Democrats and Republicans


PDA






300lbGorilla
December 25, 2002, 05:59 AM
I've been doing a lot of thinking on what characteristics are most visible in the politicians and most active/vociferous members of each party and have come to some conclusions.

Democrats are:
Hypocrites
Willing to overlook consequences when it suits a pet project
Becoming more and more divisive now that they are visibly outnumbered
Desperately hell-bent on making sure that Republican agendas are not allowed to pass

Republicans are:
Stubborn
Short-sighted
Willing to overlook consequences when it comes to national security
Hopefully about to finally get things done once the new year starts

Being a registered Democrat in CA and the son of a Democratic teacher, I've really been able to pick up on the hypocrisy rife throughout the Democratic party and people involved in it. I do take issue with some aspects of the Federal government's policy, but not nearly as much as I do with the CA state government. Definitely reconsidering my party ties.

If any of this sounds a bit... dissociated, keep in mind that it's 3am on Christmas morning. I just felt like I needed to get my take out there before the new year.

Flame away!

If you enjoyed reading about "Democrats and Republicans" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bruce H
December 25, 2002, 07:30 AM
For too long the only real difference is in the spelling.

Ian
December 25, 2002, 10:02 AM
I would have given the hypocrite label to the Republicans. On a lot of issues the Dems flat out say that they will do something bad (gun control, taxes, etc). The Repubs say they'll do the opposite, but never do.

They ought to be spelled "Paternal Socialist Party" and "Maternal Socialist Party". :)

Tamara
December 25, 2002, 10:11 AM
Both major political parties have proven themselves to be huge fans of sticking the government's nose into every area of human life. Traditionally the Democrats were the big pillagers of paychecks and spenders of other people's money, who reserved some sympathy for civil liberties. The Republicans were willing to take mercy on your finances, but couldn't wait to toss you into a deep, dark dungeon. These positions have blended in recent years as the parties moved toward the middle — the middle of the gulag, that is.
--J.D. Tuccille
“In Praise of Election Chaos”

By and large, Democrats can be expected to recommend that violence in America be opposed by yet another round of firearms restrictions that will be enforced by well-armed law-enforcement officers wearing body armor and swinging battering rams. That's because violence committed by ATF agents is good violence. Republicans, on the other hand, can often be counted on to abandon their inclination to paw through the sock drawer and listen in on the phone for long enough to leave the gun cabinet alone.
--J.D. Tuccille
“Bush League on Liberty"

A couple of my favorite observations on the topic... :)

gburner
December 25, 2002, 10:46 AM
Come to the light, Brother! The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Libertarianism is an answer.

Col. Mustard
December 25, 2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by gburner
Come to the light, Brother! The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Libertarianism is an answer.

...if the question is, "What is the political equivalent of beating my head against a brick wall?"

TimH
December 25, 2002, 11:24 AM
Ok I know I'm gonna get flamed for this :rolleyes: The libertatians are too fringe for my blood and I think mainstream America also. Legalizing drugs comes to mind first and formost ( I believe thats part of the platform). I think that the only way to get back our rights is the same way we're losing them. INCREMENTALISM! I think it would be easier to get a REAL CONSERVATIVE Republican or CONSERVATIVE Democrat ( I think they exist )
elected than a Libertarian. We just need to take little steps to get our rights back. And the Repubs MUST be willing to play dirty muckraking politics just like the Democraps.

Col. Mustard
December 25, 2002, 11:39 AM
We need more people in Congress like Ron Paul; basically a libertarian in Republican clothing, who can work within the framework to move the Republicans back toward the right.

And if the Libertarians (capital "L") are to succeed, they need to focus their efforts in party-building from the local offices up, and not spin their wheels trying to win national/statewide elections first. See my above post about beating their heads against the wall...

Lone_Gunman
December 25, 2002, 12:22 PM
I agree with the majority of what Libertarians say. My big disagreement with them is legalization of drugs.

I understand their logic regarding this point, and to some degree can agree with it philosophically, but practically I just cannot support legalizing drugs, no matter how good the theoretical argument for it may be.

Until the Libertarians drop the legalization of drugs, they won't go anywhere on a big national level, despite how good their other views may be.

Tamara
December 25, 2002, 12:33 PM
...the theoretical argument for it may be.

It's not a "theoretical" argument, it's a Constitutional one.

Simply put, Congress doesn't have the authority to do it.

Either return the authority to the several states (where it belongs) or amend the Constitution.

But don't support unconstitutional laws.

Lone_Gunman
December 25, 2002, 12:42 PM
Tamara,

by what (if any) authority does the federal government claim to have power to declare drugs illegal?

Doesnt the Constitution grant the power to regulate interstate and international commerce to the federal govt?

If so, then couldnt those laws be construed in such a way to allow for the federal government to declare drugs illegal?

Hey, and I dont want to get beat up or flamed to death by anyone here. I know you libertarians get pretty steamed sometimes; just educate me!

Tamara
December 25, 2002, 12:49 PM
"Regulating Interstate Commerce" and "Declaring Items to Be Contraband Whether They Cross State Lines Or Not" apparently only rhyme if you're a liberal post-FDR Supreme Court Justice.

Why do you think NFA '34 is a $250 transfer tax on machine guns, and not a Congressional nationwide ban on civilian machine guns? ;)

Derek Zeanah
December 25, 2002, 01:04 PM
I just cannot support legalizing drugs, no matter how good the theoretical argument for it may be.

Then you're agreeing to the loss of your rights.

Most of what we're seeing that's been so offensive over the last few decades (including increases in crime rates, loss of privacy, loss of 4th amendment protections, attacks on gun ownership, the militarization of police, use of military within our borders against civilians, etc) are a direct result of the war on drugs.

If you look at metrics designed to indicate how we're doing in this war (things like the street price of the substances in question), you see nothing but failures.

So, we've got a situation where we're all being asked to pay an extremely high price monetarily and give up the freedoms that made this country great, in exchange for a "drug policy" that is a complete failure. Yeah -- good policy there.

So, you get some people advocating the end of the drug war, like me. Never smoked a joint (can't stand the smell) -- the worst I've ever done with prohibited substances was start drinking about 3 months before I was 21 while at Fort Benning. But this thing is killing us.

In my mind, it's the same issue as drinking. Admit that much social harm comes from it (how many domestic abuse cases don't involve alcohol, plus drinkin' and drivin' numbers, etc) but be honest about the fact that prohibition has a much higher social cost, and only masquerades as a cure.

Note that you'll probably be able to make the same arguments against the War on Terror in a few years...

gburner
December 25, 2002, 01:14 PM
Many a power grab has been completed by the Feds under the mantle of their 'responsibility' to regulate interstate commerce. This is one ofthose powers that the states are perfectly capable of regulating among themselves. The states are so dependent on Uncle Sugar for fiscal support that they dare not oppose or attempt to ammend this and many other travesties of the Constitution.

RE: Drugs. As a former footsoldier in the 'war on drugs' I can personally attest to the utter failure that it is. The Federal government has no business telling individuals what they can and cannot ingest, not to mention backing it up with black clad, ninjatactical, doorbusting wall climbers. This is a rathole of enormous size that swallows billions of our dollars and makes us not one iota more safe or secure as communities or as a country. Its not a question of actively legalizing drugs. Its one of using scarce dollars for higher priority programs or (GOD FORBID)
allowing us to keep more of our own money.

Blackhawk
December 25, 2002, 01:41 PM
Mao or some other reknowned commie said "Religion is the opiate of the people," but political parties are the opiates of Americans.

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers had any idea of the mischief against the republic that political parties would be or they would have outlined the rules of the houses of Congress and all kinds of other things that would have prevented the accretion of power within parties.

Prohibition gave us the curse of organized crime, but unchecked political parties have cursed us far worse.

2nd Amendment
December 25, 2002, 02:04 PM
Legalization of drugs is the best thing that could be done. Remove drug/gang related inner city black on black youth violence and our firearms related crime rate drops to that of Britain and Canada. We know that the War on (some) Drugs will never work, we've had Prohibition to prove that plus our own views towards weapons restrictions(I'll own what I please and the Feds can bite me). We know it's a violence causer and we know it's a cash cow for the government.

And what do I care if anyone wants to be stoned out of their minds? If they're that stupid, fine. More power to them. Takes 'em out of the job market, takes them off the road, etc. Prosecute them for their screw-ups and mistakes, just as with alchoholics, etc.

The problem with the Libertarian party is that it has no clue how to operate. If there is ever going to be a Libertarian alternative the party "Leadership"(Now there's a joke) needs to build from the grass roots on up. Local politicians, county, then state. It's a ten or twenty year process. If they'd started a rational plan at their inception we'd have something worth working with today. Sadly, they didn't and today we probably don't have that many years. Personally I'd say six at the outside. It's a shame but the fact is we have nothing now except Evil, Indifferent and Incompetent, which voting for the latter gets us Evil.

Blackhawk
December 25, 2002, 02:14 PM
And what do I care if anyone wants to be stoned out of their minds? If they're that stupid, fine. More power to them. Takes 'em out of the job market, takes them off the road, etc. Prosecute them for their screw-ups and mistakes, just as with alchoholics, etc. With too many of them, they don't get stoned, just high, and they continue to drive, work, etc., oblivious to the fact that they're impaired and a danger to themselves and everybody else.

Like the old leper colonies, how about drug colonies? Segregate them so they don't have the opportunity to harm non users.

The law of unintended consequences is afoot, and nothing is as simple as we'd like.

The WOD is a disaster, but there aren't any simple answers because our society is tolerant of drug users.

Mike
December 25, 2002, 02:44 PM
I believe it was on TFL where I read "Republicans are just slow socialists". I've always liked that. Anyone want to claim it?

Finch
December 25, 2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Mike
I believe it was on TFL where I read "Republicans are just slow socialists". I've always liked that. Anyone want to claim it?

I said that......yeah....it was me...... ;)

2nd Amendment
December 25, 2002, 02:52 PM
I said several times on TFL that Republicans are the slower vehicle on the same road. Both parties are taking us to hell in a handbasket, the Dems in a Lamborghini, the Repubs in a stretch limo. One ride is more comfortable and more scenic but you get to the same place in the end...

Not sure if i ever used the term Slow Socialists or not, but it certainly fits.

pax
December 25, 2002, 03:12 PM
300lbGorilla,

You are exactly right, with the addition that Repubs are hypocrites too.

pax

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule-- and both commonly succeed, and are right. -- H.L. Mencken

The two major political parties can be summed up this way: There are two parties, one is the Stupid Party and the other is the Evil Party. Occasionally these two parties create legislation that is both stupid and evil. This is called bi-partisianship. -- Andrew Grooms

bastiat
December 25, 2002, 03:22 PM
Lone_Gunemen:
Doesnt the Constitution grant the power to regulate interstate and international commerce to the federal govt?

If so, then couldnt those laws be construed in such a way to allow for the federal government to declare drugs illegal?

If you really hold that as a justification for the legality of the war on drugs, never ask yourself why they had to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol.

If you want the truth, realize they amendment route because alcohol was a widely popular substance, while 'harder' drugs were less popular, and often associated with minority populations. Therefore, a ban on them was easy to get passed without any outrage. If whiskey was as popular as heroin, or beer as popular as pot, do you think they would have gone through the trouble of getting a constitutional amendment to ban those substances?

I used to be against drug prohibition until I realized it had the same effects as alcohol prohibition: It artificially raises prices, encourages a lucritive black market, and results in violence for the control of that black market. And it never really gets rid of the prohibited substance.

Glock Glockler
December 25, 2002, 04:29 PM
...if the question is, "What is the political equivalent of beating my head against a brick wall?"

I know it does seem that way, but the more that they get their message out, the more the other party(s) will adapt their positions and adopt libertarian issues in order to defang the outside threat. Just here in NH, the Libertarian candidate for Gov. has been busting his hump on his campaigns, but even though he hadn't gotten much of the vote other candidates have been adopting his positions and even some of his language.

As a member of the party, I can tell you that we probably couldn't be more disorganized, but we have made several large changes and we should be getting our stuff together very soon. I can only imagine what we will accomplish once we do.

With too many of them, they don't get stoned, just high, and they continue to drive, work, etc., oblivious to the fact that they're impaired and a danger to themselves and everybody else.

If they are a danger to others through their activity, they should be arrested just like drunk drivers are. I also think that the fines for such activities are not stiff enough.

Like the old leper colonies, how about drug colonies? Segregate them so they don't have the opportunity to harm non users.

What about Jew colonies? You're treading on very dangerous ground here. You can't just herd a group of people somewhere because you don't like them. If they infringe on the rights of others, deal with them appropriately, until then leave them alone.

Doesnt the Constitution grant the power to regulate interstate and international commerce to the federal govt?

The origional intent of this clause was only to insure that the entire country was a free trade zone and we didn't have states erect trade barriers against one another. Roosevelt just wanted to use it to regulate very aspect of life that could even be remotely connected with interstate trade.

TimH
December 25, 2002, 07:20 PM
OK so what drugs do Libertarians want to legalize? I mean you can argue the pot vs alcohol all you want. Although I think both present problems. Crack, Heroin, Speed, etc are extremely addictive. And destroy lives in short order. If someone becomes addicted to Libertarian legal drugs DON'T ask me to pay for detox or rehab. Too many lives would be ruined. It won't matter how cheap the drugs are as far as crime. I still will need the drugs and won't be able to afford them because you'll be too strung out to work.

Lone_Gunman
December 25, 2002, 07:34 PM
Is the drug issue one of jurisdiction, state versus federal?

In other words, is the fact that federal law prohibits drugs what the Libertarians have a problem with?

gburner
December 25, 2002, 07:35 PM
Hi Tim,

Your post brings up some valuable points but is based on some suspect logic. The elmination of criminal sanction for possession or use of controlled substances would not measurably increase the using population. The emphasis placed on the severe punishment of criminal behaviors committed while under the influence of those substances would better address the impact on society. Treatment could take place within the correctional setting which would take it out of the hands of the money grubbing insurance industry. Successful completion of said treatment with rigorous follow up during parole should be made mandatory for completion of sentence. Further, restitution to victims and to the state for the expense of incarceration should be mandatory as well...even if only a percentage of realized loss, expense or damage. This would all result in appropriately placed sanctions, less cost to society in general and the elimination of the farce that is the 'war on drugs'.

bastiat
December 25, 2002, 07:35 PM
I don't really want to 'legalize' drugs, per se. I just want the federal government out of it, and to be limited to their proper constitution powers. And I want the unconstitutional asset seizure laws thrown out. Drug laws will then be left to the states, and the 9th and 10th amendments allow.

As to what to do with the addicts, here's the non touchy-feely darwinian solution:

You pay for your own drugs.
If you need rehab, you pay for it.
If you need hospitalization, you pay for it.
If you can't take drugs and abide by other laws, you get thrown in jail. You also pay for that, too.
If you can't pay for jail, you do menial labor as part of a work detail to work off your 'jail/cold turkey rehab' debt.
If you can't pay for your drugs, and try to steal from law-abiding citizens, those same citizens can use their 2nd amendment rights to protect their lives and their property, and rehabilitate you through reincarnation.

Soccer moms will never go for it. It will probably scare a lot of Conservatives. A lot of liberals will be outraged by the lack of sensitivity. But it will work.

TimH
December 25, 2002, 07:42 PM
AMEN bastiat!

GOD help you if because of drugs you hurt, kill, mame or commit any crime under the influence or to get $ to buy drugs.

Blackhawk
December 25, 2002, 07:48 PM
Glock Glocker:If they are a danger to others through their activity, they should be arrested just like drunk drivers are. I also think that the fines for such activities are not stiff enough. Agreed, but what's probable cause for stopping a space cadet? If somebody's DUI, there are telltale signs from how they operate the vehicle. Somebody on drugs can merely be totally irrational. Getting drivers to pee in cups won't fly, so how do you test without some kind of gizmo analogous to a breathalyzer?

What about Jew colonies? You're treading on very dangerous ground here. You can't just herd a group of people somewhere because you don't like them. If they infringe on the rights of others, deal with them appropriately, until then leave them alone. And lepers weren't just herded into colonies because somebody didn't like them. When they showed leprosy, off they went. Since so many drugs are fiercely addictive, once a person was arrested and found to be an addict, the most damage to society is done after releasing him back into society. Prison isn't the answer, but quarantine from society may be a possibility. Society itself is an enabler for addicts. There's so much stuff to steal, money to be mugged for, and opportunities to feed the monkey that addicts simply cannot live in it without turning to crimes other than addiction. Quarantine removes the addicts from society and protects the addict from its evils as well.

Am I in favor of "addict colonies" analogous to leper colonies of old? No. I'm just bringing the subject up for discussion. All we KNOW now are several things that DON'T work....

TimH
December 25, 2002, 07:54 PM
Ok so we make addict colonies put all the addicts in them. Bring in dump trucks filled with all the powder they can snort/shoot.
In a very short period of time no more addicts:D

Blackhawk
December 25, 2002, 08:01 PM
Naw. Just let them grow their own.

It would be an interesting sociological study to see how addiction is anathema to entrepreneurship.

Glock Glockler
December 26, 2002, 10:24 AM
Agreed, but what's probable cause for stopping a space cadet?

Space cadet? I might be a bit green, so forgive me, as I'm not familiar with this term.

Getting drivers to pee in cups won't fly, so how do you test without some kind of gizmo analogous to a breathalyzer?

I have no idea, but shouldn't we be trying to come up with ways to test people for other types of drugs right now, even though they are illegal people are still doing them and driving.

There's so much stuff to steal, money to be mugged for, and opportunities to feed the monkey that addicts simply cannot live in it without turning to crimes other than addiction.

1 - This problem will be severely mitigated when RKBA is fully recognized.

2 - This problem will be severely mitigated if not eliminated by having a free market with drugs. Addicts steal to get money for drugs because the price is so inflated, because they are only sold on a black market, which exponentially increases the price. Decriminalize the stuff so they can get it at a pharmacy and the dealers will go out of business and the regular addict will be able to afford them without having to turn to crime.

Imagine what things would be like if cigarettes were suddenly declared illegal. Many otherwise law-abiding members of this board would suddenly become criminals. Take a look at a smoker when they cannot get their fix, they become intolerable until they can go out and have a cigarette. What would happen if a pack of cigatettes suddenly cost over $100?

coati
December 26, 2002, 10:49 AM
The "choice" of Republican or Democratic may be the reason that in most elections, for many years, the clear "winner" is the majority of voters who stay home.

Preacherman
December 26, 2002, 10:50 AM
This problem will be severely mitigated when RKBA is fully recognized.And this will happen approximately half-an-hour after the Second Coming!!! :D Seriously, though, I don't see this as a problem with any kind of workable solution. Legalize drugs, and addicts still have to get money to pay for them. Their habit makes them less-than-desirable employees due to its effects on their health and productivity, so as they get more addicted, and need more money to feed the addiction, the likelihood of their remaining gainfully employed goes down like the Titanic. End result - they'll still be committing crimes to fund their habit.

Also, if drugs are legalized, we'll have an even greater problem with our youth. At the moment, dealing to the young is a high-risk occupation, because even the liberal sheeple recognize that "it's for the children" and fund prevention programs. Once drugs are legalized, schools can expect to see them on or around campus, and you're going to find a huge number of otherwise decent kids hooked on them before they know better. (If you think I'm exaggerating, look at how many fine kids end up with venereal diseases, or abortions, or unwanted pregnancies, even though they come from good homes where they've been taught responsibility! They get sucked in anyway...)

Tamara
December 26, 2002, 10:58 AM
Once drugs are legalized, schools can expect to see them on or around campus, and you're going to find a huge number of otherwise decent kids hooked on them before they know better.

You really lost me once you got into the "it's for the children" bit.

Legalizing drugs would no more cause all our kids to run out and get addicted to smack than the current legal status of booze, guns and sex causes all our kids to be violent alcoholic prostitutes.

A bad seed is going to be a bad seed; they aren't going to care about legality. We spend twenty four hours a day saying this out of one side of our mouths about guns, does it not feel odd to condradict ourselves out of the other side of our mouths about, say, narcotics?

Derek Zeanah
December 26, 2002, 12:24 PM
Legalize drugs, and addicts still have to get money to pay for them.

If you can buy pot for the same price as cigarettes (or less -- stop taxing the damn things), where's the ccriminal impulse? Why should morphene sulfate cost more than flour? Did it back when it was legal? (Vin Supernowicz claims it didn't). LSD, ecstasy, methamphetamines are all easy enough to make that they'd qualify as a high-school science project -- also cheap.

Look, if someone needs their fix and is in a state where they won't contribute to society, I'd rather they fund a cheap habit than one that's so expensive that it turns millionaires into paupers.

Their habit makes them less-than-desirable employees due to its effects on their health and productivity

Just like alcahol and tobacco, but we let those addicts work. Was this a problem back when Coca Cola contained cocaine, or were the workers fine then?

Also, if drugs are legalized, we'll have an even greater problem with our youth.

This was a big issue with prohibition, and "protecting our youth" was a goal of the movement. After it'd been around a few years and the prohibitionists realized that making alcohol illegal made it more attractive to youth, they finally gave up.

Would you say that the war on drugs has keps those chemicals out of our schools? If not, are things better now than they were when these laws were enacted? If not, how can you continue to support the argument that we're doing it for the welfare of our kids?

twoblink
December 26, 2002, 09:31 PM
I'm a registered republican (as far as I can remember) but I've voted Libertarian every single election across the board.

When you see "Republican" that doesn't assure you that they are for RKBA or lower taxes etc...

I personally can't really tell Republicrats from Democans.

When I vote libertarian, even though I don't know who they are, I know a few things about them:

#1) They are for less taxes
#2) They are for gun ownership
#3) They disagree with me on what the correct answers are; BUT we both agree that the government is NEVER the answer..

That's enough to make me vote for them.

Libertarian is the only party that votes not for the person, but for the ideology. That's why they are a good vote.

Come to the light!!

tyme
December 26, 2002, 10:38 PM
twoblink, your second observation is not always correct.

Take Scott Jameson, 2002 TX Senate candidate:
Some fellow Libertarians told me at the Texas LP Convention that they didn't vote for me to be their U.S. Senate candidate because they weren't certain where I stood on gun ownership rights based on my answer that "I prefer the crossbow." I stand by this statement, and am even willing to add that I really don't like guns. But of course, these are my preferences, not yours.Libertarian or not, I'm not going to vote for someone who says "I don't really like cars. I prefer bicycles." If you don't like cars that's fine, but they serve an important function. Your personal opinions have no place in your campaign, especially when they are in conflict with basic living requirements.

The Greens have about as much chance of winning an election by saying "we don't like power plants." Does anyone like power plants?

Tamara
December 26, 2002, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by tyme
twoblink, your second observation is not always correct.

The Greens have about as much chance of winning an election by saying "we don't like power plants." Does anyone like power plants?

Well, I think the big turbine bits are kinda cool, actually... :D

Blackhawk
December 26, 2002, 11:01 PM
Glock Glockler,

You sure make me FEEL old! A "space cadet" is an old -- apparently ancient -- euphemism for substance abuser, which was used by young people when talking about their "spaced" out peers partly so older people wouldn't know what they were saying. During its heyday, the space race was on and becoming astronauts was a seemingly attainable goal. The term was later replaced by the pejorative "junkie" I suppose.I have no idea, but shouldn't we be trying to come up with ways to test people for other types of drugs right now, even though they are illegal people are still doing them and driving. Since alcohol is dissipated to a measurable extent through the lungs, the legality of the breathalyzer rests partially on the fact that a person exhales so has no right under the 4A to deny its use. I suppose the tiny, tiny fraction of many drugs in the blood stream could be picked up in a tweaked breathalyzer, and if so, that might be an answer. Meanwhile, pee and blood are about the only reliable ways to detect drugs, but a person's pee or blood can't be compelled without probable cause and a warrant. Eyeball appearance is a good indicator of drug impairment, but even doctors have trouble being accurate so where does that leave a LEO? 1 - This problem will be severely mitigated when RKBA is fully recognized.

2 - This problem will be severely mitigated if not eliminated by having a free market with drugs. Addicts steal to get money for drugs because the price is so inflated, because they are only sold on a black market, which exponentially increases the price. Decriminalize the stuff so they can get it at a pharmacy and the dealers will go out of business and the regular addict will be able to afford them without having to turn to crime.

Imagine what things would be like if cigarettes were suddenly declared illegal. Many otherwise law-abiding members of this board would suddenly become criminals. Take a look at a smoker when they cannot get their fix, they become intolerable until they can go out and have a cigarette. What would happen if a pack of cigatettes suddenly cost over $100? Agree, agree, and agree.

Chris Rhines
December 26, 2002, 11:15 PM
The only difference I've ever been able to determine between Democrats and Republicans is the specific identities of the groups that they want to oppress.

Democrats want to use the government to oppress the economic productive class, property owners, cultural conservatives, gun owners, and the like.

Republicans, on the other hand, want to use the government to oppress people with tans and/or funny accents, homosexuals, and other people further than one sigma off the cultural mean.

Both major parties are admitted enemies of freedom, individuality, and everything else that is right and good in the world.

If you must participate in the political system, support libertarians.

- Chris

Tamara
December 26, 2002, 11:30 PM
...the legality of the breathalyzer rests partially on the fact that a person exhales so has no right under the 4A to deny its use.

So the breath from your lungs is only protected by the Fifth Amendment if it vibrates your vocal cords in passing? ;)

I can't put my finger on exactly why it is, but any time somebody says "put this in your mouth and blow" and they're carrying a gun, I get this whole "my rights are being violated" vibe. Call me kooky... :p

Drizzt
December 26, 2002, 11:52 PM
Small Poxes (Fred Reed)

A Penetrating Study Of Left And Right


I am trying to understand Liberals and Conservatives. It isn't easy. I think I've about got it, though.

Conservatives believe in the wisdom of common Americans to manage their affairs and make decisions for themselves. Exceptions to this are the half of the public who regularly vote Democratic. These common Americans are unfit to run their affairs and make decisions for themselves. It is because they been deluded by liberal propaganda.

Liberals also believe in the inherent wisdom of common Americans, especially those who don't have any. They think that the mother lode of wisdom lies on the low side of the bell curve. They discern qualities in the stupid, ignorant, and shiftless that engender a capacity to govern a country they can't spell. Coincidentally, these people vote Democratic.

Liberals do not believe in the wisdom of the half of the country who vote Republican, as these are all CEOs of major corporations. The Left knows that CEOs, unlike welfare recipients, are motivated by economic interest.

Conservatives believe that it is not the business of government to legislate morality, and thus want laws against abortion, pornography, sex education, and marijuana. Liberals don't want to legislate morality either. They want to eliminate it, along with learning, thought, civility, and other impediments to the undisturbed enjoyment of uniform mental darkness.

(A third point of view is held by Libertarians, but I'm not sure what it is. I have never been able to distinguish Libertarianism from a bull session in a sophomore dorm.)

The Right believes passionately in freedom, particularly economic freedom. The conservative therefore cherishes his right to strip-mine Appalachia. He does not, however, believe in your right to build a hog-rendering plant next to his house. That would violate zoning laws.

The Left believes in economic freedom too, specifically the unalienable right of the shiftless to be supported by someone else. Oddly, the someone else is usually a conservative businessman.

Now, confusion is essential to politics. Just as third-world countries regularly mistake incompetence for socialism, liberals mistake peasantry for equality. Thus they promote the decline of civilization with the enthusiasm of Crusaders sacking Jerusalem, making us into dim comfortable serfs ungrammatically grunting.

Conservatives also are subject to confusion. They regard unrestricted rapacity as a virile expression of freedom, like being in George Washington's army, and so favor reproductive incontinence, overbuilding, and the making of anything slow enough to be caught into dog food.

In short, Left and Right both strain to make the world unlivable, with liberals degrading the human world and conservatives, the natural. We can work together if only we try.

Economically, conservatives say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Liberals say that if it ain't broke, tax it till it is. The economic philosophy of conservatives is to take what they can get. The liberal philosophy is also to take what conservatives can get, and use it to buy votes. This is a form of trickle-down. Consequently liberals are seen to be Reaganites. The study of politics is endlessly enlightening.

Race is a major divide between Left and Right. Conservatives don't give a wan emaciated damn about blacks, whom they regard in electoral terms as the equivalent of a golf handicap. This distinguishes them from liberals, who don't give a damn about blacks, but find it useful to pretend. Blacks don't give a damn about blacks either, or they would cause their children to do their homework. In this tripartite agreement we may have the seeds of national accord.

Racially, the underlying difference between Left and Right is that the liberal policy is active, the conservative passive. Conservatives are content to do nothing and let blacks rot. So, usually, are blacks. Liberals make sure that blacks rot by promoting bastardy as a birthright and illiteracy as a credential of cultural authenticity. Otherwise blacks might make money and vote Republican.

However, liberals and conservatives agree on one thing. When their first child reaches school age, they head for the white suburbs. The difference is that while conservatives admit to each other that they are avoiding black schools, liberals say that they seek the wide open spaces or want their little boy to be near the hockey rink.

The Right opposes abortion as being murder when someone else's sixteen-year-old is pregnant by a tattooed drifter with a guitar and a vanishing IQ. This is why Roe-vs.-Wade will never be repealed: Conservatives also have daughters. Conservatives do think that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest, making it acceptable to murder children whose fathers behaved badly.

While conservatives see abortion as murder, liberals see murder as convenience. If a woman changes her mind twelve seconds before giving birth to a perfectly healthy baby, liberals want a doctor to kill it for her. Presumably it takes a curious sort of doctor, but that is another matter.

Left and Right differ in social consciousness. Liberals oppose elitism, and send their children to Harvard to avoid it. Conservatives support elitism, and send their children to Harvard to practice it. By elitism, the liberal elite mean that everyone but themselves should live in a uniform state of social and moral degradation. The conservative means by elitism the view that the better is preferable to the worse. He dislikes degradation, in part because it invariably produces Democrats.

Liberals like government because it enables them to misbehave. Conservatives believe that the best government is the least government. The perfect government is therefore no government. Thus conservatives are seen to be anarchists, like Bakunin.

Conservatives oppose the intrusion of government into the private life, which explains why a Republican administration is rapidly turning the United States into a surveillance state. Yet the leftist American Civil Liberties Union opposes the creeping advance of the unblinking eye. This might seem puzzling. Actually we are witnessing the formation of a hybrid system: The wretched political aims of communist regimes pursued by efficient capitalist means. No communist state could make computers good enough for the new watched hive. (I think of this convergence as Bimeddlism.)

Left and Right work together more often than you might think. Hollywood, the home of freewheeling unprincipled capitalism, is also the wellhead of the socially destructive social agendas of the left. The movie industry grows rich by promoting promiscuity, violence, and the use of drugs. Then its denizens appear on television to denounce the chaos they have engendered, blaming it on capitalism and conservatives.

OK. I've understood all the politics I can handle today. I need a drink, or maybe anesthesia. I know a bartender who has knockout drops.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/LeftRightLeft.shtml

Blackhawk
December 26, 2002, 11:58 PM
Okay, Kooky! :D

You don't have an expectation of privacy to your fingerprints you leave on glasses, tables, etc., or in a public place, nor do you have one regarding your garbage not on your property, so it's fair game for gathering evidence without a warrant.

You do have an expectation of privacy regarding your pee and blood, and you can't really be forced to submit to a breathalyzer, but if you refuse, you can trigger a presumptive conclusion, which can lead to your becoming a blood donor. A breathalyzer doesn't need to be blown into to determine if your breath contains alcohol, but it does to determine your blood alcohol content.

Illegal drugs are different in that there is no minimum threshold that determines a violation. Any amount in your bloodstream indicates a violation. Theoretically, dogs could be trained to detect a tell tale drug odor just like a person can detect "garlic breath," and the dog could do it from several feet away.

There are low tech and reliable ways to detect much latent drug use by drivers, etc., but since the government isn't really serious about the WOD, they're not used.

Also, since I wouldn't trust the average lab technician with getting accurate results any more than I'd trust a dog to leave an unattended steak alone, I wouldn't submit to any random drug or alcohol test, including a guy carrying a gun saying breathe into this tube. Molon Labe, in a manner of speaking....

Blackhawk
December 27, 2002, 12:05 AM
Thanks, Drizzt! I love Fred Reed's work! :D

grampster
December 27, 2002, 12:29 AM
1. In the end politics is all about money and power. Governance is about freedom and justice.

2. The knowledge that personal responsibility is ascendant will, over time, cause better decisions to be made out of sheer self preservation. Example of personal responsibility: Putting a sharp stone on the end of a very long stick caused some people to recognize they would not get eaten by sabre tooth tigers.

Grampster

Gila Jorge
December 27, 2002, 12:35 AM
I am with Tamara: breathalizers sodomize your rights...."put this in your mouth and blow."..
is the crux of the violation of rights. Thought police are also major violaters of my rights with their right think PC garbage. Oh yeah, I usually vote Republican...

rock jock
December 27, 2002, 12:52 AM
I can agree on this : the federal govt. does have the right to regulate or prohibit interstate commerce of drugs; however, they do not have the right to regulate intrastate commerce of drugs. The problem with the Libertarian message that I have been hearing is they would deny me the right as a Texan to vote this issue at the state level, too.

Diesle
December 27, 2002, 01:07 AM
Legalize pot. No contingencies or limitations of any kind on the supply chain. Apply regulations on usage (similar to alcohol).

A sound jumping off point to ending the great 'war on drugs' (crock).

What Im after is taking a huge revenue source away from the thugs.

I believe that there would be a net gain. Lives would be spared, taxpayer $$$ would be saved. And, following the metrics of its legalization would be incredible revealing.

Damn it, if it’s good enough for Canada...


""The committee recommends that cannabis should be from here on in legal and of restricted use, so that Canadians can choose whether to consume or not in security," Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, chair of the committee.

The committee also says the government should wipe clean the records of anyone convicted of marijuana possession. There is no good reason pot smokers should be subject to criminal law, he said. "

From - http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/04/pot_committee020904

Diesle

Blackhawk
December 27, 2002, 01:09 AM
Gun registration is good enough for Canada. You'll have to come up with a better example to follow....

Gordon
December 27, 2002, 01:15 AM
Dr. Alan Keyes is a Republican you can trust to do the moral and best interest of American people. That is why was escorted to the outskirts of Atlanta when he was ejected from Republican presidential convention. He gets my whole hearted vote. J.C. Watts did more in congress to bring sensibility back to government and is a rigtheous man in all respects . Although he quit politics I'm sure he would run for VP. He'd get my vote for a great republican. Condoleeza Rice would make a great Secratary of State as NOBODY be pulling any S##t on her, she says it straight up she just needs a handler with cajones. The Republicans CAN be different that the socialist/pervert party the Dems have become. Unfortunately I can't think of any dems that could change what they have become can you?

dog3
December 27, 2002, 08:00 AM
I trust no republican.
I trust no democrat.

Our choice;

"Would you like the puppet
on the left, or the puppet on the
right?"

Follow the money.

Justin Moore
December 27, 2002, 08:34 AM
Re: legalizing drugs....

I'm sure you have all seen the commercials that say 'if you buy drugs you are supporting terrorism'.

My argument would be: the prohibition on drugs causes their prices to be artificially inflated. That being the case, the prohibition on drugs actually FUNDS terrorism. When a dealer
gets busted, the other dealers raise their prices, and blammo
more money for 'terrorists'.

Pretty simple, isn't it? I wonder why George W. didn't thunka that? ;)

The WoD is actually the War on the Bill of Rights, in disguise.

I say let em get stoned, and let natural selection take its course.

Glock Glockler
December 27, 2002, 09:50 AM
Blackhawk,

Where does that leave law enforcement? In a weird situation, but it's one their currently in and not just a theoretical one they might be in later on. People who know a lot more than I might be able to come up something.

As far as the breathalizer is concerned, I've seen some cops with a gaget on their flashlights that sucks up a certain amount of air, which can then be analized for alcohol content. This, I don't think is a violation of one's rights, if a cop takes a sample of air coming out of one's car.

Chris Rhines,

Why don't you smack me upside the head with a 2 x 4 next time? I had actually gotten kinda fond of your handle "Christopher II" and now you pull this on me. What's next: famine, plague, war?

Dr. Alan Keyes is a Republican you can trust to do the moral and best interest of American people

Maybe it's just my Stalinist paranoia kicking in, but I don't trust anyone who runs for office. If they are elected to office, I watch them like a hawk.

And many of Keyes' views turn many people off, myself included, which does not help with getting elected, though he's a million times better than McCain or Bush. If he stopped saying "moral" and "God" more than Ted Kennedy goes to happy hour, many people would find him tolerable. I also don't believe in prayer (govt initiated) in public schools, and I also don't believe in public schools. I have no problem with a moment of silence but to have a certain prayer is crossing the line. Get the govt out of the school business and let people do their thing and we can stop fighting each other and get back to yelling at the govt for something else.

I don't like the fact that he stresses personal responsibility when sex and guns are concerned but he is all about the drug war. I've also heard him say that we should make foreigners pay for the cost of US govt by imposing a tarrif. This bothers me because he is too smart to think that the cost won't just be passed on to the American consumer. He's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.


Ron Paul is my man, as he might be Republican but I think he is a very solid and consistent libertarian. I think it's significant that he actually got elected for office rather than just talking like Keyes. Another thing, Keyes comes off being kinda arrogant with the way he speaks. There's no need to use 75 words to say what you can say in 25. Efficiency, please.

peteinct
December 27, 2002, 10:17 AM
Here's my 10 cents, my 2 cents are free,
If you believe in freedom as an objective, it is freedom for more than just your cause. " I should have the right to carry a gun But you should not have the right to be in some strange religion. Or to engage in some activity which I dissapprove but does not have any effect on me."
I believe that as a society we give to much power to the government in the name of the war on drugs.
"But there is a war on. But wasn't there always?" Harlan Ellison. I think that the majority of the social cost of drugs is because they are illegal rather than inherent in the drug itself. Alcohol has an enormous effect on this country. We have decided to try to deal with irresponsible users and could probably do the same with other drugs. As an aside why did alcohol prohibition require an amendment but not other drug prohibition?
"Its for the children" is said by any politician trying to steal your rights. I would bet any kid in any town in this country could find and buy any drug he/she wanted. Drugs are not just an inner city problem.
As gun owners we have to be aware that people think our guns pose a cost to society. The Majority of the votes rule even whenthe voters are mistaken. The tatics used against Drugs can be turned on us and with frightening speed.
Tactically the libertarian movement has to infiltrate and take over a party to achieve its goals. I feel however that the mood of this nation is anti freedom and would glady trade liberty with its attendant responsibility for promises of freedom and safety. So any platform that promises liberty would not win an election. pete

Chris Rhines
December 27, 2002, 10:48 AM
Glockler -

Well, I figured that when my posts to THR are read into evidence at my sedition trial, I'd save the state the trouble of proving that Christopher II = Chris Rhines. I try to help. :)

Ron Paul is indeed a Good Guy. I only have one serious disagreement with him, and to be fair it's a pretty big one. But he's still a politician. The only politician that can be trusted is one that has a gun firmly wegded into his/her ear. (H.L. Mencken said something like that once upon a time.)

- Chris

JPM70535
December 28, 2002, 12:23 AM
I can't see where the legalization of drugs will do anything ecxept increase crime rates,so on this matter I disagree with the Libertarian point of view.
The addict, no matter his drug of choice, is still an addict and will do whatever it takes to support his habit. If he is using his drug of choice and drives, he becomes a danger to those around him on the road. If he works while high, he again endangers those who work with him, or have to depend on his judgement.

I agree with the Republican stand against the legalization of drugs including pot. I don't agree with their stand on stem cell research. I agree with the democrats stand on freedom of choice, and I vehemently disagree with their stand on RKBA.

That being said, I have never been able to vote for a Democrat for national office, and have always voted for the lesser of 2 evils.

Glock Glockler
December 28, 2002, 09:46 AM
The addict, no matter his drug of choice, is still an addict and will do whatever it takes to support his habit

Please explain how it is any different with someone who is addicted to alcohol or nicotine?

I agree with the Republican stand against the legalization of drugs including pot.

If I want to do whatever drug, in the privacy of my own home hurting no one, what right do you have to legislate away my rights?

Tamara
December 28, 2002, 09:55 AM
The addict, no matter his drug of choice, is still an addict and will do whatever it takes to support his habit.

Eh? What's that you said? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you; I was downstairs mugging my roommate for some cigarette & coffee money.



The "dangers of crime to support addiction" argument is a little weak, seeing as how caffeine and nicotine are every bit as addictive as anything on the government's special list. ;) :p

Soap
December 28, 2002, 09:43 PM
I trust no man whose will includes having forceful control over my life. And yes, this includes Repubs, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc. If you do not harm other people in any way, shape, or form, yet someone still seeks to control you, then you cannot trust them to make decisions for your benefit.

Soap
December 28, 2002, 09:45 PM
The only politician that can be trusted is one that has a gun firmly wegded into his/her ear.

*Gasp*, you mean that politicians must be forced to act in our best interests!? You are un-Amorican and you are most likely a Turrurist. End of debate.

;)

Malone LaVeigh
December 29, 2002, 05:48 PM
"We have both kinds of music here... country AND western"

Zander
December 29, 2002, 08:01 PM
I don't believe that the Founding Fathers had any idea of the mischief against the republic that political parties would be or they would have outlined the rules of the houses of Congress and all kinds of other things that would have prevented the accretion of power within parties. Couldn't disagree more. The Constitution was written as much for the purpose of restricting the power of the federal government as it was for delineating our unalienable Rights.

The Founding Fathers knew the dangers posed by the political process. Two centuries of eroding our Rights by amendments and judicial fiat have, if nothing else, proven that the inherent distrust expressed by our founders was entirely justified.

pax
December 29, 2002, 10:06 PM
I think a pretty good case could be made for saying that the Founders fully expected the central gov't to grow and to become more powerful, even tyrannical in the end. I think an even stronger case could be made for saying that they firmly believed that there is no way to break the cycle from tyranny to rebellion to freedom to complacency and back to tyranny.

I do not think they expected freedom to endure without rebellion and without bloodshed. The miracle is that such freedom as we have, has lasted so long.

This despite the best efforts of 200 years of politicians to grow the state and to shrink our rights.

pax

The tree of liberty is a fragile thing, and must be replenished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -- Thomas Jefferson

Blackhawk
December 29, 2002, 11:15 PM
Couldn't disagree more. The Constitution was written as much for the purpose of restricting the power of the federal government as it was for delineating our unalienable Rights. I'm not sure you understand what you're disagreeing with, Zander, because I agree completely with your next sentence.

Unrestricted power to political parties has greatly increased their strength and accelerated the increase of power of the federal government. The Constitution is a huge restriction on government, much more than an empowering government document.

The FF depended on the People to be the ballast that kept government in check, and strong political parties very effectively disenfranchise the people from exerting their will. For example, would NAFTA have passed as a discrete issue? Would the Tonkin Gulf Resolution? Would we even have the plethora of entitlement programs that reward the few politically connected people from the pockets of the taxpayers? Would abject liars be able to remain in office? And on and on and on.

Congress critters would have to look out after the best interests of their constitutients to be elected regardless of what the critter from several states over wanted to do. Wouldn't that be a hoot? I can't even imagine the permutations and combinations of that, but I really think that's more in line with what the FF intended instead of the party power brokers we have now.

Aces
December 30, 2002, 11:19 AM
This whole dem vs.repub vs.lib thing misses the point to some extent,I think.WOD not withstanding that is.
My point is there's just not a big constituency out there that wants smaller government. If there was, that's what we'd have. These politicians don't assume power after all, someone is electing them.
Talk to the average person, and there is an underlying if not upfront feeling that government is there to fix whatever problems exist.
The saying that " A liberal is one mugging away from being a conservative" can work in reverse too. "A conservative is one layoff from being a liberal". I've seen it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Democrats and Republicans" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!