Fantastique wrote:
Battletard wrote:
Mns wrote:
We should just be complacent with a mediocre system, and we should never strive to improve as a country.
I could be wrong, but isn't that what the Republicans are striving for?
- Repeal Obama's Affordable Care Act, the only healthcare overhaul in recent history
- Stop the funding of research, including stem cell research, even though it shows much promise
- Continue to deny the rights of gays in the military for absolutely no good reason whatsoever
- Continue disproportionately taxing the middle class in favor of the rich (read: the people that put them into office to do their bidding)
- Quit trying to make friends with other countries and continue to try and police the world
That's all I could think of off the top of my head in 30 seconds. Like I said, I could be wrong.
It's not so much that you're
wrong, it's that you are guilty of telling half the story.
Generalizing hugely as well, but for sake of argument we will agree that Republicans are generally against social progression, and Democrats are generally against fiscal moderation.
I see why Republicans are against social progression in certain areas due to lolreligious beliefs and clinging to their 'back in the good old REAL AMERICA days' thinking, particularly among retarded elderly peeps who thought America would stay in 1965 forever. Shit changes, get over it.
I see why. I don't agree with it.
I don't see any coherent reason or argument to support increasing taxation and turning a blind eye to taxes we already take in that are being improperly spent or utilized. Most Democrats are exactly as described above. I fail to see how simple discussions about what works and what doesn't as far as social programs, education, "EQUALITY" regulations and rules for special interest groups like minorities, females and gays (Read: More rights than other people, not equal rights).
I also see no reason to do this with our military(Industrial Complex).
What works, what doesn't? How can we maximize efficiency while spending less money? Do we really need to pay Lockheed Martin $150 million to develop a jet fighter, and then scrap the project halfway through leaving Lockheed Martin with $150 million, and us with no fighter jet, and up Shit Creek with no paddle, or canoe for that matter.
TLDR: Both sides are guilty of being whiny crybaby bitches.
BrawlsackTaking an extended hiatus from gaming
Now that gays are in the military we'll have better designed barracks, fashionable uniforms and cadence with a lisp.
