Hobbyist political affiliation

[Jackie S]

For the arguments sake, I am a Republican.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Does anyone notice that Old T uses the "I" word a lot. So you can choose between pontification or narcissism. The question was answered which is the important part.

Seriously? How the hell was Old-T supposed to answer a question regarding his political affiliation without using the first person pronoun? And for that matter, should a stupid, babbling buffoon such as you really be hectoring others on pontification?

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

My statements were preemptive strikes against you [sic] stupidity...

Here's a hypocrisy test for you, Barleycorn:

If you're so interested in preemptive strikes against stupidity, are you pissed off at your parents for failing to utilize birth control at the appropriate time?

By the way, you have a penchant for flooding this forum with most of your obnoxious, stupid shit during the post-midnight hours. Do you generally get drunk as hell on some of that hillbilly moonshine late at night? Is that what makes you act like an insufferable jackass?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by almondbutter

I wonder what political party most hobbyists lean towards? I myself am a registered republican, but lean more towards the middle of the spectrum as far as issues go. After getting into the hobby I have started to become more liberal on certain issues. Anyone here a registered republican?

I'm a democrat who hates liberals, faggots, feminazi's, excessive government spending, and thinks that people who comes from the left side of the aisle create Detroit out of Beverly Hills type prosperity.

[JohnnyCap]

Remember the college drinking card game called Asshole? Basically, whoever was winning could make the rules as he saw fit, making fair competition very unlikely. I see modern capitalism as very similar, so I shy away from any party that knocks socialistic ideas not for a lack of merit, but as a brainwashed knee-jerk reaction against communism. I like freedom, but not necessarily democracy, because true democracy is mob rule, and mobs aren't rational. I don't know where the fuck that puts me, but I refuse to vote anyhow.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I'm a democrat who hates liberals, faggots, feminazi's, excessive government spending, and thinks that people who comes from the left side of the aisle create Detroit out of Beverly Hills type prosperity.

Sounds like a bit of a contradiction.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by almondbutter

I wonder what political party most hobbyists lean towards? I myself am a registered republican, but lean more towards the middle of the spectrum as far as issues go. After getting into the hobby I have started to become more liberal on certain issues. Anyone here a registered republican?

In Texas, there's no requirement to declare a party affiliation, but if forced to do so I would register as an independent. I'm center-right on the ideological spectrum, at least on economic issues, and would be inclined to support GOP candidates to a greater extent IFF (if and only if!) they did a better job of adhering to their espoused fiscal principles, and IFF they backed off on all the social conservatism stuff. As is probably the case with most other "hobbyists" and SDs, I'm fairly libertine in that area. My views are close to those held by Libertarians on some issues, but on others I just can't quite get there.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Texas constitutional conservative...

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Remember the college drinking card game called Asshole? Basically, whoever was winning could make the rules as he saw fit, making fair competition very unlikely. I see modern capitalism as very similar, so I shy away from any party that knocks socialistic ideas not for a lack of merit, but as a brainwashed knee-jerk reaction against communism. I like freedom, but not necessarily democracy, because true democracy is mob rule, and mobs aren't rational. I don't know where the fuck that puts me, but I refuse to vote anyhow.

You are a classic liberal or what is known today as a conservative. The founders did not want democracy, they wanted a republic. Thats why senators were selected and not elected to represent the states and the president was chosen by the house of representatives.
As for the little attack on capitalism...do you believe that prostitution and drug use/crime go hand in hand? I don't think so and most rational people don't believe that either. Capitalism and greed are not necessary to each other. There can be greed in a socialist world too. Capitalism is good and is beneficial to most people. Greed, taking advantage of people, swindling, and cronyism is just something else.

Now some shallow people are going to get their panties in a bunch because I am enlightening people again.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are a classic liberal or what is known today as a conservative.

The founders did not want democracy, they wanted a republic.

Capitalism and greed are not necessary to each other.

OMFG, mark this day on the calendar, JDB actually made sense and got three things right (though he didn't enlighten anybody but the ignorant ones in this forum)! Maybe I could have a beer with him at a social....who knows, stranger things have happened, but not much.

A couple of points though:
#1 - Today real conservatives of the "classical liberal" variety that JDB mentions are few and far between because what passes for "Conservative" today, in particular in Texas, is an odd blend of Libertarian and Reactionary (I call them imaginary reactionaries because they basically want to take us back to an imaginary time that never existed). They really don't want a republic or democracy and you can tell by how much they admire corporations which are monarchical in nature. They would be fine with a constitutional plutocracy (and some plutocrats recently came out saying rich people should get more votes based on how much money they have - not that they don't have that effectively today) I think.
#2 - The founders wanted a republic and we got one - still. Our Constitution created a limited representative republic. A republic is different from a democracy. In a democracy, the majority can directly make laws, while in a republic, elected representatives make laws. Politics 101. Only in about half the states is there any true democracy (ballot initiatives). Most of the Founders distrusted pure democracy and wanted buffers to protect minorities and avoid mob rule among other things.
#3 - Greed and humans go together, period. I just want more pussy than I can handle myself, see.

Oh, and I'm a pragmatic libertarian progressive (according to surveys) who generally votes for Democrats (registered).

OK, four things right, love the panties and ass!

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Sounds like a bit of a contradiction.

In Texas, Democrats are sometimes more conservative than the Republicans in California.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I am enlightening people again.

Oh, Jeez! This place certainly never fails to provide a laugh or two. This is a political forum, professor. Do you seriously believe that people posting here don't know what classical liberalism is? (By the way, the generally accepted term is classical liberalism, not "classic" liberalism. I know, that sounds like a minor detail. But if you wish to "enlighten" people, and if you're going to go around continually hectoring others on what you claim to be their ignorance, it's always nice to get stuff like terminology right.)

BTW, Barleycorn, the reason so many people regard you with such utter contempt isn't that you try to "enlighten" people. It's that you incessantly hurl gratuitous insults at everyone with whom you think you might disagree. Look at post #8, for instance, where you stupidly insulted Old-T. He was rather gentle in his response to you, but I won't be. Not only are you an ignoramus of the first rank, you seem hell-bent on earning recognition as this forum's biggest asshole.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Oh, Jeez! This place certainly never fails to provide a laugh or two. This is a political forum, professor. Do you seriously believe that people posting here don't know what classical liberalism is? (By the way, the generally accepted term is classical liberalism, not "classic" liberalism. I know, that sounds like a minor detail. But if you wish to "enlighten" people, and if you're going to go around continually hectoring others on what you claim to be their ignorance, it's always nice to get stuff like terminology right.)

BTW, Barleycorn, the reason so many people regard you with such utter contempt isn't that you try to "enlighten" people. It's that you incessantly hurl gratuitous insults at everyone with whom you think you might disagree. Look at post #8, for instance, where you stupidly insulted Old-T. He was rather gentle in his response to you, but I won't be. Not only are you an ignoramus of the first rank, you seem hell-bent on earning recognition as this forum's biggest asshole.

By reading what some people here post it is so damn obvious that they DON'T understand the differences historically or in modern terms..

[i'va biggen]

Yah, but you provide a lot of chuckles

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Yah, but you provide a lot of chuckles

Especially when he says he's effecting a "preemptive strike against stupidity," with nary a hint that he gets the obvious irony!

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm not in the middle, and it don't pretend to be. I'm not independent, either. I am firmly, 100% on the side of freedom and personal responsibility. Most of the time I side with the Libertarians. But I'm not struggling to decide whether to support the Democrats or Republicans. They are two sides of the same coin. If you take care to look behind the hoopla, behind the smoke and mirrors, on the essential issues of liberty, the Democrats and Republicans stand united against it.

STFU.