Why I am voting for the democrat.


PDA






DigitalWarrior
February 14, 2004, 10:10 PM
So the right wants to tell people who they can form a domestic partnership with. They want to be allowed massive expansion of police powers. The right wants to engage in fantastic amounts of deficit spending. The right wants me to pay for all the dumb old bastards who didn't realize everyone gets old and sick.. The right wants to take away most of my guns.

And it seems that Kerry wants me to pay for the smokers and fatties health care because they couldn't put down a candybar long enough to read some books and get some skills that would get them health care. The left wants to tell me what I can do with my property. The left wants to make me feel bad for things that I didn't do. The left wants to take away all my guns.



It looks to me like the left will make this country poor, but at least it will not be a police state. BTW You can talk to me about voting for a Libertarian president once they have a simple majority in one state legislature.:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I am voting for the democrat." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zak Smith
February 14, 2004, 10:20 PM
More people will find a police state repugnant vs. how many will notice a socialist/welfare state, and care.

Given enough time, they converge.

Enjoy.

-z

dischord
February 14, 2004, 10:31 PM
It looks to me like the left will make this country poor, but at least it will not be a police state. The PATRIOT Act passed by overwhelming bipartisan votes -- 98 to 1 in the Senate and 356 to 66 in the House. The Dems ain't protection against such stuff.

Herr Kerry voted for it, BTW, so we can assume he would have signed it if he'd been president (his current blathering about opposing it notwithstanding).The left wants to tell me what I can do with my property ... The left wants to take away all my guns. Smells kind of like a police state to me.

deanf
February 14, 2004, 10:33 PM
Both major parties have the same destination. They are just taking separate roads.

Greg Bell
February 14, 2004, 10:58 PM
Well, for starters...

Democrats are solidly anti-gun.

Democrats seem to want a bigger share of my paycheck.

Democrats want to take away my right to pick my own Doctor.

Democrats have little or no respect for private property rights.

Democrats have never seen a business regulation they didn't like.

Democrats don't seem to care much about protecting me from those that would harm me--be they criminals or terrorist. In fact, they seem a lot more concerned about my guns than Osama's.

Democrats were pushing the Patriot act (in various forms) since Tim McVeigh. Republicans opposed it because they were the partisan a$$h*les then, with no concerns other than winning elections. Now the Democrats, with nothing to lose, pretend they wouldn't be doing the same if they were in power. I can't give them extra-credit for that.

etc..

Neither party is perfect by a LONG SHOT but for now...

Hkmp5sd
February 14, 2004, 11:05 PM
I couldn't bring myself to vote for a democrat no matter what Bush does. I can not vote for either if he does something I don't like, such as signing a new AW ban. It's either Bush or "None of the Above."

Preacherman
February 14, 2004, 11:34 PM
Let me first say that I don't vote for any political party - I vote for the individual candidate, doing my best to judge his/her worth as a human being, and trying to put the best possible individuals into office.

That said, I fear a Democratic administration (headed by any of the current challengers) far more than a Republican administration. You think that civil liberties and the Patriot Act are bad under John Ashcroft? Think about how they'd be abused under Janet Reno, or Chuck Schumer, or Hillary Clinton!

:what: :barf: :mad: :fire:

Bill Hook
February 15, 2004, 12:09 AM
A Socialist/Nanny State would find it hard to operate without some of the apparatus of the Police State, as it is hard to convince the "haves" to gleefully hand over their checks to the "have-nots." Notice how folks are under near constant surveillance in the UK, as an example. Or how the use of jury trials is being curtailed there, for another. Give the "democratic" party time.


The right wants me to pay for all the dumb old bastards who didn't realize everyone gets old and sick.

That's just them trying to out-herrod Herrod and get some of the votes of the "gimme" generation from the demos, since they vote most reliably.

whm1974
February 15, 2004, 06:42 AM
For one anybody or any party you vote for is always going to have a package
deal. Wiether it's Abortaion or Gun Control there's other planks in a canidate's
platform in may or may not subport.

Me, as far as Abortion goes I'm indiffenct. Now taxes and Gun Control...

Bill Meadows

Jeff Thomas
February 15, 2004, 09:44 AM
In my opinion, you are much too optimistic about leftists not bringing us to a police state. Their record is to be as brutal as the right, if not more so.

That said, I do agree Republicans and Democrats have a tendency to bring us the same cr*p ... Republicans simply do it more slowly. Democrats tend to appreciate personal freedom (with the important exception of the RKBA), but spurn economic freedom. Republicans tend to the reverse.

Libertarians (small "L") generally promote both personal and economic freedoms ... and liberarians come in various flavors. Someone will probably prove me wrong, but ... I've met plenty of libertarians registered (and sometimes serving in Congress) as Republicans. I've never met a libertarian registered as a Democrat. [However, I've met Democrats who claim libertarian views ... but if you chat with them for about 60 seconds, you find they haven't a clue what libertarianism means.]

Interesting, a few years ago the Wall Street Journal published a piece indicating about 40% of Americans are libertarians, if you simply examine their political views (e.g. those quaint beliefs that individuals own themselves, and the products of their work).

I'm not sanguine about the Republican party per se ... but I know the Democrats are a total loss. Best option in my book is to keep promoting and electing more libertarian Republicans ... think Jeff Flake from AZ, Ron Paul in TX, and the Club for Growth (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/).

Regards from TX

MicroBalrog
February 15, 2004, 09:56 AM
Given enough time, they converge.

Like in Switzerland?

Democrats are solidly anti-gun.

Like me?

Democrats have never seen a business regulation they didn't like.

Like the Freedom to Farm Act (Dem Senate, Dem President)?

Democrats have little or no respect for private property rights.

Like that restriction on RICO authority?(Dem Senate, Dem President)?

Democrats seem to want a bigger share of my paycheck

Biggest budget deficit...

Baba Louie
February 15, 2004, 10:04 AM
The left wants to take away all my guns... the left will make this country poor... at least it will not be a police state ???? Eventually you'll find that 1 + 1 = 2, no matter who's in the majority.

Vote your conscience for the man you feel best for the office. On Friday night's news the polls were showing 48% for Kerry, 49% for Bush if the election were held today. Who will control Congress? Repubs for now unless they lose a few seats in November... that's where the power will lie.

All that is needed is to lose 4 - 5 seats and the new improved AWB they'll soon pass will stop Americans from owning anything but a single shot .22 caliber black powder squirrel gun, until they figure out a way to ban those as well (OK, I got a little carried away, but you know what I mean). Once we elect a Dem Pres and Congress, there will likely be blood in the streets as our enemies bring their fight back onto our soil.

Blood in the streets... catchy phrase... always wanted to use it, even if it is a bit over the top. I'll remove my "The sky is falling" tin-foil hat now.

dischord
February 15, 2004, 10:16 AM
MicroBalrog,

Once again, you provide examples that represent less than a tiny-teeny-weeny-itty-bitty-negligible part of Dem activity and pretend that it proves something. ROTFLMAO.

Incidentally, the Freedom to Farm Act's regulatory exemptions no longer exist but the regulations it added still exist. The 1995 law's few exemptions were for only seven years. Meanwhile, the law added new regulations and new subsidies that didn't expire. The Democrats certainly showed their stripes with that one -- "We'll temporarily excuse you from a few regulations, but we'll also add other regulations, so after seven years, you'll actually be dealing with more regulations, but we get to lie that we cut back regulations."

...not that I'm defending the GOP. As others here have stated, they want the same things, only slower.

MicroBalrog
February 15, 2004, 10:19 AM
The 1995 law's few exemptions were for only seven years.

According to the Cato Institute, it actually had a 7-year phase out plan for ALL subsidies.:) However, as the years went, it was slowed down, sabotaged and eventually repealed by the Repuglicans - or at least that's the way the Cato Institute has it in one of it's articles on the subject.

dischord
February 15, 2004, 10:28 AM
According to the Cato Institute, it actually had a 7-year phase out plan for ALL subsidies. Not exactly. It required reauthorization after seven years or the subsidies and regulations came back -- that's a pretty weak phase out plan. Yes, the GOP dropped the ball by not reauthorizing it, but the Dems dropped the ball by creating only temporary relief while adding other problems in the same bill -- the FFA is a pretty poor example of the Dem's good qualities. And if it's the best you can come up with on Dem regulatory relief, then :rolleyes:

but :) anyway.

Waitone
February 15, 2004, 10:29 AM
More people will find a police state repugnant vs. how many will notice a socialist/welfare state, and care.

Given enough time, they converge.Yep! And they'll begin the convergence just after Boomers begin retirement in large numbers. At that time the barn door will close. The time to fix social security and medicare will have passed. At that time far too many people will be on the system and the only choice the politicians will have is to figure a way of increasing the load of those who continue to work. We will see inter-generational class warfare. We will see enormous pressure to institute euthenasia (?sp). The fact that the retirement age hasn't been raised since the beginning of SS will at last be seen for what it is. . . . stupidity. Newly militant geezers will oppose any increase in the retirement age (C.F. the barn door analogy) so the feds and states will have to do something. Raising taxes won't work because Buffie and Bocefus will not pay the taxes at the asinine rates necessary.

So what's a government to do? Drop all pretense of border control and open us to the world just as long as our welcomed immigrants pay their taxes. The other step will be to crash both SS and medicare.

I am not a pessimist, just a realist. 100+ years of statist-socialist-fascist claptrap will fail in short order. We are headed for really interesting times.

MicroBalrog
February 15, 2004, 10:41 AM
Waitone - and this was predicted to happen in the 1980's, 1990's, 2000's, and we're still waiting. Just like global warming.

Dischord, no, that's just the first one that I thought of. And the repugs still didn't reauthorize it.

BTW, didn't the guy who gave us the DEA and made the WoSD go full-blast have an R next to his name?

And isn't the Governor of Ohio a Repuglican?

dischord
February 15, 2004, 10:56 AM
Dischord, no, that's just the first one that I thought of.
And the repugs still didn't reauthorize it. As I said -- the GOP dropped the ball and, in any event, I'm neither defending nor
supporting them. It's just that I find the idea of the Dems as friends of economic
freedom laughable. (BTW, if you have other examples, I'd like to see a few).

I'll concede this: The way that THR members portray the Dems as enemies of
economic freedom is not 100% true. It's only 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999% true.

Edited to fix formatting problem. - TBM

hillbilly
February 15, 2004, 10:58 AM
It was Clinton and the Democratically controlled congress (both houses) that brought us the Assault Weapons Ban.

It was Clinton who brought us so-called "Sweeps" in public housing...fed agents going door to door, without warrants, searching public housing for "contraband."

A vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, is a vote for Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and Waxman and Rangel and Lautenberg and Jackson Lee and all the other foul, police state, gun-controllers.

If you really think that Democrats aren't for a police state, then I would say you are either in denial or are ignorant of historical facts and realities.

Here are some quotes from some Democrats:

____ "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of freedom to Americans..."_ "And so alot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the Housing Projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make the people feel safer
in their communities"--President Bill Clinton 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"

___ "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.."--
Bill Clinton USA Today--3-11-93, page 2a

"At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the [New England] Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good."--Ted Kennedy

Democrats are against individuals having right.Demcorats are for only identity groups, like "The elderly" having rights, but then only rights which help maintain and expand Democratic control over individuals.

hillbilly

Bill Hook
February 15, 2004, 11:21 AM
Like me?

Only because you live half a world away and don't know about what you speak.

DigitalWarrior
February 15, 2004, 11:42 AM
See, I think that the Republicans know that they have the libertarian vote. There is nothing that they could do that would make us vote differently. That is a huge problem. It isn't so much that I am voting for a democrat, but more that I am voting against the current republicans. If more people woiuld join the Liberty caucus, then I would feel differently.

Bill Hook
February 15, 2004, 12:19 PM
I don't know why anyone would vote for the worse of the two major parties in order to send a message to the better of the two. It would seem that your vote should go to the best possible party, in regard to your beliefs. If you think it's a wasted vote on a minor party, then remember that you're enabling your self-fulfilling prophecy by not voting for them and boosting their numbers. The Republicans don't have the libertarian vote that actually goes to the Libertarian party.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 15, 2004, 03:37 PM
Micobalrog:

Waitone - and this was predicted to happen in the 1980's, 1990's, 2000's, and we're still waiting. Just like global warming.

Dischord, no, that's just the first one that I thought of. And the repugs still didn't reauthorize it.

BTW, didn't the guy who gave us the DEA and made the WoSD go full-blast have an R next to his name?

And isn't the Governor of Ohio a Repuglican?

We? Us? Did you move to the US recently and forget to tell anyone? :D

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 15, 2004, 03:40 PM
Why I am voting for the democrat

Because ya don't give a rat's patootie about 2nd Amendment rights? :(

Bush is bad, but Kerry is Satan as far as RKBA is concerned. :( :scrutiny:

Geech
February 15, 2004, 03:52 PM
Waitone - and this was predicted to happen in the 1980's, 1990's, 2000's, and we're still waiting. Just like global warming.

Of course, boomers weren't retiring in mass numbers in the '80s and '90s, Balrog, so if you looking for it to happen right then, you were mistaken.

hube1236
February 15, 2004, 05:26 PM
If this goes through Congress, and falls short of being reupped, look for an executive order.

I would suspect that a Democratic Sponsored spree killing will happen in time to reup the ban. :fire:

romulus
February 15, 2004, 06:10 PM
So the right wants to tell people who they can form a domestic partnership with
Actually that's been the judgement and law of societies since time immemorial. To blame it on today's "right" is silly. Beyond that Greg Bell and Hillbilly summed it up nicely.

DFBonnett
February 15, 2004, 07:10 PM
Why I am voting for the democrat.


My first guess would be the aftermath of a head injury.

25/20
February 15, 2004, 07:59 PM
I, for one, dont understand how everyone is for republicans. GWB HAS ALWAYS supported the AWB, his dad drew up the shi**y '89 import ban, John Ashcroft has done more to limit rights than the democrats ever did, with his Patriot Act; But, through it all, most gun owners continue to turn a blind eye to it.

last election, the NRA (national republican association) ran slogans saying "vote freedom first". Well, i liked bush better too, and guess what, those same morons have been using our constitution like toilet paper.

So, you know what, I dont care about Dems vs Republicans anymore. I'll tell you what, Clinton never had as bad an economy as this one. I could walk out and get 10 different jobs any time i wanted to. Now, I was lucky to find one bad job.

The reason our gun rights are going away is because we sit around on our asses and support these Republicans. If gun owners did a Million Man March down the streets of DC, someone would listen. If there were giant pro gun rallies, reguardless of political party, people would listen. But when pro gun organazation is heard of, on the rare occasion that it is, it is once again the National Republican Party, who supports a lot of guys who arent so pro gun, seemingly just on the basis that they are Republican.

What did the NRA give Dean? He is JUST as pro gun as Bush is, any day, but what did they give him? Comon, someone throw me the rating, and show me a REAL reason for him getting a worse rating than the retard in office now.

CommonSense
February 15, 2004, 09:21 PM
With a two party system, which is what we basically have, you're safest breaking up the houses. Just my opinon.

mountainclmbr
February 15, 2004, 09:26 PM
Voting Democrat is OK if you want to speed up the slide toward communism.

longrifleman
February 15, 2004, 10:06 PM
This debate comes around every election and still isn't going to get anywhere.:banghead: All the points made about the failings of the Republicans are true (I don't think you even got to them all) and the even worse problems with the Dems are CERTAINLY true.

It pains me to say that about the Repubs as that has been the party I grew up with. I don't think I have changed, I think the party sold out.
The usual answer is the triangulation stragety, but that just comes down to a lust for power in the end.

I may have to stay home this election because I won't vote for Kerry? or any other Dem for all the good reasons already given. I voted for Bush last time even though I knew he wasn't a good choice (That lesser of two evils thing). I'm not sure I can do it again and look myself in the mirror. I've heard all the arguments why voting for a third party is a mistake and from a utilitarian view I can agree. The problem is utilitarian arguments ALWAYS lead an individual or a society to do evil in the end.

One of the reasons I joined this forum is to help me sort through things like this. This place has some of the best reasoned and most civil debates I have found, although I haven't looked at the entire internet yet:D

GSB
February 15, 2004, 10:48 PM
What did the NRA give Dean? He is JUST as pro gun as Bush is, any day, but what did they give him? Comon, someone throw me the rating, and show me a REAL reason for him getting a worse rating than the retard in office now.

Umm, dude, Dean got an "A" rating from the NRA in 2000 when he ran for re-election. Seriously. I don't necessarily agree with them on it, but that's what they gave him based on his record in Vermont.

Sarge
February 15, 2004, 10:58 PM
pick a candidate, vote for him, and live with the potential consequences (both personally and nationally)- then you might as well stay home. The next best thing is to support the lesser of the evils.

Only you can decide.

fallingblock
February 16, 2004, 02:46 AM
"Like me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only because you live half a world away and don't know about what you speak.
************************************************************

Stop procrastinating and get over to the U.S. and write some pro-gun stuff!

After some "up close and personal" experience with those democ-rats you pretend to admire, you'll recover your senses.:D

c_yeager
February 16, 2004, 02:52 AM
Everytime someone says how much they like the idea of socialized health care i ask a very simple question. In countries with socialized health systems where do the RICH go to get their health care? I guarantee it isnt in the general system. They either go to "special" government clinics or to private systems. Case in point where do you think rich Canadians end up? Smack dab in the middle of OUR "inferior" system.

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 03:13 AM
Democrats,


If you support gay rights or are in favor of abortion--and those are really, really important issues to you, I can see why a person might vote Democrat.

Other than that, what do they actually have in their platform that you like?

Sean Smith
February 16, 2004, 08:29 AM
MicroBalrog uses the classic tool of the guy with a priori convictions: cherrypicking examples that support his point of view, while ignoring the mountain of contradictory evidence. Certainly, like most foreigners he does not grasp the regional divisions within the various parties, as evidenced by lumping Yankee Republicans that are as a group more liberal than old Southern Democrats together with Texas Republicans that are nearly libertarians.

:rolleyes:

mp95bravo
February 16, 2004, 09:57 AM
This is difficult, as I have rewrote this reply several times.

1. I will never vote Democrat. It is the root of ALL evil to me and what I stand for. If the Dems get power, people like you and me will loose all the freedoms we enjoy, Period.

2. Will any of us stand for a Police State? I don't think so. I for one believe that there are too many of us to let it happen. And, if it happens, you can bet people like us will be on the front line. Ammo up now while you still can. I went thru a case of 5.56 yesterday with my 13 year old...

3. I will vote for Bush. I have been in the military for 18 years now, and we have been taken care of, even with high OPTEMPO, deplyments, Etc. Under Clinton, we had nothing! And face it, the economy was in the down slope when he took office, so why blame him so much? With Afganistan, Iraq and other stuff, he has kept it together. We'll bounce back, no worries here.

Comments?

ojibweindian
February 16, 2004, 01:43 PM
Under Clinton, we had nothing!

I served during the Clinton years, and I have to say that most sailors I knew couldn't stand him; he was loathed moreso after Mogadishu.

From what I understand, many of our troops do think highly of Bush. That's gotta say something for the man.

MikeB
February 16, 2004, 02:41 PM
The Democrats like to blame Bush for the economy but have very little to stand on.

There were three basic causes to the economic downturn that I see. The terrorist action on 9/11,financial shenanigans by Enron, et al., and the bubble breaking on the Internet/Technology stocks. I personally never understood how people thought the Internet companies were worth so much but anyway.

The financial shenanigans and the decline of the market due to overvalued Internet stocks were going on during the Clinton administration and were discovered/uncovered during the beginning of the Bush administration. It doesn't make any logical sense to blame Bush for the economy.

Now as to what happened on 9/11 there could be some debate over how much fault falls at the feet of Bush. What we do know is that the economy was going downhill prior to 9/11.

Bill Hook
February 16, 2004, 03:20 PM
The Democrats like to blame Bush for the economy but have very little to stand on.

How can a party wedded so firmly to socialism have any concept about the economy and what makes it work?

I'd like to suggest that the only reason the socialist states in Europe and elsewhere have economies at all is that they can sponge of the US, who will keep them proped up by buying over-priced goods produced by their inefficient, high-priced labor.

GoRon
February 16, 2004, 09:05 PM
I am so tired of these people who say there is no difference between Dems and Repubs. Are you people so politically niave? One party by its platform and stated goals is against free markets, property rights, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS and is actively working against the traditional family unit. Not to mention their weakness in the foreign policy arena. The Republicans at least in theory and principle are in favor of the above with a pro USA foreign policy. They have compromised themselves and lost their way - yes, but they are not the same as the Dems.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 16, 2004, 09:21 PM
Kerry is on the record now as stating that he thinks the terrorist threat to the US is "exaggerated" This is after 9/11 and after many credible reports of Al-Queda posessing ex-Soviet tactical nuclear weapons.

There's no way I'll vote for someone as thick headed as John Kerry.

___________________________________________

Kerry says threat of terrorism is exaggerated

By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
1-30-2004

GREENVILLE, S.C. — Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said during last night's Democratic presidential debate that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated.
"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way

more...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040129-115023-8966r.htm

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 10:21 PM
edit

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 10:22 PM
And let us not forget the decades he spent saying that the Soviet threat was exaggerated. He has never seen a totalitarian government that he didn't like. :barf:

25/20
February 17, 2004, 12:59 AM
"Will any of you stand for a police state?" um, we have 2 men in what is basically a concentration camp, being held indefinetly without trial. We had the Patriot act passed, and the government is masking taking your rights through "safety precautions" about terrorism. All of these things have happened with a republican in office.

Im sorry, i dont see how Kerry is a liar for saying the terrorist alert level is exaggerated either. Every week, there is a headline about the "terrorist threat level". This seems more and more like the "2 minute hate" out of 1984. Yes it was a terrible thing. No it hasnt happened again. It has been 2 years, and nothing has happened. How long are they going to keep updating us on how worried we should be about middle eastern extremeist groups, forever? The Gov. keeps it up because it keeps people scared that they might die in a bombing. It is as absurd as the movie "canadian bacon", it seems like our government is doing the same thing.

Greg Bell
February 17, 2004, 01:08 AM
I'm sure Kerry likes to tell himself it is overrated. Especially after he voted, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 Kerry proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. He has a history of underestimating our enemies. His judgement is suspect on these issues (yes I know he won some medals).

fallingblock
February 17, 2004, 01:15 AM
"Yes it was a terrible thing. No it hasnt happened again. It has been 2 years, and nothing has happened."
************************************************************

Plain dumb luck, or the Bush folks have done something right after all?;)

Kerry prefers the "one world" (plain dumb luck) approach of the U.N.:scrutiny:

Kerry also does not support our right to keep and bear arms.....

Except for limited "sporting purposes" of course.:fire:

JFK is delusional due to the coincidence of his initials with those of a reasonably competent president. :D

Iain
February 17, 2004, 07:34 AM
Sean Smith

Certainly, like most foreigners he does not grasp the regional divisions within the various parties, as evidenced by lumping Yankee Republicans that are as a group more liberal than old Southern Democrats together with Texas Republicans that are nearly libertarians.

I've got to say, I now understand those regional divisions as explained by Sean. What I don't understand is why there are still two parties only in that case - if the northern republicans are more liberal than the southern democrats, why are the southern republicans tolerating their northern party mates? Same for the democratic party.

I've got to say it makes little sense other than the idea that the members are so tied up with the notion of the 'Party' being over all that. That doesn't make sense to someone like me who is a floating voter voting on the issues and to some extent tactically if it makes sense to. For example here in Durham the MP has always been Labour for as long as anyone remembers, the student vote means that the Lib Dems are the closest rival, as I'd like to shake the Labour MP out of apathy then I vote Lib Dem. Overall the Conservatives are appealing to me under Howard, despite my dislike of him personally.

Now, I know, I am a European I 'don't get it' it's 'none of my business' and all. Indulge me, I'd like to get it. It's also come to my attention that a few think I am a troll, I'd say, fine think what you like. I'd also say that since being here on THR I have taken some very difficult lines in discussions with my friends, these lines being pro-US, very pro-RKBA, very pro-individual freedoms and anti-collectivist mindset. Surprise you?

Waitone
February 17, 2004, 08:35 AM
I wish more "outsiders" would pontificate on our political system.

dischord
February 17, 2004, 10:03 AM
St. John: What I don't understand is why there are still two parties only in that case - if the northern republicans are more liberal than the southern democrats, why are the southern republicans tolerating their northern party mates? I know this is a somewhat glib answer, but look at the USA like a family argument that's degenerated to the point where the goal is winning rather family interest. When that happens, people do things that are counterproductive to both their own interests and the family's interests.

On a national level, when winning is the primary goal, people align themselves with those who work against their interests in order to remain in the majority, winning, group -- "I can't leave this party that stands against so many things I hold dear. The other guys might win."

Essentially, we've got two parties fixated on how bad the other is rather than taking accountability for their own actions. It really is like watching a husband and wife compete over their child, spoiling him with treat after treat. Each parent contradictorily belittles the other for giving both too much and not enough -- "My treats are caring and prove I'm a good parent, but your treats spoil the child and prove you're a bad parent. I win! Nyah nyah nyah!”

Then again, maybe we're such an entertainment-oriented society here in the States that we simply care more about "teams" than what's right.

HankB
February 17, 2004, 11:17 AM
Waitone wrote: The fact that the retirement age hasn't been raised since the beginning of SS will at last be seen for what it is. . . . stupidity. Wrong.

Originally, full retirement age was 65. The law actually was changed to add a couple of years to the retirement age needed for full social security benefits for persons born after a certain date. See the chart at http://www.ssa.gov/retirechartred.htm (Saving my long rant about SS for another thread.)

Bill Hook
February 17, 2004, 11:33 AM
'd also say that since being here on THR I have taken some very difficult lines in discussions with my friends, these lines being pro-US, very pro-RKBA, very pro-individual freedoms and anti-collectivist mindset. Surprise you?

No, but what passes for conservatism in Europe (I believe that they call it "Liberalism," in the classical sense of the word) still seems socialist in the US.

DTLoken
February 17, 2004, 04:52 PM
Democrats seem to want a bigger share of my paycheck.

lol biggest budget defecit ever lol


Hint, it's not a Democrat.



lol patriot act lol

lol holding an American citizen for two years without charges lol

lol it's Bush lol

Greg Bell
February 17, 2004, 05:51 PM
DTLOKEN

quote:

"Democrats seem to want a bigger share of my paycheck.
lol biggest budget defecit ever lol


Hint, it's not a Democrat."



LOL, my taxes were cut. LOL, we are at war.

OTOH, I wish I could LOL about Clinton leaving us exposed to terrorists while he obsessed about militiamen. I wish I could LOL about Kerry voting to cut inteligence and anti-terrorist funding after the first WTC bombing. I wish I could LOL about the Democrats being more concerned about my guns than Osama's. I wish I could LOL about the Democrats wanting to raise my taxes. I wish I could LOL about the Democrats whining about the Patriot act when they voted for it after pushing versions of it for 10 years. Oh wait, I will go ahead and LOL about that one.

GHB:D

Sean Smith
February 17, 2004, 07:23 PM
St Johns:

Now, I know, I am a European I 'don't get it' it's 'none of my business' and all. Indulge me, I'd like to get it. It's also come to my attention that a few think I am a troll, I'd say, fine think what you like. I'd also say that since being here on THR I have taken some very difficult lines in discussions with my friends, these lines being pro-US, very pro-RKBA, very pro-individual freedoms and anti-collectivist mindset. Surprise you?

Nope. :)

Although I was using it to zing MicroBalrog :D , my observation wasn't meant to be rude in a general way; it is just something I have noticed. Alot of Americans don't realize that a Republican in, say, Rhode Island would be more liberal in most respects than a Democrat in Texas, either. It is just more prevalent amongst foreigners, who generally don't have a reason to know that sort of thing (much like I'm sure some nuances of British politics would totally escape me).

Damn, I'm being a sweetie today. :p

ANYway,

What I don't understand is why there are still two parties only in that case - if the northern republicans are more liberal than the southern democrats, why are the southern republicans tolerating their northern party mates?

Crap, a good question. :)

I'm in the middle of cooking dinner, I'll post my opinions on that in a bit...

Sean Smith
February 17, 2004, 08:03 PM
Where did the conservative, Southern Democrat come from?

The first thing to consider is that the Democratic Party was NOT a "liberal" party for most of its history. In fact, the opposite was true. And for much of its history, it predominated in the generally more conservative South for that reason, though it was far from an exclusively regional party. The Civil War hardened these divisions, with the Democratic Party being the party of the "Lost Cause," or the party of treason, depending on which side you were on. Who was on what side in the Civil War had political significance for decades on end. Furthermore, the tremendous acrimony involved ossified party loyalty in regions, families and even across generations.

The "liberalization" of the Democratic Party arguably started with the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt (which coincided with Democrats actually getting Black votes, something astounding when the Republicans were the "Party of Lincoln"), but the Democratic Party didn't really start to split from the internal contradictions this change created until the 1960s. Here both the most liberal and most reactionary aspects of that decade were manifested by the Democratic Party. Here you had LBJ (a Southern Democrat who turned out to be liberal) foisting the Vietnam War on us and supporting the Civil Rights Movement, while great masses of other Democrats joined the anti-war movement, and still other Democrats in the South were violently opposed to the Civil Rights Movement and the laws supporting it pushed by the Southern Democrat, LBJ.

Head hurt yet? Strangely, the 1970s didn't see the breakup of the Democratic Party that would have been logical. The Democratic Party was becoming more uniformly liberal, but Southern Democrats weren't ready to leave the party for the party of Carpetbagger and Scallawag occupation, the Republicans, until the "Reagan Revollution" from 1980 onward.

Starting at that point, though not really complete even by this day, the very conservative elements that made up a considerable proportion of the Democratic Party started leaving for the Republican Party, which by this time was clearly the conservative party of the two. Ironically, this made the Republicans an even MORE conservative party, more Southern and more socially conservative in particular. Here the strong conservatism of the Californian Ronald Reagan starts to look like a sad anachronism, as that state becomes extremely liberal.

So that's half of the equation: the South, being more conservative (generally speaking) has gradually changed in the last century from a Democratic to a Republican stronghold. Meanwhile the North, the former Republican stronghold, has become much more Democratic. This reflects the regional differences: the dominant parties in a region reflect the left-right division (and how far left-right they are, on average) of the voters there.

Put another way, if a Texas-styled Republican were to run in Rhode Island, there would be nobody but Democrats in office there... he'd get keel-hauled. Likewise, if a California Democrat ran for office in Texas, odds are the Texas Democrats would rustle him but good, or whatever it is mad Texans do here (I'm not a native, but a Yankee carpetbagger)... run people like that, and there would be no Democrats at all, except mabye around Austin or something, where Texas stores its dope-smoking hippies.

It isn't a matter of their party comrades tolerating their too-liberal New England Republicans (pro gun control), or too-conservative Texas Democrats (showing off their guns during elections). Rather, the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats recognize that their party would be totally shut out of these regions if they didn't run candidates like that. It is really the only practical alternative they've got, generally.

Because people in, say, Massachusetts are very different politically from people in Texas, on average. America is a very diverse place on alot of levels, and there is alot of danger in seeing anything in America as monolithic or clear-cut... saying something like "Americans are like so-and-so" is objectively about the stupidest comment in the known universe. This situation has its good and bad aspects. :)

This is all a 30,000 foot view painted in really broad strokes, of course.

Gramps
February 17, 2004, 08:30 PM
Personally, I think Bush has done a great job. Yes, there are some large problems, too much spending etc. etc. (but we are in a war).
I'm voting Bush all the way and proud of it.
Gramps
:neener:

Shooter 2.5
February 17, 2004, 10:37 PM
JOHN KERRY VOTING RECORD:: THE LIST

ABORTION

Voted to federally fund abortions.

Voted against parental consent for minors.

Voted against ban on Partial Birth Abortion (3 times)

Voted against ban on sending money to UN population fund if the money was sent to pay for China forced abortion and sterilization policy.

NARAL lifetime rating of 100%

National Right to Life Committee lifetime rating of 0%

DEATH PENALTY

Opposes federal death penalty.

Voted against death penalty for terrorists. (recently flip-flopped in 2002)

Voted against death penalty for drug-related murders.

TAXES & BUDGET

Voted against Bush tax cut and wants to repeal portions of Bush tax cut.

Voted for 1993 Clinton tax hike. (largest in history)

Voted against major tax relief packages at least 10 times.

Voted at least 5 times against balance budget amendments.

Kerry voted at least five times to raid The Social Security Trust Fund.

MILITARY & NATIONAL SECURITY

Voted for 7 major reductions in military funding Voted against Gulf War I (1991).

Voted for Gulf War II (but then criticized and voted against military appropriation for troops).

Voted against MX missile.

Voted against Trident Submarine.

Voted against SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative – Star Wars).

Voted against B-1 and B-2 Stealth Bomber and Fighter.

Favored UN control of US Troops (in the 1970s).

Supported Slashing $2.6 Billion from Intelligence Funding While Serving as a Member of Senate Intel Committee.

Attended a seminar (the so-called "Winter Soldier Investigation) bankrolled by Jane Fonda in Detroit in February 1971 during which 125 self-proclaimed Vietnam veterans testified at a Howard Johnson's about atrocities allegedly committed by our own forces.

Many of the so-called Veterans were frauds and virtually every alleged atrocity was investigated and proven to be false.

FAITH & VALUES

Voted against ban on human cloning.

Voted Against Defense of Marriage Act (to give states option to decide whether to recognize homosexual marriages in other states).

Sent letter to Massachusetts Legislature opposing Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

Favors civil unions for homosexuals.

Voted to extend hate crimes protections to homosexuals.

Voted against a constitutional amendment on flag desecration.

EDUCATION

Voted against voluntary school prayer.

Voted against voucher pilot program.

Voted against approving a school-choice pilot program

JUDGES, COURTS & LAW

Voted against confirmation of Clarence Thomas for Supreme Court Justice.

Voted against confirmation of Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice.

Voted against confirmation William Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Voted against confirmation John Ashcroft as US Attorney General.

Voted against punitive damages in products liability cases. As Michael Dukakis Lt. Governor From 1983-1985, Kerry Supported Granting Prison Furloughs To Hundreds Of Massachusetts Inmates.

FOREIGN POLICY

Against linking Most Favored Nation status to China human rights record.

Voted for Kyoto Protocol on Environment that exempted major Third Word polluters.

Supported Iraq regime change as late as January, 2003.

Now has flipped-flopped For Unilateral nuclear Freeze.

Voted against deployment of INF missiles in Europe.

POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Leading member of VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War)

Attended and conducted anti-war and anti-American protests in the 1970s. Organized the Protests.

Votes with Ted Kennedy an average of 94% of the time.

Received $300,000 contribution from Johnny Chung as directed by Chinese intelligence officer.

Supported Communist Sandinistas and visited with leader Communist Daniel Ortega days before Ortega flew to Moscow and received $200 million in Soviet aid.

Has a lifetime rating of 26% from Citizens Against Government Waste.

Has a lifetime rating of 0% from the National Rifle Association.

Lifetime liberal vote rating of 93% from Americans For Democratic Action (5 points higher than Ted Kennedy).

Voted with the liberal activist group, The League Of Conservation Voters, an average of 95% of the time.

fallingblock
February 17, 2004, 11:28 PM
"It's also come to my attention that a few think I am a troll, I'd say, fine think what you like. I'd also say that since being here on THR I have taken some very difficult lines in discussions with my friends, these lines being pro-US, very pro-RKBA, very pro-individual freedoms and anti-collectivist mindset. Surprise you?"
************************************************************

St. John, you've never met my definition of a troll.

It is obvious that you are seeking contrasting opinions and answers.

The U.S. political scene is very complex, although there are excellent explanations above.:)

While I may be a hybrid Aussie today, In my forty years U.S. time, I witnessed much of the U.S political dislocation/transition which Sean Smith so ably describes.

Don't despair. Some Australians go all glassy-eyed when I try to explain U.S. politics. It's like me trying to understand cricket.:D

Especially if they have been relying on the ABC for their information. :eek:

Iain
February 18, 2004, 06:45 AM
Thanks guys you've cheered me up no end.

Sean - sorry if that post read like it was all aimed at you. Only the first question was. The rest was aimed at my 'detractors' - if indeed they exist. Your post was most informative. Have saved it for much future reference.

Fallingblock - cricket isn't that hard. You just need to get your silly mid-off seperated from your mid-on and your cover-slips and the rest is merely a matter of overs, lbw's, and 'bodyline'. Thanks for your friendliness.

25/20
February 18, 2004, 08:04 AM
shooter 2.5,

WHAT AN EXCELLENT RECORD!!!!!!!!!!

We would have a president that RECOGNIZES the seperation of christians and state? excellent. Im VERY Pro-Choice, i DONT care what your religious beleifs are, keep them to yourself, along with your bigoted look upon homosexuals. As for the V.V.A.W., you support what happened in Vietnam? if someone who WAS there can say it was B.S., then who are you to bring that up as a bad point? At least he fought in it.

ojibweindian
February 18, 2004, 08:29 AM
Im VERY Pro-Choice, i DONT care what your religious beleifs are, keep them to yourself, along with your bigoted look upon homosexuals.

When my tax dollars are no longer spent for "pro choice" programs, welfare, and all the other socialist pipe dreams, I'll keep my mouth shut. Until then...

We would have a president that RECOGNIZES the seperation of christians and state?

I thought you socialists were saying "the separation of church and state". I would say that you are just as "biggoted", with a huge splash of hypocrite thrown in for bad measure.

As for the V.V.A.W., you support what happened in Vietnam? if someone who WAS there can say it was B.S., then who are you to bring that up as a bad point? At least he fought in it.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/story10.htm

With friends like Kerry, who needs enemas.

Waitone
February 18, 2004, 08:33 AM
Shooter 2.5

Interesting summary. Any references?

Russ
February 18, 2004, 09:22 AM
DigitalWarrior,

Your bio says you live in California. I lived there for most of my life and I guess longer than you have been alive. Democrats have ruined the State.

Do you enjoy waiting 10 days for a gun after you buy it?

Do you like the 1 handgun a month deal?

Do you like to buy new guns that only show up on the "approved list"?

Do you enjoy having to get a license to own a handgun under the HSC?

Do you like Jack Scott, Don Perata, John Burton or do you really know anything about the political structure of CA? (I guess you already answered that question with your post)

Frankly if you did, you would have been for McClintock in the recall of Gray Davis. The California I grew up in was a different place. Socialism and Fascism in practice are so close you couldn't cut them with a sharp razor. Go for it, vote for a Democrat. I'm sure Kerry will take the state anyway.

It is painfully obvious to me that you do not care about your gun rights. Why, because the Dems want to take them all away and that is what they are after. Look at the statements of Senators Di Fi, and Boxhead and many other leaders of the Democrat party out there. The CA Constitution does not allow for the right to keep and bear arms. And with the 9th circuit to oversee it, please help CA.

If the Democrats acted like they did in the PRK here in KY, they would not have a prayer. My concern is that KY Dems get to national office ( as Democrats), the powers in the party make them vote contrary to their beliefs (assuming they had any to begin with).

Your post was one of two things. 1.) to start a debate and 2.) you really believe it. If number 2 is correct, why are you here?

dischord
February 18, 2004, 09:58 AM
You people who say Ebola is a horrible disease are full of it and hypocrites. Cancer can kill you too!

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 18, 2004, 11:08 AM
We would have a president that RECOGNIZES the seperation of christians and state? excellent.

Yes, lets hear it for religious bigotry!

Im VERY Pro-Choice, i DONT care what your religious beleifs are, keep them to yourself, along with your bigoted look upon homosexuals.

Or what?

Joe Demko
February 18, 2004, 11:16 AM
I give this one about 10 more seconds 'til it's locked...

Geech
February 18, 2004, 12:42 PM
lol biggest budget defecit ever lol

Actually, when you compare the size of the deficit to the size of the economy, it isn't that bad and it isn't out of line with what the deficit has been previously. It's only when you try to make a static comparison that it seems really huge.

Either way, we should start to see the size of the deficit go down during the next presidency, regardless of who's elected. As the economy continues to improve, it will be a lot easier to run a surplus.

JohnBT
February 18, 2004, 01:11 PM
"We would have a president that RECOGNIZES the seperation of christians and state? excellent."

There is no law requiring the separation of "christians and state" or Jews and state, or Catholics and state. The separation is between an established church and the state. There is a significant difference. I see you're in Virginia. Read up on Mr. Jefferson's original writings on Virginia's Statute of Religious Freedoms.

Prior to this Statute, you needed the state's permission to marry and do various other things and the state's taxes were collected by "the church".

www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web03/segment4.html

John

P.S. - Vote for a Democrat? Perish the thought. At least until they get some sense.

grnzbra
February 18, 2004, 01:32 PM
Chuckie Schummer for President and Diane Feinstien for Veep.

Russ
February 18, 2004, 04:02 PM
Geech,

While most of the statist Libertarians here won't agree with you, I agree. To un a SURPLUS is the most damaging thing to our economy. Those who doubt need to study history a bit more.

GoRon
February 18, 2004, 04:11 PM
Our freedoms, culture and prosperity didn't arise out of a vacume. They are the fruit of a Judeo \ Protestant Christian society. The Roman Catholic Church has only recently (cold war) joined the battle for freedom. They have made a real difference in some areas (Poland, abortion in the US). The pedophile Priests have done great damage to the cause of traditional values. The Democrats stand for every thing that is the antithesis to a free nation. They oppose the right to bear arms, they don't value property rights, they seek to absolve us of the responsibility to take care of ourselves and our own by cradle to grave government programs. They show outright contempt for Christianity. The Republicans are guilty of all the same but only in lesser degree. Only a GOOD, RESPONSIBLE people can remain truly free. Our loss of freedoms are in direct proportion to our failure to live up to our obligations as a free people.

Shooter 2.5
February 18, 2004, 04:21 PM
Waitone, Kerry votes on the left of Teddy, the swimmer. Along with his 0% rating from the NRA that's good enough for me to hope he never sees another political office.
As far as Viet Nam is concerned, I bow to the opinions of the Viet Nam refugees in this country who wish we would have stayed and finished the job.

Shooter 2.5
February 18, 2004, 04:29 PM
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/kerrys_vietnam_lessons.jpg

mrapathy2000
February 18, 2004, 04:40 PM
:D

kerry is far left and dean was a litmus test for far left. now kerry is trying to look moderate when he most certainly is not a look at what he has done in senate will show that. cut intelligence by over a billion dollars and eliminate tons of programs and tools for the military.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I am voting for the democrat." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!