Would you still be part of your political party if you had to fit the stereo type?

[Obamunism]

You know, Conservatives are suppose to be Rich, Warmongering, Religious, Racist.

-Libertarians are suppose to be Pothead, Tinfoil-hat-wearing, Atheist
and
-Liberal are suppose to be Gay, Lazy, Tree-huggin, Anti-war, Baby Killers

(This is hypothetical and I got the stereotype info from google searching it)

[Obama: Why So Socialist]

I'd still be a Rich, Warmongering, Religious, Racist.

Then a gay, lazy, tree-huggin, anti-war, baby killer. Only because I know as a gay, lazy, tree-huggin, anti-war, baby killer: I would probably hate myself and be bored collecting welfare checks.

[O'Ryan]

I'm an independent, non-religious, conservative. I will stick to being just that.

[Dave]

I wasn't aware that democrats were not religious and had all the gays in their party. None of this nonsense will make me change parties.

[TRACER]

stupid question

[Syllogistic Libertarian]

I googled "Libertarian Stereotypes", and the one I liked best was "White male pothead economists with bad haircuts and guns."

If you consider shaving your head a bad haircut then I'm pretty much all of the way there. I don't smoke pot, but mainly because I have a Q clearance. I guess it all depends on the stereotype. Isn't another conservative stereotype that they all live in trailers and have bad teeth? I've always wondered how that jibes with them being the party of the rich. And of course liberals, who despite every single one of them being on welfare somehow manage to control the halls of every major educational institution in America.

Stereotypes are just lazy. Trying to become a stereotype is mind blowingly stupid.

[Paul Revere]

Stupidest question of the day. Congrats!

You could fit right in with any party!

@gimpyshake: Well said!

[doinou]

I don't pay attention to someone else's definition.