Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?

Here is a little test that will help you decide. You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.

Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democrat's Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor? Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Republican's Answer: BANG!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Southern Republican's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading). BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

BANG! BANG! click

Small Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"

You can mark me down as a Southern Republican.

IS there a "bite my tongue" emoticon?

Put me down as a republican for this......which shows that the questionaire is flawed.

Are Democrats really that bad?

Are Republicans really that bad?

Are Southern Republicans really that bad?

Stereo typing at it's worst I think. I know one Republican who doesn't own a gun. (I suspect I know another who lives in Chiang Mai )

I know several Democrats who are Veterans and own a small personal armoury. (And are also pro-death penalty).

Sometimes I wish politics was as simple as the OP suggests.

This kind of comes to mind...

or possibly these...

Considering the fact that I once held knife to a Filippino crook's throat, with the full intention of using it, you would have to mark me down as a Southern Republican. The best plan is not to put yourself in that position in the first place. I didn't follow that rule in the Philippines and it could have been the end of me. Fortunately, we came to a Mexican standoff and went our own ways.

Speaking of Mexican standoffs...I knew the ladies of Las Abejas personally; they knew me by name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Abejas On 22/12/1997, 45 members were slaughtered, using Army-only weapons. "Antonio Gutierrez, one of the founding members of Las Abejas, has often recounted the Christ-like forgiveness of Alonso Vasquez Gomez, a catechist in the community and one of those killed in the massacre, who, after seeing his wife and child murdered, reportedly asked God's forgiveness of the killers, since they did not know what they were doing." Antonio is the most fearless man I've known. The commitment to forgiveness and reconciliation is consistent with Las Abejas' commitment to nonviolence., Ten days later, fully armed Mexican soldiers enter their village of Xoyep. The tiny women firmly but nonviolently pushed the big soldiers out with bare hands.

UG, it was fun, but you've loaded the deck wrong. I'll drop by and lend you my copy of What Would You Do? with Joan Baez' answer.

Blame venturalaw. He sent it to me!

Defiantly Southern Republican.

American Chicano Movement

They have the coolest cars.

gee, how did people manage to read the OP???

You can mark me down as a Southern Republican.

I had a feeling Chuckd.

I don't vote any more. No real choices.

I don't vote any more. No real choices.

Sad but true to some extent.

Problem is as more & more dont vote there will be even less choices in the future.

True though that between the common two parties folks looking for hope & change get whip sawed.

The only reason so many are now in office is the dissatisfaction with the last bunch. Now it is just as bad

if not worse. So now the folks will run the other way & the election today in Massachusetts may tell a tale.

If Brown gets in it will again be a vote....against what is occurring in DC.

The US needs a 3rd party...not just a token party either. If not a 3rd party then make it a true democracy & add

None Of The Above to the ballots. The way things stand now it is just $$$ doing the talking/electing. Unsound money at that!

The three party (or more) system leads to coalitions which means nothing gets done, it's compromise, compromise.

With a two party sysytem right, then left install their policies and remove those of the previous government that they disagree with, but at least those policies have been tried, and usually the new government retains those that have been sucessful.

I know it's not true democracy but at least it works "sometimes".

The three party (or more) system leads to coalitions which means nothing gets done, it's compromise, compromise.

With a two party sysytem right, then left install their policies and remove those of the previous government that they disagree with, but at least those policies have been tried, and usually the new government retains those that have been sucessful.

I know it's not true democracy but at least it works "sometimes".

from my point of view, i do think the system works but i also believe that when the parties became full of lawyers that the whole thing took a wrong turn. i might add that as a young man i was a memeber of the young democrats and i was active until i went to a national convention and saw how the leaders simply did not want to see anything good coming from the republican party, to me it looked so simple to take some of the good from both and come up with a workable plan but they were not into compromise. then when i got my first real pay check and saw fica take a huge cut for my work i switched parties and have never looked back.

The three party (or more) system leads to coalitions which means nothing gets done, it's compromise, compromise.

With a two party sysytem right, then left install their policies and remove those of the previous government that they disagree with, but at least those policies have been tried, and usually the new government retains those that have been sucessful.

I know it's not true democracy but at least it works "sometimes".

And in America today a 3 party system would end up a one party system because two of the parties are likely to split their votes. If the 3rd party is more conservative in nature, they will take votes from Republicans leaving the Democrats to win (Clinton won in 1992 with 43.3% of the vote and in 1996 with just under 50% thanks to Ross Perot). If the 3rd party is liberal, they will take votes away from the Democrats leaving the Republicans to win (2000 Bush won with 48.4% thanks to Ralph Nader).

The three party (or more) system leads to coalitions which means nothing gets done, it's compromise, compromise.

With a two party sysytem right, then left install their policies and remove those of the previous government that they disagree with, but at least those policies have been tried, and usually the new government retains those that have been sucessful.

I know it's not true democracy but at least it works "sometimes".

My bad terminology.......

We actually have more than a three party system now.

As there are major parties...Republicans & Democrats.....

Then there are minor parties...Libertarians etc.

I was speaking more to equal time for debates etc in Presidential races where they tend to limit it to the two major parties.

( They probably pay the air time is why)

That aside the two major party system is seriously broken & as I said earlier just a whip saw.

The same big money backs both as can be easily seen by looking at the top contributor list of both.

Same can be said for the electoral college system.....beautifully broken.

This two major party system is basically the exact same. Just look at the dissension after Bush Jr.

Obama comes in & his cabinet looks for all intents & purpose to be more of the same.

His actions have shown it is exactly the same if not worse. As he has failed to come through on any of his big campaign promises....Big surprise there & it would be no different if the republican had won.

So now today in Massachusetts which has been a democratic state for something like 60+ years

Looks like they will vote Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley. Why.... because everyone is sick of it.

Yet this will probably lead eventually in 2010 to again having a republican majority as more & more are disgusted with

the supposed hope & change. Yet most remember where it was before & will see it not better in any way.

This whip saw gives the sheeple something to do & makes them feel as if they still have a choice.

Yet it is nothing more than being stuck in the mud. You can spin your wheels in forward & you can spin your wheels in reverse.

The results will be exactly the same.

This supposed country by the people & for the people is as hollow as the campaign promises.

These puppets / donkeys & elephants are all under the whip of the same ring masters.

I agree & have said so that it is not a true democracy or the ballot would have a None Of The Above box to check at voting time.

I also disagree that it works sometimes. I will say it has not worked in many decades. They can put off the inevitable but if you have children or grand children that is not a sufficient result.

For Washington to work, it must be split. If it is split there is gridlock. Nothing gets passed except what is absolutely necessary, making gridlock the only condition for the good of the American people.

We cannot have one party in control of both Houses of Congress and the White House at the same time. We are witnessing now what happens as a result.

It is my firm belief that control of Congress will change (or get drastically altered) during the 2010 election. The independents do not like what they have seen in Washington during the past year and they will change it.

Independents are the real third party.

Gridlock is good.

That aside the two major party system is seriously broken & as I said earlier just a whip saw.

The same big money backs both as can be easily seen by looking at the top contributor list of both.

Same can be said for the electoral college system.....beautifully broken.

Opensecrets.com is the best source for tracking political contributions by industry, company and even individuals:

Here's their Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010 list(it goes to 100, I'm only posting the Top 12). Note the top donors are lawyers and unions and give over 90% to Democrats. You have to go all the way to #87 on the list to find a donor that gives at least that much to Republicans (can you guess who that is?);

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Rank Organization Total '89-'09 Dem % Repub %

1 AT&T Inc $44,027,485 44% 55%

2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $41,751,311 98% 1%

3 National Assn of Realtors $35,438,725 48% 51%

4 Goldman Sachs $31,413,462 64% 35%

5 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $31,359,957 97% 2%

6 American Assn for Justice $31,319,029 90% 9%

7 National Education Assn $30,068,167 92% 6%

8 Laborers Union $28,814,400 92% 7%

9 Service Employees International Union $27,911,232 95% 3%

10 Carpenters & Joiners Union $27,769,683 89% 10%

11 Teamsters Union $27,684,624 92% 6%

12 Communications Workers of America $26,992,076 99% 0%

So now today in Massachusetts which has been a democratic state for something like 60+ years

Looks like they will vote Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley. Why.... because everyone is sick of it.

Yet this will probably lead eventually in 2010 to again having a republican majority as more & more are disgusted with the supposed hope & change. Yet most remember where it was before & will see it not better in any way.

I don't think the voters are rejecting Democrats. They are rejecting out leaders. Much the same way in 2006 they kicked the Republicans out of Congress. (Yes, that's right. The Democrats had been in control of Congress for 2 years before Bush left the White House). The Republicans will take at least partial control in November. Get drunk with power, and get voted out sometime in the next 2 election cycles. Why? Because politicians suck and think of themselves first, donors 2nd, country third.

Opensecrets.com is the best source for tracking political contributions by industry, company and even individuals:

I don't think the voters are rejecting Democrats. They are rejecting out leaders.

Yes I like use that site to look at presidential contributors...

Like this...

Obama

McCain

It is my firm belief that control of Congress will change (or get drastically altered) during the 2010 election. The independents do not like what they have seen in Washington during the past year and they will change it.

Independents are the real third party.

I agree with what both you & Chuck said

There will be again a change of congress during the 2010 election year....

& it is not a rejection of party so much as a rejection of leadership.

But again at the end of the day....? It is just spinning wheels.

The Dems will take today's defeat & try to ram what ever they can of the healthcare bill through asap.

As if that is the biggest problem this country faces.

Opensecrets.com is the best source for tracking political contributions by industry, company and even individuals:

I don't think the voters are rejecting Democrats. They are rejecting out leaders.

Yes I like use that site to look at presidential contributors...

Like this...

Obama

McCain

Interesting, McCain's top donor*, Merrill Lynch, gave $374,000 which doesn't come close to breaking into Obama's top 20 list (#20 being $494,000). He with the most money, wins.

* "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."

For Washington to work, it must be split. If it is split there is gridlock. Nothing gets passed except what is absolutely necessary, making gridlock the only condition for the good of the American people.

We cannot have one party in control of both Houses of Congress and the White House at the same time. We are witnessing now what happens as a result.It is my firm belief that control of Congress will change (or get drastically altered) during the 2010 election. The independents do not like what they have seen in Washington during the past year and they will change it.

Independents are the real third party.

Gridlock is good.

So what is happening Chuckd? It's seems to me that both the best and worst Obama administrations predictions have failed to materialise. There was never going to be a quick fix for some of the problems the US faced and anyone who thought there was going to be is a pure fool. (Let's not confuse election promises by either side with reality here).

I remember when the election results came in and I was browsing the FreeRepublic forum and the simpler souls were crying "this is the end of the US as we know it" but wiser heads quite rightly said it would mean, at worst, nothing more than annoying couple of terms then business as normal.

Do you think Obama will be relelected? To me, the liberals he has disappointed have nowhere else to take their votes and some of his opponents may stick their heads out of the sand for long enough to see the sky hasn't fallen.

Personally I don't care, it's meant little to me either way.

Edit: Curse my Fathers spellcheck free system.

Interesting, McCain's top donor*, Merrill Lynch, gave $374,000 which doesn't come close to breaking into Obama's top 20 list (#20 being $494,000). He with the most money, wins.

For sure the most $$$ as always....But the hedges are there as you can see.

Also interesting the #1 position of Obama contributions....a straw man if there ever was one.

A couple of graphs.....

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/alsorans.php

Interesting, McCain's top donor*, Merrill Lynch, gave $374,000 which doesn't come close to breaking into Obama's top 20 list (#20 being $494,000). He with the most money, wins.

For sure the most $$ as always....But the hedges are there as you can see.

Also interesting the #1 position of Obama contributions....a straw man if there ever was one.

A couple of graphs.....

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/alsorans.php

If you click on a candidate's name, you see the graph, "Total Raised by Quarter". How can you have a Q5, Q6, 7 Q7?

The three party (or more) system leads to coalitions which means nothing gets done, it's compromise, compromise.

With a two party sysytem right, then left install their policies and remove those of the previous government that they disagree with, but at least those policies have been tried, and usually the new government retains those that have been sucessful.

I know it's not true democracy but at least it works "sometimes".

from my point of view, i do think the system works but i also believe that when the parties became full of lawyers that the whole thing took a wrong turn. i might add that as a young man i was a memeber of the young democrats and i was active until i went to a national convention and saw how the leaders simply did not want to see anything good coming from the republican party, to me it looked so simple to take some of the good from both and come up with a workable plan but they were not into compromise. then when i got my first real pay check and saw fica take a huge cut for my work i switched parties and have never looked back.

I've always felt saddened by this pettiness and I hope one day a great leader will see the sense in unashamedly borrowing from the other party, if the other party's idea is better than his own.

The same goes for "flip-flopping"; if a party leader makes a decision, then the opposition debates it and shows that it is a bad decision, or that there is a better decision to be made, the leader should not be afraid to admit it and institute the new idea.

The problem is that when politicing, flip flop and taking someone else's ideas is made to look bad by the opposition. Silly I say.

The Ecclectic Party: takes the best from all other parties and makes an overall better government.

For Washington to work, it must be split. If it is split there is gridlock. Nothing gets passed except what is absolutely necessary, making gridlock the only condition for the good of the American people.

We cannot have one party in control of both Houses of Congress and the White House at the same time. We are witnessing now what happens as a result.It is my firm belief that control of Congress will change (or get drastically altered) during the 2010 election. The independents do not like what they have seen in Washington during the past year and they will change it.

Independents are the real third party.

Gridlock is good.

So what is happening Chuckd? It's seems to me that both the best and worst Obama administrations predictions have failed to materialise. There was never going to be a quick fix for some of the problems the US faced and anyone who thought there was going to be is a pure fool. (Let's not confuse election promises by either side with reality here).

I remember when the election results came in and I was browsing the FreeRepublic forum and the simpler souls were crying "this is the end of the US as we know it" but wiser heads quite rightly said it would mean, at worst, nothing more than annoying couple of terms then business as normal.

Do you think Obama will be relelected? To me, the liberals he has disappointed have nowhere else to take their votes and some of his opponents may stick their heads out of the sand for long enough to see the sky hasn't fallen.

Personally I don't care, it's meant little to me either way.

Edit: Curse my Fathers spellcheck free system.

The real third party took another giant step forward yesterday in the US state of Massachusetts. They voted overwhelmingly for a Republican candidate for the US senate, thereby removing the super majority from the hands of the Democratic Party. The Democrats still have a majority but not the 60% required to override a Republican filibuster, which can often completely derail legislation.

This is the third state-wide election that has been held since Obama was inaugurated one year ago. Since then the independents have chosen to side with two Republican candidates for Governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. Both were elected.

With the Senatorial election of yesterday, Democrats will be required to change their modus operandi if they wish to enact any legislation. The Democrats will now have to actually unlock the doors and let some fresh air and light into the proceedings that have been going on. No more smoke filled rooms on Capitol Hill.

More and more people are discovering the change they are getting isn't the change they voted for. I think Obama's agenda is in real trouble.

It is going to be an interesting time between now and November election day. Stay tuned for the fun.

The three party (or more) system leads to coalitions which means nothing gets done, it's compromise, compromise.

With a two party sysytem right, then left install their policies and remove those of the previous government that they disagree with, but at least those policies have been tried, and usually the new government retains those that have been sucessful.

I know it's not true democracy but at least it works "sometimes".

from my point of view, i do think the system works but i also believe that when the parties became full of lawyers that the whole thing took a wrong turn. i might add that as a young man i was a memeber of the young democrats and i was active until i went to a national convention and saw how the leaders simply did not want to see anything good coming from the republican party, to me it looked so simple to take some of the good from both and come up with a workable plan but they were not into compromise. then when i got my first real pay check and saw fica take a huge cut for my work i switched parties and have never looked back.

I've always felt saddened by this pettiness and I hope one day a great leader will see the sense in unashamedly borrowing from the other party, if the other party's idea is better than his own.

The same goes for "flip-flopping"; if a party leader makes a decision, then the opposition debates it and shows that it is a bad decision, or that there is a better decision to be made, the leader should not be afraid to admit it and institute the new idea.

The problem is that when politicing, flip flop and taking someone else's ideas is made to look bad by the opposition. Silly I say.

The Ecclectic Party: takes the best from all other parties and makes an overall better government.

Further to this..... I just watched the news and it was announced that Mike Moore has been appointed as NZ Ambassador to the US. This is refreshing news; Mike Moore was a Labour politician and is still a fervent card carrying member of the Labour Party....yet he has been appointed by the National government to this important diplomatic post.....because he is the best man for the job, considering NZ's interests.

Well done John Key (who I didn't vote for).

The real third party took another giant step forward yesterday in the US state of Massachusetts. They voted overwhelmingly for a Republican candidate for the US senate, thereby removing the super majority from the hands of the Democratic Party. The Democrats still have a majority but not the 60% required to override a Republican filibuster, which can often completely derail legislation.

It should be pointed out that if you have been listening to the Obama administration or his allies in the media you would be led to believe that the Republicans have been holding up health care reform and anything else the Dems can't passed in Congress. But the fact is, for one year now the Democrats have had that super majority and the only thing holding them up were other Democrats. More conservative than the rest of their party perhaps, but Democrats all the same. The Republicans have been powerless to stop them.

It should be pointed out that if you have been listening to the Obama administration or his allies in the media you would be led to believe that the Republicans have been holding up health care reform and anything else the Dems can't passed in Congress. But the fact is, for one year now the Democrats have had that super majority and the only thing holding them up were other Democrats. More conservative than the rest of their party perhaps, but Democrats all the same. The Republicans have been powerless to stop them.

You know that is a simple fact that more citizens should try to comprehend. It is always amazing to me how the majority vote has been blaming the minority as if they actually could be holding things up.