Where am I politically?

[Ibby]

Way too far right for me.


But seriously, if you are for or against something is politically irrelevant. It's whether or not you support LEGISLATING it.
For example, I think the world would be a MUCH better place if everyone was buddhist. But that does not mean in any way shape or form that I believe that it should be MANDATORY for everyone to be.

If you feel more strongly towards freedom than totalitarianism, go libertarian or democrat. If you feel more strongly towards everyone following your verson of morality, go republican.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Ibram

If you feel more strongly towards everyone following your verson of morality, go republican.

Ibram, you constantly amaze me with many of your comments and I am surprised at your maturity for someone who is 15. However, that has to be the most immature, skewed, and innaccurate post you've written.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Ibram, you constantly amaze me with many of your comments and I am surprised at your maturity for someone who is 15. However, that has to be the most immature, skewed, and innaccurate post you've written.

I agree with Ibram. Yesman065 is a poopy head.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Ibram

If you feel more strongly towards everyone following your verson of morality, go republican.

Originally Posted by yesman065

...that has to be the most immature, skewed, and innaccurate post you've written.

First, on what grounds is it inaccurate? Republicans have felt the backlash of their heavy-handed attempt to legislate morality, it hit them hard. So the statement stands as an accurate description of reality if you equate "going republican" with "supporting the observable actions of republicans, and endorsing more of the same." Next, as it is demonstrated to be accurate, on what grounds is it immature? How is it immature to make an observation of this type? Is it immature because you disagree with it? Please elaborate.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Flint

First, on what grounds is it inaccurate? Republicans have felt the backlash of their heavy-handed attempt to legislate morality, it hit them hard. So the statement stands as an accurate description of reality if you equate "going republican" with "supporting the observable actions of republicans, and endorsing more of the same." Next, as it is demonstrated to be accurate, on what grounds is it immature? How is it immature to make an observation of this type? Is it immature because you disagree with it? Please elaborate.

It is not accurate to say that republican = "everyone following your version of morality." It is an immature view based on the reality that it not tru. A more mature individual would understand, perhaps not agree with, but still understand there is a whole lot more than that one issue which constitutes a republican. Its like saying anything that flies is a bird therefore insects are birds. Its equally as ridiculous.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by yesman065

A more mature individual would understand, perhaps not agree with, but still understand there is a whole lot more than that one issue which constitutes a republican.

Not in a hard-line party system there isn't. You run with the pack or you get left in the dust. You can "feel" like there is more to it, but what actually counts is: what they do with your vote when they get in power.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by yesman065

It is not accurate to say that republican = "everyone following your version of morality."

Does that then mean Democrat="Everyone following your version of immorality?"

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by wolf

yesman065 It is not accurate to say that republican = "everyone following your version of morality."

Does that then mean Democrat="Everyone following your version of immorality?"

I wold say that the NOT is the key there wolf. Therefore the same would hold true of your statement
Democrat does NOT="Everyone following your version of immorality?