People who disagree with me politically . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:are very quickly going to say something incredibly offensive to me so I better end the conversation now.

Once I was talking to a seemingly-normal, well-to-do acquaintance of mine (from church, no less!) and the subject got to politics and she said

"I don't want my tax money going to some poor black guy swinging on his porch."

After I picked up my jaw from the floor, I found I had lost a lot of respect for her and did not want to develop a friendship. I told her "That's sort of racist..." and her response was

"I'm not a racist! I know lots of black professionals!"

The conversation went downhill from there.

its so cliche now that i find it amazing that people dont realize and/or understand how having/knowing/running into people of a different race doesnt excuse you from making insensitive comments.

the person is actually better off and served claiming they have actually witnessed first hand whatever stereotype that they are perpetuating rather than making a sweeping generalization. at least for me, i could "correct" them and inform them that their experience is unfortunately limited since all theyve experienced in their life. you would think "knowing black professionals" would have a person not hold negative views of black people as oppose to the opposite but unfortunately that is not the case

[Anonymous]

...are often not aware that political platforms have changed in 20 years.

Lots of my parent's generation who consider themselves to be Republicans, based on the 1980s/90s definition. Smaller government, less involvement with social issues. They haven't woken up to see that today's GOP is no longer the same party with the same ideals, and that the Dems have moved far to the center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never been a rabid liberal. I never drew absolute lines for political boundaries for friends. But I have, since 9/11 completely cut off all ties to reactionary people who knee-jerked to support Bush. I absolutely consider them to be gullible, misinformed and simplistic. I have however supported Obama's military policies--he has done a brilliant job of turning a hopeless strategy into viable one and has restored American supremacy. I have had my quibbles with Obama's domestic policies, but I continue to believe that anyone who supports Romney over Obama is shortsighted, selfish/bigoted (generally) and very misinformed.

Just to clarify, you actually are a Rabid Liberal. Capital R, Capital L. Look it up. At least own it and don't try pretending you're a centrist.

NP here. Actually nothing she said involved liberal or conservative policy, except for Obama's military strategy. And that can hardly be called liberal.

You are confusing "liberal" with "partisan".

[Anonymous]

...are often not aware that political platforms have changed in 20 years.

Lots of my parent's generation who consider themselves to be Republicans, based on the 1980s/90s definition. Smaller government, less involvement with social issues. They haven't woken up to see that today's GOP is no longer the same party with the same ideals, and that the Dems have moved far to the center.

This indeed.

There are exceptions, though. My father, who has always been a Republican, is now suddenly in love with Bill Clinton, thinks he is the best president we've had in 40 years. My dad has woken up to today's GOP and I'm doubtful he's even voting this year (and he's in a state where it will go red regardless anyway).

[Anonymous]

I worked on the Hill for a decade, so as a rule, I don't talk politics with people outside of DC. I find most don't get the process, which is how I come at it. So for example when someone suggests Paul Ryan wants to push grandma off the cliff, I'm reminded of the United States Senate and how a bill becomes a law. Something my opposites don't often take into account.

When I see that it's unavoidable, I try to look for common ground, which can be ellusive when someone's so wedded to their positions, and secretely thinks I'm racist because I'm not voting for the incumbant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...are often not aware that political platforms have changed in 20 years.

Lots of my parent's generation who consider themselves to be Republicans, based on the 1980s/90s definition. Smaller government, less involvement with social issues. They haven't woken up to see that today's GOP is no longer the same party with the same ideals, and that the Dems have moved far to the center.

But see, young libertarians who vote Republican as the lesser of two evils.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never been a rabid liberal. I never drew absolute lines for political boundaries for friends. But I have, since 9/11 completely cut off all ties to reactionary people who knee-jerked to support Bush. I absolutely consider them to be gullible, misinformed and simplistic. I have however supported Obama's military policies--he has done a brilliant job of turning a hopeless strategy into viable one and has restored American supremacy. I have had my quibbles with Obama's domestic policies, but I continue to believe that anyone who supports Romney over Obama is shortsighted, selfish/bigoted (generally) and very misinformed.

Just to clarify, you actually are a Rabid Liberal. Capital R, Capital L. Look it up. At least own it and don't try pretending you're a centrist.

NP here. Actually nothing she said involved liberal or conservative policy, except for Obama's military strategy. And that can hardly be called liberal.

You are confusing "liberal" with "partisan".

That's a fair point, I do believe they're being both, but I don't feel the need to debate one person's post for too long. Could I throw in hypocritical?

I mean they support Obama's military decisions, which included a surge into Afghanistan, but more than likely opposed Bush's similar strategy (as the President himself did) which most would say was the decisive blow in the war.

[Anonymous]

...can suck it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...can suck it.

So are you not friend with people who disagree with you or do you just not discuss politics with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked on the Hill for a decade, so as a rule, I don't talk politics with people outside of DC. I find most don't get the process, which is how I come at it. So for example when someone suggests Paul Ryan wants to push grandma off the cliff, I'm reminded of the United States Senate and how a bill becomes a law. Something my opposites don't often take into account.

When I see that it's unavoidable, I try to look for common ground, which can be ellusive when someone's so wedded to their positions, and secretely thinks I'm racist because I'm not voting for the incumbant.

Sure, it takes Congress to pass a law changing Medicare, but I notice you don't argue with the fact that Paul Ryan *wants* to push grandma off the cliff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never been a rabid liberal. I never drew absolute lines for political boundaries for friends. But I have, since 9/11 completely cut off all ties to reactionary people who knee-jerked to support Bush. I absolutely consider them to be gullible, misinformed and simplistic. I have however supported Obama's military policies--he has done a brilliant job of turning a hopeless strategy into viable one and has restored American supremacy. I have had my quibbles with Obama's domestic policies, but I continue to believe that anyone who supports Romney over Obama is shortsighted, selfish/bigoted (generally) and very misinformed.

Just to clarify, you actually are a Rabid Liberal. Capital R, Capital L. Look it up. At least own it and don't try pretending you're a centrist.

NP here. Actually nothing she said involved liberal or conservative policy, except for Obama's military strategy. And that can hardly be called liberal.

You are confusing "liberal" with "partisan".

That's a fair point, I do believe they're being both, but I don't feel the need to debate one person's post for too long. Could I throw in hypocritical?

I mean they support Obama's military decisions, which included a surge into Afghanistan, but more than likely opposed Bush's similar strategy (as the President himself did) which most would say was the decisive blow in the war.

I think you are simplifying an awful lot regarding military policies. Both Presidents supported a surge, but there is much more beyond that.

Obama opposed the Iraq war.

Obama campaigned on committing to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. The Bush Administration consistently and vigorously opposed it, and was eventually forced into it by the Iraqi government.

Obama and Bush both allowed the use of drone strikes in Pakistan. But Obama greatly stepped up the frequency, and departed from the process of seeking advanced approval from the Pakistani government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked on the Hill for a decade, so as a rule, I don't talk politics with people outside of DC. I find most don't get the process, which is how I come at it. So for example when someone suggests Paul Ryan wants to push grandma off the cliff, I'm reminded of the United States Senate and how a bill becomes a law. Something my opposites don't often take into account.

When I see that it's unavoidable, I try to look for common ground, which can be ellusive when someone's so wedded to their positions, and secretely thinks I'm racist because I'm not voting for the incumbant.

Sure, it takes Congress to pass a law changing Medicare, but I notice you don't argue with the fact that Paul Ryan *wants* to push grandma off the cliff.

Thanks Captain Obvious, did I need to be more in depth with how the back and forth of how my conversation's occur, really?

Seriously, does your kind think that Republicans don't have wives, mothers and daughters? Or do you think we put them into fiscal buckets to protect only them, at the expense of others. I honestly can't relate to your rational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked on the Hill for a decade, so as a rule, I don't talk politics with people outside of DC. I find most don't get the process, which is how I come at it. So for example when someone suggests Paul Ryan wants to push grandma off the cliff, I'm reminded of the United States Senate and how a bill becomes a law. Something my opposites don't often take into account.

When I see that it's unavoidable, I try to look for common ground, which can be ellusive when someone's so wedded to their positions, and secretely thinks I'm racist because I'm not voting for the incumbant.

Sure, it takes Congress to pass a law changing Medicare, but I notice you don't argue with the fact that Paul Ryan *wants* to push grandma off the cliff.

Thanks Captain Obvious, did I need to be more in depth with how the back and forth of how my conversation's occur, really?

Seriously, does your kind think that Republicans don't have wives, mothers and daughters? Or do you think we put them into fiscal buckets to protect only them, at the expense of others. I honestly can't relate to your rational.

Everyone in history had wives and daughters. That hasn't historically proven to be much of a guarantee of protection. Sorry, but that sounds like the "I know plenty of black people" defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked on the Hill for a decade, so as a rule, I don't talk politics with people outside of DC. I find most don't get the process, which is how I come at it. So for example when someone suggests Paul Ryan wants to push grandma off the cliff, I'm reminded of the United States Senate and how a bill becomes a law. Something my opposites don't often take into account.

When I see that it's unavoidable, I try to look for common ground, which can be ellusive when someone's so wedded to their positions, and secretely thinks I'm racist because I'm not voting for the incumbant.

Sure, it takes Congress to pass a law changing Medicare, but I notice you don't argue with the fact that Paul Ryan *wants* to push grandma off the cliff.

Thanks Captain Obvious, did I need to be more in depth with how the back and forth of how my conversation's occur, really?

Seriously, does your kind think that Republicans don't have wives, mothers and daughters? Or do you think we put them into fiscal buckets to protect only them, at the expense of others. I honestly can't relate to your rational.

Everyone in history had wives and daughters. That hasn't historically proven to be much of a guarantee of protection. Sorry, but that sounds like the "I know plenty of black people" defense.

OK, let me revise why I don't like to debate those of the opposite party/belief. Because they love to use the tactic of demanding that I disprove negatives. "How do you know Romney won't do that!" Pointless nit-picking if you ask me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the above. I have friends who I actually really liked (years ago, now only facebook friends) that I don't like any more because they started posting all kinds of Tea Party crap. I even de-friended some of them.

NO WAY!!!!! you defriended someone? oh my