting HIS finances THAT HE BUSTED HIS golpher FOR

the democrat is using THE REPUBLICANS MONEY THRU TAXES to not be hungry

 

Glad to clear that for you Sherlock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess you are unaware of the fact that with the sole exception of Texas every red state gets Far more money from the fed than they pay to the fed. Given the facts it would seem as if its the blue states doing the producing and the red states doing the mooching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess you are unaware of the fact that with the sole exception of Texas every red state gets Far more money from the fed than they pay to the fed. Given the facts it would seem as if its the blue states doing the producing and the red states doing the mooching.

In my mind there is no such thing as red and blue states or democrats or republicans. Just individuals following their dreams and taking responsibility for themselves and their well being. 

Perfect example my brother in law is a financial planner one of his clients who was laid off over 18 months ago calls him up and asked if the unemployment benefits would be extended or did they have to start looking for a job. Thats a mooch.

I always crack up when they show people on the news who complain about not being able to find work for the last two years.

My oldest son did 4.5 years of collage paid his own way did not live at home bought a car and graduated with less than 10,000 dollars in debt. I have another son in his third year doing the same thing. My youngest is in her first year and lives on campus has two jobs and pays her own way.

So I dont want to hear about how nobody can get a job or help themselves that they have to have Gov. assistance. BULLSHIT

 

Unless your mentally or physically impaired you should be pulling your weight or looking in the mirror every morning and telling yourself that you are a complete loser because you live in the greatest country that people from everywhere will temp death to get to and all you do is suck us dry. Everyone gets dealt the same 24 hours everyday its what you do with it that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, and so why would you:

The difference is

the republican is protecting HIS finances THAT HE BUSTED HIS golpher FOR

the democrat is using THE REPUBLICANS MONEY THRU TAXES to not be hungry

 

I just pointed out that the republican argument is BS. (always has been), they have always been a bunch of snide, holier than thou, phonies that have always been first to the trough.

 

Geeze lighten up and listen up. The real difference between Republicans and Democrats is this; they both believe that the public can be endlessly abused but the republican thinks the public will never really rebel, the democrat is sure the public will rebel and will want blood. So the democrat thinks the best policy is to throw candy to the masses. I think its best put by Lewis Black, " the Republicans are the party of no ideas, the Democrats are the Party of bad ideas." Hence the ACA and the lack of a real republican plan they have been talking about an alternative since 2009 with no legislation yet.

 

I, personally, am tired of all the right wingbat whining.  I mean seriously, if one beieves all this self reliance stuff one would be too busy being self reliant to worry about what other people are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is

the republican is protecting HIS finances THAT HE BUSTED HIS golpher FOR

the democrat is using THE REPUBLICANS MONEY THRU TAXES to not be hungry

 

 

In my mind there is no such thing as red and blue states or democrats or republicans.

 

 

With so many personalities you must have some AWESOME political debates inside your head.

 

;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With so many personalities you must have some AWESOME political debates inside your head.

 

;D

Yeah,,,,,,, they are pretty spirited sometimes when the voices all get together........You should hear them it gets craaaazy

I, personally, am tired of all the right wingbat whining.  I mean seriously, if one beieves all this self reliance stuff one would be too busy being self reliant to worry about what other people are doing.

 

EXACTLY 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I see, the differences between our two parties is minuscule relative to other countries - we spend a lot of time bickering about stuff that is not that important in the grand scheme of things.  What gripes my butt is large government - why should the only real estate market not to take a hit in the recent recession be in Washington DC.  The Feds have become a little too "Let them eat cake (pasture pastry)" for me.  They have their own retirement fund (not tapped into like ours) and they can't be fired.  Here in the PRK (People's Republik of Kalifornia) we've managed to solve this problem - due to our insolvency, our government is actually shrinking (though not fast enough for me).

 

Buy more ammo (you heard it here  :blink: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we spend a lot of time bickering about stuff that is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

Yes.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I see, the differences between our two parties is minuscule relative to other countries - we spend a lot of time bickering about stuff that is not that important in the grand scheme of things.  What gripes my butt is large government - why should the only real estate market not to take a hit in the recent recession be in Washington DC.  The Feds have become a little too "Let them eat cake (pasture pastry)" for me.  They have their own retirement fund (not tapped into like ours) and they can't be fired.  Here in the PRK (People's Republik of Kalifornia) we've managed to solve this problem - due to our insolvency, our government is actually shrinking (though not fast enough for me).

 

Buy more ammo (you heard it here  :blink: )

 

The real estate markets that were hit the hardest were the ones that grew the most before the crash. That means they were all bubbles that were brought back down to Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked into the Republican party, and didn't like what I saw. Then I looked into the Democrat party, and went screaming into the night.

 

I have to admit that in general my beliefs fit better with the Republican party then the Democrat party, at least in their current views.  But that was never by choice. I look at the issues, and have my opinion on the subject that I attempt to base on logic and knowledge, as well as my own personal morality. But I think I am quickly sliding further and further into a libertarian philosophy. (Position, not party.)

 

I have found one big difference when it comes to how the economy is dealt with. There are two major philosophies on this. One is the idea of creating more wealth. To me this is quite logical. But the other is to move wealth around. I can only see this as a shell game where it looks like you did something, but the totals are still the same.

 

Both parties seem to see the other as evil, and trying to do something underhanded for some nefarious reason, while believing that morality is on their side. 

 

I don't see good and evil in the context of the government, I see levels of ignorance and stupidity. There are people who will chose their opinion based solely on what the party position is. Problem is this isn't an opinion, it's dogma, and about as brain dead as you can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well all of this has been pretty entertaining. I am very pragmatic. Because I am a "street operator" it is in my best interest to at least act as if I am willing to get along with others. So, from a strictly self preservation based view point, I usually fall in with the Democrats because they are less likely to get me killed by stirring up the stupid. Just my opinion though. If it was still 1958 I might think differently.

 

Its hard to figure stuff out these days. So many people in the right wing wack-o-sphere go gaga over everything the Koch brothers say about the "system". Yet the "system" the Kochs want people to hate so much is the very system that has made the Kochs ( and many others) Billionaires. Odd isn't it.

 

Not to kick a hornets nest too hard but I really am not a fan of todays "libertarians" either. I always though that yesterdays Hippies were a bunch of useless, non contributing, anti social, spoiled dullards. The same people today call themselves Teapartiers (or what ever), but today they have guns. Hippies were jerks, todays hippies with guns are no improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing about the Koch brothers, but don't know anything about them other then what the left says. I never hear the right talking about them.

 

Hippies were a group of people who all dressed the same, thought the same, acted the same, had the same hair style, and called themselves non-conformists. 

 

Hippies really took over the left. The are Greenpeace, Peta, Earth Day, and all the parts of the Socialist movement, which involves large government ideas and controls.

 

Libertarians, while many are out there (too out there unfortunately) really are the opposite politically, advocating smaller government, and more limited rules. I do think some go too far, while others are only associated with the group because either they think they are being cool, or because of the legalization of pot position. I believe some can take it too far, and I do believe in some government, and intervention.

 

Like I said, I don't base my philosophy on a group, or the labels, but I attempt to look at all the issues, form an opinion on them. I am not sure there is a benefit to classifying where I fall, really, but as long as I have formed opinions, they will most likely fall within a certain area. The question is, does anyone have a good definition of those areas? I hear an idea of what the Tea Party is, and it sounds more like the Occupy Movement to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is the purpose of government? Answering that question typically determines where one falls. 

 

Personally, I want small unobtrusive government that protects its people (especially the most innocent among us) from threat of force (and by doing so let's me live in relative peace) and lets me make the decisions I feel are best for my life and family and suffer the consequences of those decisions. When the government gets into the social realm, they screw it up. It simply isn't designed to deal with social problems effectively or efficiently.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hippies were a group of people who all dressed the same, thought the same, acted the same, had the same hair style, and called themselves non-conformists.

 

Like Duck Dynasty? Bwahaha

 

Anyway you can sure tell its a long winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither the democrats or the republicans are on our side they are on their own side.

Follow the money you will see why they do what they do.

Ta da!!! the winner. Which is why (even though some think I'm daffy) I vote for who I think is least likely to get me killed on the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ta da!!! the winner. Which is why (even though some think I'm daffy) I vote for who I think is least likely to get me killed on the street.

 

Agreed. While we may disagree on some issues, we are in agreement that those in Washington and even many state legislatures are mainly interested in serving their own self interests and not that of those they supposedly represent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. 

 

  I think this article proves the above point. 

 

 

Here's another example to prove the above point:

If a Democrat is straight, he marries someone of the opposite sex.

If a Republican is straight, he wants gay marriage banned for everyone.

 

Oh wait a minute, that's exactly the opposite of the above example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the most important lesson of all is this: Whilst we have been pointlessly conversing there are Billionaires adding to their Billions, average people becoming Millionaires, Millionaires creeping up to the Billionaire level. ALL of them doing so in a system that a whole bunch of crybabys think is unfair, too much gumberment, not enough government, to much regulation, too much socialism, communism, not enough help, blah blah blah.

 

Sooner or later you would think that those fumbling around in the shadows of others success would stop looking for excuses and face the reality of where the real problem lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another example to prove the above point:

If a Democrat is straight, he marries someone of the opposite sex.

If a Republican is straight, he wants gay marriage banned for everyone.

 

Oh wait a minute, that's exactly the opposite of the above example.

As if eating meat were somehow a wrong and sinful behavior which is against the natural order of things! Too much to get into but the comparison is apples and oranges. What one eats, whether meat or plant, has zero effects on the lives of others nor does it destroy a several thousand year old institution.

 

The government should absolutely no interest in regulating an institution based on how two people "feel" about each other. Marriage between men and women are not regulated on the basis of love for one another but rather for the protection of children and the propagation of society. When homosexuals can start naturally procreating then I'd be all for the state regulating the institution of marriage. Until then....they are out of their element.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...