1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why I am voting for the democrat.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by DigitalWarrior, Feb 14, 2004.

  1. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Well-Known Member

    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:
  2. Zak Smith

    Zak Smith Moderator Staff Member

    More people will find a police state repugnant vs. how many will notice a socialist/welfare state, and care.

    Given enough time, they converge.


  3. dischord

    dischord Well-Known Member

    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).
    Smells kind of like a police state to me.
  4. deanf

    deanf Well-Known Member

    Both major parties have the same destination. They are just taking separate roads.
  5. Greg Bell

    Greg Bell Well-Known Member

    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.


    Neither party is perfect by a LONG SHOT but for now...
  6. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Well-Known Member

    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."
  7. Preacherman

    Preacherman Well-Known Member

    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:
  8. Bill Hook

    Bill Hook member

    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.

    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.
  9. whm1974

    whm1974 Well-Known Member

    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
  10. Jeff Thomas

    Jeff Thomas Well-Known Member

    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.

    Regards from TX
  11. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    Like in Switzerland?

    Like me?

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

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

    Biggest budget deficit...
  12. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie Well-Known Member

    ???? 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.
  13. dischord

    dischord Well-Known Member


    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.
  14. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    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.
  15. dischord

    dischord Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. Waitone

    Waitone Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    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?
  18. dischord

    dischord Well-Known Member

    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
    99999999999999999999999999999999% true.

    Edited to fix formatting problem. - TBM
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 15, 2004
  19. hillbilly

    hillbilly Well-Known Member

    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.

  20. Bill Hook

    Bill Hook member

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

Share This Page