Comments on Young Republican Pizza Party
i can smile about it now but at the time it was terrible
What's up with Piecora's being the spot for right-wing political gatherings? First the No. on 1 now Dino Rossi? I mean... really!
Josh Feit:
However, he wasn’t around. So, I made use of my time by asking several of the young GOP voters what they thought about…Barak Obama, the candidate who’s bringing out young voters.
Barak is a Jewish first name. It is not the first name of the presidential candidate whose last name is Obama.
I spy 14 dickheads.
Were there any hot sexy young republican guys us gay democrats can "convert" to our side?
who was the band? republican folk songs are the worst.
Why does Piecora's even allow those knobs entry? I mean, sure, if they're wearing street clothes and undercover, but they PUT UP A BANNER?
Does that last picture of the beardy with the hole in his knee officially end the beard trend?
Barack is a Kenyan name.
And don't bother with the hot sexy Republicans, they're either closeted (males) or can't enjoy themselves much (females).
Very sad, really.
Did you ask any of them if they were planing on enlisting? Since they want us to stay in Iraq and all.
My understanding about Piecora's is that is it owned by a Christian fundamentalist - I think they do or used to have a church meet there. So no big surprise about young 'pugs meeting there.
At least in 2002:
@2, @7:
I find it very interesting and telling that those who you who are afraid of the marketplace of ideas, discussed in whatever venue, feel the need to shout it down. Why is it about progressive liberalism that makes you feel so insecure that you can't tolerate debate? What is diversity anyway if it can't be celebrated over pizza by ALL political dispositions?
@12, and the GOP is the fountain of understanding and open debate? I am going to puke now.
BTW, my ex was a gay republican then he dated me and now he is a hard core democrat. So they CAN BE SAVED!!! PRAISE BE TO COCK!!!
@12
Young, healthy people who want the war but won't fight it deserve everything they get. It's sad that chickenhawks have to be allowed to speak, but what can we do about it?
I'm going to meet the one I love, so please don't stand in my way!
we need an army recruiter at Piecora's, stat!
In other news, the sky is blue.
Oh, raindrop.
When are you enlisting?
Well?
I did my seven years. How about you neocons suit up and get a couple of tours under your belts?
@14, one's support for military involvement does not lose its validity if the supporter is a civilian. Your notion is tired and misguided, and it's at odds with both civilian control of the military and volunteer armed forces.
So go fuck yourself.
19 - So I'm guessing you won't be signing up...other priorities [living] and like that...
No, #19 is right. It's the worst kind of "gotcha" politics.
19 and 21--it is hardly gotcha politics. It is hypocrisy at its worst. The "volunteer" army is mostly staffed by those who are without options in our economy. The working poor dominate our armed forces. Rural kids and families and people of color are drastically overrepresented.
It is easy to support military involvement if you know that you and your friends will not ever serve.
Actually, I think that room used to be the Socialist Party headquarters in the '80s.
Lol, why that explains why the other standard bearer of the GOP, Mr CEO, has five draft-eligible sons who have ZERO tours of duty under their GOP belts ...
War is never convenient.
Get to an Enlisting Office, Now!
@22, you're making my point. Foreign policy decision shouldn't be made based on "feelings," or whether cousin Jimmy might be sent to harm's way. Ideas are good or bad on their own, not on the merits or life experiences of their supporters.
What if every member of Congress who supported the war was either in the military or had a son/daughter in the military? Would that change your minds about the war, since at least they had military "credibility"?
I think the most interesting thing about this piece, is the Young 'Pubs mooning over Obama. If given a choice between old man McCain and young powerhouse Obama, I see a lot of young republicans and female republicans voting for him...I have more than one rock ribbed Kansas Republican female relative who voted for JFK, the only democrat they ever voted for...
@22 - Joykiller (and the other neocon apologists in this thread) the point is if the fat, rich, white wealthy republicans in congress and their supporters were the ones whos asses were on the line in a war, they wouldn't be so enthusiastic about getting us into UNNECESSARY wars. In order to live with yourself you have probably convinced yourself that you really really truely believe we just HAD to fight the Iraq war. Go ahead and keep telling yourself that and when the next big decision supposedly regarding our country's security comes along, lo and behold you will all be wrong again. and again. and again. So until you can just be honest with yourself and admit that you are bloodthirsty, power hungry and greedy and get off on watching live war action on CNN, we will continue to point out your staggering hypocracy every time you support an unnecessary war (not by fighting it of course, but by being a cheerleader).
Until you've had hot brass fly by your cheeks while rounds whizz by your head, from people who are actually try to kill you, you don't deserve to support a war, IMHO.
You can protest against it, sure. But support must be earned.
Will in Seattle: Sure, go ahead and extrapolate that I'm a neo-con apologist (which I'm not). You didn't provide me any insightful observations that might have given me pause to reflect on. Instead, you just fired off one of your 'I served so shut up' auto-responses. Are you aware that this makes you very boring and tiresome?
@28: fair enough. But, quid pro quo, because you've never been involved in a gang shooting, you don't deserve an opinion on anti-gang efforts. And because you're neither a teacher nor a parent with a school-age child, you aren't entitled to an opinion on K-12 education, either.
Regardless of what side you're on -- and I made no mention of this in my posts above -- it's the definition of intellectual laziness to dismiss the opposition because they don't "deserve" their opinions. You're not doing yourself any favors by being so brusque.
Joykiller @ 25 and 30--One of the central tenets of critical thinking is to "consider the source". When the source deals with "ideas" as abstractions rather than reality one must take their "ideas" with a healthy grain of salt.
We are all products of our environment and experiences. It is fair game to question the judgment of Young Republicans who support the war but have no intention of serving their country.
To the points made above, let me also add that the economic and education policies of the Republicans are indirectly the reason why the military is the best chance many have for a better life. Not that they want a war or to risk their lives, but that the doors open to Young Republicans are closed to them.
And furthermore, the success of Bush's wars is being undermined by a lack of personnel: they quality of recruits is in decline, and recruiting goals are not being met.
This is not "just politics." An young person has the opportunity to make a real difference in whether or not Bush's wars succeed or fail. They will definitely fail if there aren't enough volunteers, so if you want the wars, you must want volunteers.
And don't even get me started on the things the party these kids love said about real war heroes like John Kerry or Max Cleland. Who are these people to ask for mercy? I say fuck every chickenhawk Young Republican. They are lucky they have any rights at all; they don't deserve them.
@31, ok. But you can't consider a source if you dismiss it out of hand. And anyone who considers themselves a critical thinker should realize that legitimate (and sometimes good) policies are made by those who won't be directly affected, e.g., people on welfare didn't write welfare reform.
@32, fuck you. Rights are rights because they can't be taken away arbitrarily. Saying someone doesn't "deserve" rights is absurd.
The idea that your behavior has no effect on your rights is absurd. If you commit a crime, you lose all kinds of rights. If you enlist in the military, many of your rights are curtailed. Why is it absurd that chickenhak be judged by the same standards?
This has been one interesting thread.
33--I didn't dismiss their opinions out of hand. I simply don't respect them. Your party lied to get us into this war. Your party had no clear objective in this war. Your party had no clear exit plan. People are dying daily for no clear reason and are further stoking the fires of terrorism and unrest throughout the world.
Young yellow elephant chickenhawk Republicans do deserve the same rights as anyone to express their opinions. But it rings hollow to bleat about unfair rhetoric. Those of us who view their opinions as shallow and ill-informed have every right to say so.
I really do see joykiller's point here. While we have to consider the source, premises and logic can also exist apart. To say otherwise is to buy into the kind of (fallacious) logic put to use by Jonah Goldberg in his "Liberal Fascism" book. Which is to say, because Hitler was vegetarian and Hitler was evil, vegetarianism is evil.
I would consider these young republicans to be cowards, to an extent, whose action lacks the "courage of their convictions," but whatever their disposition, their opinions may still be as valid or erroneous as a hero's.
@36: Opinions and ideas live or die on their own merits. It is the laziest, shallowest kind of thinking to discredit an idea because of some characteristic of the person who espouses it. Would you have people think that because you are unwilling to die for your beliefs, they are not sufficiently important? Should this be the case for every matter of opinion, that the most fanatical is always the more right?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).