[doseyclwn]

I'm really not. I am definitely pro-gun rights. I belong to a pro gun-rights group (the VCDL) here in VA that does nothing but work on 2nd amendment issues. I am conservative where it comes to welfare reform and a very few other things, but mostly I am not. What kinda makes me chuckle a bit is that more folks that have like beliefs aren't pro second amendment. Now, I'm not a democrat, either. Their policies of tax and spend, censorship, and the dissappointment of the Clinton Era have soured me (perhaps for good) on that. There aren't any really good candidates, I guess. The party that most closely fits my beliefs would be somewhere between the greens and the libertarians.

Anyone else have similar experiences? I know most of you are conservative, but I know a few of you probably share similar beliefs to mine.

[2dogs]

I am a "leave me the h@ll alone, and I won't bother you or anybody else" party member.

We don't seem to be able to get anybody elected though.:D

[Joe Demko]

I can't bring myself to throw in with either the Democrats or Republicans (one snake with two heads), so I also eschew the labels liberal and conservative because they have become so tightly associated with those parties.

[Tamara]

Oh, yeah. That's me, baby: "Conservative".















*snicker* ;)

[Chris Rhines]

Sounds like another libertarian is being born... :D

- Chris

[ojibweindian]

I am not a "conservative" either. Call me a Constitutionalist. Or a Libertarian.

Used to be a "conservative" until coming to TFL/THR a few years back. Tamara and Lendsringer were pretty instrumental in my epiphany and conversion (thanks, guys!:D).

[FPrice]

The problem with labeling ones self (or someone else for that matter) is that as hard as we try, words still do not convey the exact same meanings to all. After all, just what IS a Conservative? Do all Conservatives think alike on all issues? Do Libertarians? Liberals?

Heck! Even gun owners don't agree on all issues.

At best such labels are only a general descriptive term and not a complete representation of the sum of one's beliefs.

[cordex]

The party that most closely fits my beliefs would be somewhere between the greens and the libertarians.
*laugh*
That encompasses just about ... well ... everything.
The Greens and the Libertarians are just about as opposite as you can get.

[Art Eatman]

Maybe it's because of my background in engineering, auto-mechanics and car racing: I'm a fiscal conservative. If something doesn't work, more money is rarely the solution. (Recall the "insanity" definition: Repetition of action but expecting a new result. Marriage and divorce are sometimes included therein.)

I guess I'm a classic liberal--separate and distinct from a modern U.S. "Liberal"--in that I'm generally tolerant of other folks' harmless behavior. If they're not in my face, I don't really care what they do. This does not in any way mean I must respect their judgement as to their behavior.

When I sign of and put my seal on a set of plans, I'm responsible for errors and harm. Why aren't you equally responsible in your dealings with others? Hmmm? ("You" as in "everybody") Thus I'm intolerant of lying and cheating and other such characteristics of the Modern Liberal Politician or political activist.

One of the "tests" at http://www.lewrockwell.com has me as a Paleo-Libertarian. (I've also been called a Grumpy Libertarian.) However, I quite often disagree with Lew Rockwell's ideas. Go figure.

I believe that the Bill of Rights is a package deal, intended as a restraint on The State. (Just as it sez in the Preamble) In the legal sense, they're all equal and you can't love some of them and ignore the others. We're supposed to be a Government of Law, not of Opinion Polls.

Courtesy, politeness, responsibility and fair play: Make of me what you will. My soul fits, and I'm quite comfortable with it.

Art

[Derek Zeanah]

A number of us feel as you do.

Many who define themselves as "conservative" seem to mean "not a democrat," or "member of the republican party."

A lot of us here are neither -- Art stated it rather well. Call it 19th century liberalism, or socially liberal but fiscally conservative, or libertarian, or constitutionalist, or whatever.

You'll find a home here. :)

[Oleg Volk]

I am a "leave me the h@ll alone, and I won't bother you or anybody else" party member.


2dogs, where do I sign up to join your party?

"Live and let live"

[BigG]

Sounds like another libertarian is being born... Wow, you already have foteen members nationwide!

[BenW]

What Art said. Just about exactly what Art said....

[Tamara]

I'm oddly comfortable with that, as the majority is almost always wrong. ;)

Of course it's hard to find more than fourteen people who don't want to tell anybody else what to do. Where's the power in that? :eek: ;)

[sm]

I'm like Art Eatman...I think I was raised with some of the same values...etc.

And like said before, act like adults, be reponsible, no meddlin'.

May not have an 'official name" don't care--I know what I believe in.

[Art Eatman]

Tam, the only power I want is over ME. :) Since turnabout is fair play, I figure that if I shun efforts toward power over others, I have the right to ensure they don't try to have power over me.

A few have tried, of course. I mostly ignore them, or--so far--have outlived them. So far, the latter course has been passive. :D

Art

[doseyclwn]

*laugh*
That encompasses just about ... well ... everything.
The Greens and the Libertarians are just about as opposite as you can get


Then you see my problem.

[Blackhawk]

Confusion, marked by socially liberal and fiscally conservative tendencies.

[Gray Peterson]

Same here. :)

[Tamara]

...socially liberal and fiscally conservative...

If that's a fancy way of saying that "I prefer keeping the government out of both bedrooms and bank accounts", then I'm all about that. ;)

[Azrael256]

Card-carrying Libertarian. You might be one, too.
Here (http://www.lp.org/issues/) is where the Libertarian party stands. See if you agree.

[Elmer Snerd]

We could call it the "Consenting Adults" party. If something is between consenting adults and does no harm to others, then it is NOTGFB(None Of The Govt's F^#%ing Business).

[2dogs]

2dogs, where do I sign up to join your party? Oleg Volk

It was a party of one, now there are two of us.

To paraphrase Arlo Guthrie from "Alice's Restaurant", "It's a movement"- the entire leave me alone and I'll do same for you movement.......................with two part harmony:D

[org]

I think the term "conservative" has been misused and is more of a label than reflection of one's beliefs. For example, I am pro gun, think the government should stop passing feel good laws, and I don't think the Constitution was written to provide judges a venue to rule the country by "interpretation."

On the other hand, I do support SOME environmental regulation, and think there are some activities that must be controlled for the good of everyone, an example being the disposal of toxic waste, etc. I support the endangered species regulations, but not the abuses of them.

I think the Patriot Act goes too far in eroding rights, but I've heard this from both "conservatives" and "liberals."

I believe in private property rights. I also don't think all federal land should be privatized. Am I "conservative" or "liberal?"

It's like the old parable of the blind men describing an elephant based on what part of the elephant each has a hold of.

Anyone who marches lockstep to the "conservative" or "liberal" tune, IMHO, is not using his own brain. So much of the direction taken by so called conservatives or liberals is simply bull**** intended to get votes and thereby power. Unfortunately there seems to be no remedy except for each voter to examine what he really thinks is important and vote for the candidate that more closely agrees. Right now, for me, it's the Republicans. The way the Senate is controlled, it's important to me that "conservatives" stay in the majority.I think the 2nd Amendment is most important of the issues at present. This doesn't mean I've forgotten everything else, but if we lose the 2nd, it's gone forever. The other issues will still be there, and can be fixed at a later date.

Guess I won't label myself, since there are so many folks out there that can do it for me.:)

[Blackhawk]

If that's a fancy way of saying that "I prefer keeping the government out of both bedrooms and bank accounts", then I'm all about that. That's what it means, but it's not all that fancy.

However, it goes a ways to explain the cognitive dissonance avowed liberals and conservatives have.

Who's in favor of people starving in the street? Not you? Then you must be a social liberal.

Who's in favor of people supporting themselves instead of sponging off of others? You? Then you must be a fiscal conservative.

So called "Liberals" don't want to allow ANY pain, misery, or suffering to befall anybody for any reason. Their programs require money, so they reluctantly cop out to stealing from others to support their programs. That's fiscal liberalism.

So called "Conservatives" don't want any confiscation of their wealth so they reluctantly cop out to averting their eyes to suffering.

Who would you rather go fishing with, the gregarious Liberal or the skinflint Conservative?

Old time "Bible Liberals" felt charity was their duty, but that the recipients should truly be in need. Conservatives felt the same way. The chasm between them developed when accountability waned. Neither extreme is completely right or wrong.

When Liberals beg government for money to support disgusting art exhibits, those with the opposing view that taxpayer money shouldn't be spent for exhibiting a bucket of pee get branded as skinflint conservatives disgusting to all.

When Conservatives ask why $millions of taxpayer money is spent on researching whether or not boys like girls, they're branded as being intolerant of diversity and disgusting to all.

When Liberals ask for compensation for the victims of past discrimination by government forcing them into generations of poverty, they're branded as wastrels redistributing taxpayer money to n'er-do-wells who aren't willing to lift a finger to earn a wage and disgusting to all as well.

When Liberals ask for restrictions on industries polluting air, water, and the soil itself, they're branded as anti-business and a danger to the economy and thus the country itself and disgusting to all.

It's all politics, and it's all confusing, with most of the confusion being due to people not realizing that they're both liberal and conservative in supporting personal freedom without infringing the rights of others, and that includes the right to earn what you want without having what you need stolen for causes you don't agree with.

I've met very few people who wouldn't give some stranger what they needed if they could spare it. Yet I've met nobody who would give a stranger all they had.

[ReadyontheRight]

The party that most closely fits my beliefs would be somewhere between the greens and the libertarians.

I certainly encourage cleaning up of the environment, and I used to actually think I agreed with most environmentalists when I was younger.

After some research and thought, I decided the Greens are not for me because they base so much of their policy on junk science and using "It's for the environment" and "It's for the children" as a method to impose their own kind of tyrany and trample all over the Constitution.

[Guy B. Meredith]

Look for my post at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2003&perpage=25&pagenumber=4

[Tamara]

Who's in favor of people starving in the street? Not you? Then you must be a social liberal.

To steal a line from Greg Swann: "If that's what they want to do, what right do I have to interfere?"... ;) :D

[Blackhawk]

That gets 5 chuckles!

:D :D :D :D :D

[Art Eatman]

Another lady with a proper view of the world:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster74.html

:), Art

[cratz2]

Well, I have a pretty diverse political background. My mother is pretty much cutting-edge liberal and I went to a very liberal college and actually fit in pretty well. And my wife and our best friend are both quite liberal on most topics. My wife's family are mostly ultraconservative. I'm 99% against abortion and currently about 95% against the death penalty (though I think most prison sentences should be longer for serious crimes) so I'm excluded from both groups.

I'm completely against abortion in most cases though I'm in no hurry to change any laws so I'm not a 'liberal'. I'm about 95% against the death penalty (though I think prison sentences should be mandatory and longer for most crimes) so I'm not a 'conservative'. I think that arts and music should be better funded in public schools, I think that corporations should be allowed to police themselves financially and environmentally but if they violate any rules/laws they should be punished severely. So I'm neither 'libretarian' nor 'authoritarian'. I think that everyone that can work should work, should work, but I certainly believe that the harder you work and the more time and effort you contribute, the more you should be rewarded so I'm not a 'communist'. I feel that if I am obviously smarter than the person that the next guy in line that that (almost) entitles me to a more intellectual, less physical job but that in no way makes me a better person than he so I'm not a 'fascist'. I believe in God and so do my kids and think that any government that tells me that they can't willingly pray in school can shove their bleep bleepy bleeping bleeps straight up their bleepin' bleep so I'm not too PC either.

So I guess that makes me a theocratic elitist centralist with strong tendancies in both directions. :D

[doseyclwn]

I've met very few people who wouldn't give some stranger what they needed if they could spare it. Yet I've met nobody who would give a stranger all they had

I did once. It was during a Grateful Dead show in the summer of 1992..... Oops. Wrong forum.

[Byron Quick]

Democrats: We'll take your money and solve your problems.

Republicans: We'll take your money and ignore your problems.

Libertarians: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.

[M1911]

I think there's quite a few folks on here who are probably conservative. And also quite a few folks who are fiscal conservatives, but socially more liberal. I guess I'd call myself a small-government fiscal conservative. I'm not a big-L Libertarian because I think their dogma goes way too far.

Tax and spend doesn't work. Yes, the "rich" get all the tax breaks cause we're the ones who are paying most of the taxes. And I don't much care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. I am reluctantly pro-choice because, as a pragmatist, I believe that outlawing abortions will lead to 1) women dying in back-alley abortions, 2) flourishing criminal enterprises supplying those abortions, and 3) unwanted, neglected and abused children who eventually end up in our prisons.

I understand and respect those who disagree with my views -- most of the relatively controversial issues surround problems with no easy solutions.

[Pendragon]

unwanted, neglected and abused children who eventually end up in our prisons.


Not to go too far down this road, but the sheer arrogance of that statement just takes my breath away.

I am not calling you arrogant and I do not mean to insult you - but think about what you are saying. It is better for someone to be ended than to be born with a higher risk of leaving a life you do not approve of.

I see the core belief of liberty being that people have the right to choose their destiny and that it has consequences - when we say that the chances of them becoming a criminal is too hight, that is essentially "prior restraint" of the highest order.

Many people are not able to rise above the hand that is dealt them at birth. However - MANY people are, and those people can inspire us and teach us so much. But if we say, before they are born, that their life is just not worth taking a chance on - then WOW. I mean - life is risky, freedom is risky, guns are risky - that notion just hits me in the gut and I had to say this. That principle that I quoted above, can be used to take every single liberty and even your life if taken to its logical extremity.

[Shalako]

Yet I've met nobody who would give a stranger all they had.....
I did once. It was during a Grateful Dead show in the summer of 1992..... Oops. Wrong forum.

Hey! Was that you at the Eugene Shows? Man that was cool, thanks bro!

Liberal, Conservative...heck, just do the Right Thing.
Chalk me up as another Eatmantarian!

-Shalako

ps. I finally got a ticket too! Miracle even.

[Apple a Day]

"Eatmantarian" ... the term has potential!:cool:

[Wildalaska]

I just think of myself as different....:)

Actually I would classify myself as a reasonable centrist...

[St. Gunner]

2dogs and Oleg,

Make it 3, almost big enough to form a group, call for elections, and nominate somebody for President. :D Suppose we can get financial backing from the government. I say we run on a special welfare platform, who said a "Chicken in every pot." We'll use the slogan, "A Barret in every mailbox." I bet we can get the votes of all the folks on THR.

The funny thing is, most people seem to feel content to meddle in others lives in some way shape or fashion. But then I feel we could probably live life under one rule, "You respect me, i'll respect you." Might take a little gunfire to sort it all out, but after that it should be all roses. I wear gun clothing to school sometimes and am automatically singled out as to be for bashing gays, minorities, or the poor. If only they knew that I live a fairly conservative personal life, but am more liberal than they ever thought of being, cause I don't care what they do as long as they leave me the ---- alone.

[Bruce H]

I'm from the four rules party.

1. You don't lie.
2. You don't cheat.
3. You don't steal.
4. You don't kill for the fun of it.

Anything else is just for control.

[M1911]

Pendragon:

Arrogant? No. Overly cynical? Perhaps. I see the core belief of liberty being that people have the right to choose their destinyAnd many women would say that core belief of liberty extends to control of their bodies.

There are some very compelling arguments against abortion. I do respect your views. I suggest that you consider respecting mine, even though you don't agree with them.

[Blackhawk]

Guys, you're going to force the mods to lock this thread down if you don't get back on topic.

That will be too bad, so how's about just dropping the hijacking or taking it to PM...? :D

[Shane]

I tend to be on the Liberatarian side.

[JohnBT]

Grumpy Libertarian

[JShirley]

Well...let's look at just one issue, namely, private firearms ownership in the States. Let's take away all restrictions on their sale (other than any imposed by the conscience of the seller). I personally believe that crime would be lowered, and the economy would prosper.

But if not!

I believe if the "Wild West" carnage some elitists envision actually did happen, (1) it would not last long; (2)those who had knowledge and discipline would win; (3) the gene pool would be considerably improved.

Now, take this example and extrapolate it's attitudes to cover nearly everything in our society, and you'll know how I feel.

[Calamity Jane]

I am a "leave me the h@ll alone, and I won't bother you or anybody else" party member.

Whaddya know. Me too. :D

Actually, add two more members to that party: me and my hubby.

[modifiedbrowning]

I'm in the "leave me the h%ll alone" party as well. The term I use is "Reciprocal Humanist". The Golden rule is Golden for a reason.:)

[BigG]

leave me the h%ll alone" party

Isn't P.J. O'Rourke a member, too?

[BigG]

Doseyclwn: Rather than try to indoctrinate you or articulate any of my own political beliefs I will try to explain the underlying difference between L and C that a lot of people miss out on. Normally, members of this board (and former TFL) are some of the sharpest knives in the drawer so I may be preaching to the choir, but here goes:

The only real difference between L and C is WHO PAYS for the programs.

The L will choose to pay for it collectively while the C will choose to pay for it individually.

In other words, you can plug any issue you want into the matrix. The C will say "Fine, you want it, you pay for it." The L will say "Society must pay for this." Simple as that.

It's really not about the rights and wrongs of various issues, it's about WHO PAYS for it.

As a conservative, I don't care if you want abortions, health insurance for your same sex partner, or anything else - as long as you pay for it. If you think everybody (society, the gobmit) should pay your bills for you, you are a liberal, if you feel each should carry his own burden based on his choices, you are conservative, in my book.

[JPM70535]

Very interesting comments. From a personal standpoint I can't decide what party or philosphy I fit in.

I am a rabid conservative when it comes to fiscal issues,I don't believe that a Government owes any of its citizens a free ride from the cradle to the grave for generation after generation. I don't believe that the soultion to all this nations problems can be solved with massive infusions of taxpayer money.

Socially I most often side with the conservative viewpoint, but not always. I am opposed to Abortion as a routine means of birth control, but have absolutely no problem with it being used to terminate pregnancys where the causes or outcomes would be detrimental to the mother or the fetus ( massive birth defects etc.)

What people do in the privacy of their own homes should be just that, private. When that behavior manifests itself in public, then I have a real problem with certain behaviors. I don't condone the legalization of recreational drugs because history has shown that the use of said drugs is the stepping stone to other more harmful drugs.

On the Constitution, It is what it is, and no court or other government body has the right to either reinterpret or circumvent its meaning

Oh yes, on the death penalty, I believe wholeheartedly that it does reduce crime, at least on the part of the BG executed. Couple that with the enormous savings in custodial costs involved in long term incarceratrion, and its a no brainer.

So I really dont know where I fit in. When I vote I most often vote for the lesser of the two evils. Third party candidates scare me to death because they usually have no chance of winning, but almost always hurt the conservative candidate more than the Liberal.

[doseyclwn]

Hmmmmmmmm. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Well, let's see where I stand.

Abortion - My mother only has one half of one kidney, and back in 1970, almost every doctor she went to told her she needed an abortion. She refused to believe it, found a doctor that would work with her and had me anyway. While I could never personally condone an abortion for that reason, I also don't hae a uterus. I would support mandatory counseling and waiting period for abortions, but beyond that, I dont' feel the need to regulate it.

Drugs - Legalize all of it. No, I don't think heroin or crack is good, but I think too much of taxpayers' money is spent on enforcing laws that don't work. Tax it, take the crime out of it, make free drug treatment available for those that want it, and enforce stiff penalties for crimes committed while on drugs. Make LSD freely available at Dead shows (just kidding). Seriously, the drug war is a waste of time and money.

Social Welfare - We SHOULD have a safety net, not a "way of life". I am not against helping people in need, but have any of you ever tried, as a taxpayer, to get any assistance? My son was very sick and I had to quit college and a promising career to take care of his special needs (see http://www.babyblade.addr.com for details). Because our insurance did not cover in-home nursing (which he needed at the time) and that is what we'd need in order for me to be able to continue my pursuit of a computer science degree, I applied to the social security administration. I did so honestly and without trying to "play the system". After much paperwork and several interviews, I was told I was eligible for $44 a month assistance. I told the man where he could put his $44 a month and did what I needed to do anyway. Is that right? No. And mine is a relatively mild case. Again, I"m not against some sort of safetly net, but it should be available to ALL americans if they need it.

2nd Amendment - Duh, I post here. Basically no restrictions on it.

[G-Raptor]

I guess I would label myself a "constitutional conservative". By that, I mean that I adhere to the principals of liberty and government espoused in the Declaration, and the Consitution..

In short:

- I don't care who you sleep with as long as they are over the age of consent and they actually do consent.

- I don't care what color you are or where you came from, you're not entitled to anything special because of it.

- I don't care what you drink, smoke, eat, snort, or stick in your viens as long as you don't steal from me (or anyone else) to support your habit.

- I don't care how many guns you have as long as you only use them for self-defense and recreation. Shooting strangers from the trunk of your car doesn't qualify as "recreation".

- I earned everything I have and you're not entitled to it just because you're lazy or got off to a bad start in life. If you ask nice, I might give you a little help, though.

- The less the government does, the better my life will be. Therefore, congress should meet for only 30 days a year and any law they pass should expire within 10 years.

Finally, never trust anyone who WANTS to get elected. Representatives should be drafted, not marketed.
:scrutiny:

[Russ]

POST DELETED BY PREACHERMAN (MODERATOR)

[Rangerover]

C'mon Russ, stop hem-hawing around and tell us what you REALLY think! :p

[2nd Amendment]

And another thread bites the dust...

[Blackhawk]

Do you know how stupid you sounds? Russ, that is a classic example of 1 finger pointing out and 3 pointing right back atcha'! :D

[pax]

Russ,

It is possible to have a civil disagreement, without personal attacks and vitriol.

You should edit your post.

pax

If you can not answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. -- Elbert Hubbard

[Wildalaska]

Russ that is totally like rude dude..

:cuss:

WildwhycantwediscusspoliticscivillyAlaska

[2nd Amendment]

Fer sure...

2ndcausepoliticsaintcivilAmendment

[Beer for my Horses]

I'm a Lincoln Republican. Just checking in.

[doseyclwn]

doseyclwn wrote"

"The party that most closely fits my beliefs would be somewhere between the greens and the libertarians."

Let's see. Communists (Greens) are far left and the fascists (Hitler "et al") are far right. Do you know how stupid you sounds?

"The dissappointment of the Clinton years" Give me a break. Did you think he was pro-2A when he got elected the first time? You were probably lame enough to vote for him twice.

You don't deserve to won any kind of gun IMHO given your complete blindness to the political climate. If they have any mental institutions in VA, You should consider committing yourself.



Wow, you're a little uptight today. Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? You know, out of all the posts here from ultra-conservatives, yours is the only one that has actually gone out of its' way to offend me.

That and you can't spell.

[Art Eatman]

Okay, gang, back to the subject at hand. Don't rise to the bait, when somebody gets out of line, okay? Ignore it and go on.

:), Art

[Wildalaska]

:D

OK now Im gonna be a plain old guy with average and boring opinions.

WildsecretlumpenproletariatAlaska

[Malone LaVeigh]

Unrepentant civil libertarian statist here. I don't expect I'll run into many of y'all tomorrow at the big anti-war rally in SF, but I'll be there to represent the cause...

[2nd Amendment]

Yes, Art. :D

2ndmeandWildAlaskadidn'tstartitthistimeAmendment

:evil:

[Art Eatman]

Truly refreshing...

:D, Art

[Mr. James]

What G-Raptor said.

doseyclwn,

I am truly sorry to hear about your son's difficult premier, and the difficulties you and Mom experienced. Been there, done that (a PM tomorrow).

But as to the "security net," before fed.gov usurped this function, by forceable extortion of the citizenry, your community, your neighbors, your parish or congregation would have stepped up. Look at the genesis of education and health care in this, as in so many countries - largely the result of - gasp - voluntary charitable contributions. We didn't overnight become hard-hearted and less charitable. Instead, the social engineers in Washington stepped in and usurped the role - and a significant portion of our own earnings - to ostensibly replace the churches, neighbors, etc. who did the job.

Tell me, do you really think the federal or state governments use all the billions of tax dollars they expend on the so-called "safety net" as efficiently as your own neighbors would with their own money? Just how helpful were they to you when you needed them?

Those tax dollars, which could have gone penny-for-penny towards providing for the needy, are instead paying for those granite edifices (office buildings) in Washington or in your state capital. Instead of those dollars going to their stated purpose, they're paying armies of indifferent, callous "human services" bureaucrats who - well, in the name of charity, I'll suggest they mean well.

I'm guessing for every dollar "invested" in government, about twenty cents actually is directed to the stated end.

More to the point, it ain't charity if it's extracted at gunpoint. And for the government, it ain't about charity.

You and your family are in my prayers. I hope Blade is doing well. He's a fine-looking boy.

[Art Eatman]

Last I read, the overhead of those programs which could be called "helping the disadvantaged" as to social spending runs about 50%. From reading of the efficacy of these programs, it would seem that the greater benefit accrues to the employees thereof.

Art

[Mr. James]

Thank you, Mr. Eatman :)

[KMKeller]

Two years ago, I was a card carrying Democrat, then the world changed. I've now moved decidedly to the right and am now sitting smack dab in the libertarian mindset (pretty close to Tam's philosophies according to the last test). But I'm still registered as a Democrat so I can monkey with their primaries...

:evil:

[JerryN]

I'm a member of the New Hampshire "Live Free Or Die" party. Basically, it means "You are welcome to hunt on my land unless you are specifically excluded, and if you ain't from NH or you vote like an Urban moron liberal, you are specifically excluded until you get permission.

Anybody who thinks they are Libertarian and still wants to get anything done is fooling themselves.

The pendulum has swung mighty far to the left, and only by voting mighty far to the right will we achieve any balance. Lets get that pendulum into the center before we start voting Libertarian. Then we might actually accomplish something. Until then, you are merely sucking up votes that might elect somebody We Almost Like for somebody who Has No Freakin Chance.

If you dont vote conservative in this environment you're as much a pie-in-the-sky thinker as the Klinton/Schumer/Feinstein/Brady groupies.

[Tamara]

The pendulum has swung mighty far to the left, and only by voting mighty far to the right will we achieve any balance. Lets get that pendulum into the center before we start voting Libertarian.

It ain't about "balance", it's about the fact that the guys way over to the right have some ideas I find just as repulsive as the guys way over on the left. Why should I vote for either?

[KMKeller]

Tamara's got the right of it. I became disenfranchised with the two party system when I realized that both pursue power at our expense. And both will do whatever they can to further their own ends masquerading as champions for our causes, all the while selling us out bit by bit. Homage to them is lipservice to Caeser, and I've had enough of that.

[JerryN]

Ummm, yes it is about balance.

You can split hairs all you want. I used to do that too. But Klinton showed me the error of my ways.

I am very, very strong on environmental protection. The left wing claims that as their home turf while THE MEDIA claims that the right side is anti-environmentalist.

Wrong...

Both sides are pro-environment, but have different approaches. The left thinks we should all stay 12.7 miles from the woods while the right correctly thinks we should be totally involved in the woods. Same goal, different approach. The left is wrong, clearly, and the right is, well, right.

You have to get off your flabby middle of the road *** and vote right until we get our "free" society moved in the proper direction. Then you can be as stubbornly independant as you freakin want to be.

Until then, if you don't get it, you are hurting the cause, not helping it. And I say that as a firm believer in the Libertarian way.

[doseyclwn]

But as to the "security net," before fed.gov usurped this function, by forceable extortion of the citizenry, your community, your neighbors, your parish or congregation would have stepped up. Look at the genesis of education and health care in this, as in so many countries - largely the result of - gasp - voluntary charitable contributions. We didn't overnight become hard-hearted and less charitable. Instead, the social engineers in Washington stepped in and usurped the role - and a significant portion of our own earnings - to ostensibly replace the churches, neighbors, etc. who did the job.

Tell me, do you really think the federal or state governments use all the billions of tax dollars they expend on the so-called "safety net" as efficiently as your own neighbors would with their own money? Just how helpful were they to you when you needed them?


Perhaps I was misunderstood. I am not for the current system at all. I think, in theory at least, that a safety net is a good idea. I will be the first to admit that I have no earthly idea how to do it.

And thanks for your words about Blade.

[doseyclwn]

My problem with the 2 party system in this country can be summarized by looking at the party platform on their respective websites. In a nutshell, it says "We, the (insert one of the two parties here) party are good, and the (name of other party) are bad."

Republicans and Democrats alike have both set up this mindset whereby they will not listen to ANYTHING ANYONE from the other party has to say simply because they are a member of that party. I cannot in good conscience vote for the republicans just to achieve balance.

[Tamara]

Ummm, yes it is about balance.

Ummm, no; it is about freedom.

You can split hairs all you want.

You're the one splitting hairs: "This guy is slightly less wrong than that guy, so I'll vote for him". Me, I'm done splitting hairs and voting for people who want to infringe my rights..

I used to do that too. But Klinton showed me the error of my ways.

Do you even remember Clinton's '92 campaign? The man ran on a very "centrist/middle-of-the-road/third way" ticket. Exactly what you're advocating here.

You have to get off your flabby middle of the road ***

...and you need to grow some manners. Besides, the only person I see urging a move towards the "middle of the road" is you, sir.

...and vote right until we get our "free" society moved in the proper direction. Then you can be as stubbornly independant as you freakin want to be.

Tell me again how we're going to get more freedom by voting for anti-freedom candidates? It's still not making any sense to me.

Until then, if you don't get it, you are hurting the cause, not helping it. And I say that as a firm believer in the Libertarian way.

One of us "doesn't get it", all right, but I'm beginning to have a sneaking suspicion that it ain't me...

[Pappy John]

I'm not a great fan of the current 2 party system, but I don't see a way out of it in anyones lifetime short of some kind of dangerous upheaval that puts our countries very existence in danger. My own leanings are libertarian, but after voting that way for a decade and seeing Clinton winning two elections, I had to rethink my position. I might as well have not shown up at the polling place at all. I hate being put in the position of casting a Republican vote, for a party that I really have no love for, just because I despise some of the Democratic positions with even greater vehemence, but seemingly that's what I'm left with. A person shouldn't have to vote "against" something just because there's nothing good to vote "for". Awwww...this is just turning into a disgusted ramble...:banghead:

[Art Eatman]

I'm gonna generalize, so there's a lot of "some" and no "all", okay?

In general, the problem that I see with the Libertarian philosophy, as regards voting strength is that it requires a lot of personal responsibility for the consequences of one's actions and decisions.

IMO, too large a percentage of those who vote have been led to or raised to look outside themselves for the Causes Of Bad Things. The "Society's fault" concept is an example. The mindset that blames things for bad deeds. "Race-norming" of test scores is an example. Too many people, IMO, shun personal responsibility.

I think that Libertarianism is a bit more appealing to those on the right of the political spectrum, but for many there it calls for too much independent thought for them to be comfortable. (Not sure...)

In many ways, Libertarianism = Rugged Individualism, and that doesn't play all that well in modern America's voting booths.

I guess.

Art

"Frisbietarianism: The idea that after death, the soul gets stuck on the roof, forever."

[Dutchy7]

For Tamara:

I read several forums, and see your "signature" frequently. If you don't mind, what is the meaning of "Molon Labe " ??
:D :D

[David Scott]

The problem with "liberal" versus "conservative", as I see it, is that they are just two arbitrary divisions. The two political parties in the US use spin to force people and issues into one or the other, creating easily led voting blocs. This also makes it easier for them to prevent any third parties from getting a major presence established, so they won't have to share power.

I like to decide each issue on its own merits. Most of my conclusions would be caled "liberal" by someone hung up on the two-party, two-viewpoint system, but there are plenty of points of divergence. I support RKBA, considered a "conservative" cause, but I think it should be "liberal" in the purest sense, because it supports the right of the individual. Why is it that supporting anything else guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is called "liberal" while RKBA is not? Two words: spin doctors.

So here I am, a pistol-packing supporter of feminism and gay rights, who thinks the "war on drugs" is a fraud, the death penalty should be abolished, and campaign finance reform is desperately needed. A person who has never been registered in a political party. A person who thinks that voting the straight ticket is the mark of a lazy voter.

I think there are more of me than the Reps or Dems want to admit, more whose sentiments can be summed up in Shakespeare's words, "a plague on both your houses".

[Art Eatman]

Dutchy7, it's Greek for "Come and take it." IIRC, it goes back to the battle for Thermopylae.

You want my gun? Come and take it.

It started at TFL, and became our motto.

Art

[tyme]

You're the one splitting hairs: "This guy is slightly less wrong than that guy, so I'll vote for him". Me, I'm done splitting hairs and voting for people who want to infringe my rights..That attitude is self-destructive, and I get upset every time I read it. :neener:

Anybody who spends some time researching a campaign can make a good judgement about whether a third-party candidate has any chance of being competitive. The pollsters might have really screwed up their predictions when Jesse Ventura was elected, and I wasn't there, but I suspect it would be obvious to someone really bothering to pay attention to politics that there would be large turnout among young voters.

Now take the recent TX Senate race. A MIS techy with a lousy web page and rather hollow (IMHO) platform, a political unknown who has no major selling points (any solid Lib could have stood in for him) vs the Attorney General vs the ex-Mayor of Dallas. Does anyone really believe that voting for Jameson would have been the right thing to do, given that he didn't have a single substantial voting bloc supporting him? Individual 3rd-party voting blocs alone will never win someone an election. Only major issue voting blocs get candidates elected.

[b]If a third party candidate has a realistic chance of getting elected and that candidate is worthwhile, I'll ditch the Republicans in a heartbeat. Even if that third party doesn't win, being competitive means that the other two parties will have to seriously reevaluate their strategies, and that can only be good.

[doseyclwn]

I'm not a great fan of the current 2 party system, but I don't see a way out of it in anyones lifetime short of some kind of dangerous upheaval that puts our countries very existence in danger. My own leanings are libertarian, but after voting that way for a decade and seeing Clinton winning two elections, I had to rethink my position. I might as well have not shown up at the polling place at all. I hate being put in the position of casting a Republican vote, for a party that I really have no love for, just because I despise some of the Democratic positions with even greater vehemence, but seemingly that's what I'm left with. A person shouldn't have to vote "against" something just because there's nothing good to vote "for". Awwww...this is just turning into a disgusted ramble...



Part of the reason I think it doesn't work is that the two parties are actually in cahoots to make people believe that a 3rd party vote doesn't count. My suspicion is that if everyone STOPPED believing that and voted for the candidate that most closely fit their beliefs, the 2 parties would HAVE to take notice. It wouldn't have to be a massive upheaval.

[pax]

Part of the reason I think it doesn't work is that the two parties are actually in cahoots to make people believe that a 3rd party vote doesn't count. My suspicion is that if everyone STOPPED believing that and voted for the candidate that most closely fit their beliefs, the 2 parties would HAVE to take notice. It wouldn't have to be a massive upheaval.
Smartest thing yet posted on this thread.

pax

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. -- John Philpot Curran

[tyme]

I think most people already vote their conscience. I don't think there's any way to distinguish between people voting based on party loyalty and people voting based on beliefs instilled in them by their party.

[Dutchy7]

Art Eatman

Good motto, I like it.
Thank you. Do you know M. Deardorff? :D

[Zander]

It ain't about "balance", it's about the fact that the guys way over to the right have some ideas I find just as repulsive as the guys way over on the left. It helps to think of the political spectrum as a circle and not a straight line.

I still get a kick out of hearing that fascism is "right-wing". That's what political science professors pandered in the 70's to help excuse their life-long affairs with socialism.

Fascism ain't "right-wing" and never has been...in this country, it's allied with socialism in every city-state and state burdened with the thieves and grave-robbers of the left.

Choose your arc on the circle, but beware of that segment of 10 degrees or so where "left" meets "right", where upChuck Schumer and Hilldebeast meet Tom Ridge and John Magaw. <involuntary shudder>

[Art Eatman]

Sorry, but I'm ignorant as to the Deardorff reference.

One thing I've noticed about the Third Party thing is that they try to start at the top. The result is that they work their way down. Ross Perot is a classic example; where is his party-effort, today?

The Republicans used to do this in Texas. There would be some well-to-do fella who'd have a heckuva radio campaign, but he was rarely previously ever heard of. No grassroots effort on the part of the party. This changed during the 1970s, and now the state is Republican controlled.

Right now, the Greens seem to be achieving the most gains. They've earned a permanent spot on some ballots in some voting jurisdictions. And it's all through grassroots hard work.

Could be that Libertarians are much like gunowners and ranchers. Just too independent, and too busy trying to make a living, to gather up in large wads to organize and create voting strength.

The election laws militate against third party efforts in many states, but not all. I don't know about "cahoots", but there is a pretty good argument about third and fourth parties.

Italy is one of the worst-case examples. I think they have some 30 different political parties there. The problem, really, is simple: With multiple parties, it takes a coalition to get elected. Coalitions can win elections, but they cannot govern. The competing interests soon diverge, and you wind up with total gridlock. Of course, some say that's a Good Thing, and I don't know as I disagree. :D

In this country, the Democratic party is made up of coalitions, mostly victim groups. You see the results; they can only agree that they hate Republicans and other than that, raise taxes for more social programs...

Art

[Dutchy7]

Art Eatman

M. Deardorff is my son-in-law. He owns a piece of property close to the Terlingua store. Thought you might know him. :D

[Beer for my Horses]

I don't expect I'll run into many of y'all tomorrow at the big anti-war rally in SF
No, I'm still trying to find a Pro-War rally to go to. :eek:

[Tamara]

Those seem mostly to be going on in the House and Senate chambers... ;)

[BigG]

Stick a fork in it. This thread's done. ;)

[Beer for my Horses]

Stick a fork in it. This thread's done.
This "thread" will never be "done."

[Art Eatman]

Dutchy7, Terlingua is mostly first-name country. Anyhow, I'll hunt him up next time I get home. :)

Art

[Dutchy7]

Art, His first name is Michael. Doesn't live there, visits several times a year to check on his stuff. Didn't mean to drag this out, know it's wrong thread, sorry. Anyhow, good to meet you, kinda.
Vic

[JerryN]

Tamara, my apoligies for sounding offensive, which was certainly not intended. I wasn't implying anything toward you personally.

I don't advocate middle of the road political fence sitting. I do advocate voting conservative, republican tickets so that the political direction of this country moves away from the left before its too late to do anything about it.

Libertarian votes have largely been protest votes and as such, are ineffective in moving us away from the left. The only avenue remaining is to vote Republican until we get to a point where Libertarian votes will mean something.

Thats my point.

[Marko Kloos]

The two-party system is slowly killing this Republic, and I disagree with the notion that we can have any effect on the direction of the juggernaut State by voting for the lesser evil. Now we get to choose our mugger every four years, and that supposedly implies tacit consent to everything that gets passed for the subsequent four years. I will not give my consent to either of these freedom-trampling camps by voting for them.

Both Democrats and Republicans are equally eager to incinerate the Bill of Rights, and voting for one just because they hold the Zippo to an Amendment which is not a priority to you is an insult to the Constitution and an active step against freedom. With either party at the helm, we're moving away from a free society, and giving either of them another shot at the helm is not going to reverse the course.

If there's a libertarian on the ticket, I will vote my conscience. If the only candidates in the race are Republicans or Democrats, I will not vote. Don't tell me for one second that it is my fault when a Democrat gets elected because the Republican didn't get my vote. That's like saying the mugging was my fault because I failed to "choose" the mugger who promised to take only half the contents of my billfold, and therefore the other mugger helped himself to all my money. A chice between two enemies of freedom is no choice at all, and there are no mitigating points for tacit support of gun ownership on the part of the candidate. I will *not* give consent, implied or otherwise, to the rule of another group of populist weasels who leave me alone for now because they're busy trampling on my neighbors.

"Vote for the guy who will let you keep some of your favorite right" is not a strategy for the restoration of the Bill of Rights.

[Beer for my Horses]

The two-party system is slowly killing this Republic
As Winston might say: the two-party system is the worst type of democratic government, except for all the other types.

This Republic has thrived because of the two-party system. True, it leaves those on the fringe feeling they have no voice, but it guarantees that the vast majority of Americans feel represented to some degreee. I take issue with many positions staked out by Republicans, but on balance I choose to vote Republican because they best represent my political beliefs. I agree with many libertarian views, but the fact is that the Libertarian Party is not a serious political party; not yet anyway. I've seen too many Libertarian candidates who are whack jobs. To become a serious party, the Libertarians would need to establish a strong base and to do that requires a set of political values that a large segment of the population believes in. The Libertarian party may share the beliefs of conservatives on the Second Amendment, the size of government, taxes, and social spending, BUT they share the beliefs of modern liberals on many social issues, advocate legalizing drugs, and favor an isolationist view for foreign policy. Most Americans don't relate to that type of mixture, and probably never will. There are no political fault lines or demographics to suggest that a significant portion of the voting public will ever warm up to the type of mix that Libertarians propose.

[Malone LaVeigh]

As Winston might say: the two-party system is the worst type of democratic government, except for all the other types.I suspect Churchill would have preferred the system he worked so well in, which is not at all "two-party" and every bit as democratic (once they took the hereditary office from the Lords) as ours.

[Russ]

doseyclwyn,

On Friday of last week I posted a rather mean sprited and personal attack regarding your thread. I apologize to you for that. Just one of those weeks and this set me on fire for some reason. However, I had no cause to attack you as I did and I beg your pardon. To any others I offended I apologize also.

I hope you will hold no hard feelings.

Russ

[doseyclwn]

doseyclwyn,

On Friday of last week I posted a rather mean sprited and personal attack regarding your thread. I apologize to you for that. Just one of those weeks and this set me on fire for some reason. However, I had no cause to attack you as I did and I beg your pardon. To any others I offended I apologize also.

I hope you will hold no hard feelings.

Russ

Absolutely no hard feelings. We all, as staunch supporters of the 2nd amendment need to stick together on that. A great country such as the United States inspires fierce dedication, and I believe that is a quality to be admired. No hard feelings, man.

[NewShooter78]

We haven't always had just the two parties as we know them now in this country. The problem with the system now is that ever person I know says they wish that there were other candidates, but when they find someone with whom they really can agree upon, they instead vote for the "lesser of two evils" big party candidate. This is why nothing gets done in this country politically. If more people would vote for who they really wanted things could actually change eventually, but voting quid pro quo will just keep things the same or make them worse.

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me there are two types of people who get into elected office at the higher levels: Those whose lifelong ambition is to achieve high office; and those who feel "it's time" and can afford to get involved in campaigning.

Really, regardless of two-party or 20-party "system", it still comes down to the personal political philosophies of those running for office. Obviously, some have no real philosophy; they just want the power to try to run things as they see fit.

This sorta leads to the notion that if you don't like the sorts of folks who are political activists, or their candidates for office, you better quit letting them win by default.

You better start making your bones at the local level, running for lower office and working your way up. Or, you better focus on making a ton of money and at the same time getting involved as a mover and shaker in local or regional/state politics.

What you absolutely cannot do is sit back and be "merely a voter" and expect things to improve.

Simple as that.

Really.

Art

[Blackhawk]

It really is as simple as Art said.

Politics in the U.S.A. is NOT a spectator sport.

[BigG]

To thine own self be true. If you really feel that way, forget what everybody else thinks.

[Art Eatman]

'Scuse me, BigG, but your comment "If you really feel that way,..." confuses me.

Who? What way?

:), Art

[BigG]

The original poster, Doseyclwn. If he is comfortable with how he thinks, he doesn't need to be validated. For that matter, neither does anybody. ;)

[Art Eatman]

Ah. I doubt that I've really changed a lot of my own philosophical views through the years, but I've always tried to figure if they fit the world in which I live. I test to see if they fit human nature (as I see that) and if they're in accord with physical-world reality. I work pretty hard at avoiding "woulda, coulda, shoulda" sort of stuff.

One thing I've come to believe from observation is that if one relies on government for one's well-being, one is engaging in the ultimate in erroneous wishful thinking. I grant that I'm only reasonably familiar with some 20 countries and their governments and I've only been around for a bit over 68 years, so I imagine I have a lot left to learn. :D

Art

[Art Eatman]

If you think that I have a rather Jaundiced Eye (to steal a bit from Florence King) about Our Gummint, check out this URL:

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/impeach_president.htm

One could leave out all references to Dubya II (a little play on words, there) and still have a wonderful polemic.

:D, Art