Log Cabin Republicans..
so a couple of days ago i had the opprotunity/misfortune (depending on your views) to chat with a gay republican.. the session was rather long and involved, and ended on a short not just as i was about to make a point.. im going paste it below and add some commentary. please ignore the atrocious spelling
( Read more... )
here at 12:05:31: "government has a responsability to care for those that CAN NOT care for themselves"
and rewinding back to 11:56:13: "so if it makes welfare mothers to take my tax money, does that make it right?"
ooooooh....
and here at 12:08:38: "again, its wrong to take from person "A" and give to person "B" simply because person "B" makes the same mistake over and over and over"
rewinding back to 11:26:24: "well we have a repsonsability to protect those in our society that cannot protect themselves...that inlcudes the unborn."
fascinating stuff eh?
ooh ooh here's a fun fact:
On 27 June 1788, the anti-Federalists, fearing creation of a standing army that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties, as had previously occured in Britain and Rome, proposed the following amendment to the Constitution:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.(*)
That text, edited down to the Second Amendment, explains its original purpose-to establish a "well-regulated" democratic army of citizen-soldiers instead of a professional army; not to encourage the anarchic proliferation of weapons in civil society.
isn't it fun learning about our past... and now back to the tape...
11:21:03: "because i am pro-life, pro-second amendment, i am for an agressive foriegn policy, a large and able military, i am for less taxes, less government,"
he said pro-second amendment kids, you heard him right?
now how about this...
12:06:51: "democrats are only interested in making government bigger, taxes higher and giving more and more and more away to everyone
[12:07:04 AM:] and in the end, their system would come crashing down"
but if he supports an amendment that protects us from threats to democracy, but wants democracy to come crashing down... why... {gasp!} that's a paradox.... oh it boggles the mind...
i also believe that this man is misfiring some neurons somewhere...
12:01:13: "government needs to be starved"
ladies and gentlemen, this is what we call an anarchistic
view of government. (yes kiddies, anarchistic is a real word... i looked it up)
but then... another paradox (A most ingenious paradox, dusty-san),
12:10:23: "and thats why i am republican"
12:14:34: "and thats why i am a republican"
i wish i could make a techno remix of that... it would be a smash hit in the discotheques....
so um... in conclusion, mostly because the boyfriend would like to go to sleep now... i have to say... what a sad stupid little man....
Reply
Leave a comment