Democrats and Republicans

[300lbGorilla]

I've been doing a lot of thinking on what characteristics are most visible in the politicians and most active/vociferous members of each party and have come to some conclusions.

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

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

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

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

Flame away!

 

[Bruce H]

For too long the only real difference is in the spelling.

 

[Ian]

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

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

 

[Tamara]

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

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

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

 

[gburner]

Come to the light, Brother! The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Libertarianism is an answer.

 

[Col. Mustard]

Sure it is....

Originally posted by gburner
Come to the light, Brother! The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Libertarianism is an answer.

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

 

[TimH]

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

 

[Col. Mustard]

No flames from me...

We need more people in Congress like Ron Paul; basically a libertarian in Republican clothing, who can work within the framework to move the Republicans back toward the right.

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

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I agree with the majority of what Libertarians say. My big disagreement with them is legalization of drugs.

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

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

 

[Tamara]

...the theoretical argument for it may be.

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

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

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

But don't support unconstitutional laws.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Tamara,

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

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

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

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

 

[Tamara]

"Regulating Interstate Commerce" and "Declaring Items to Be Contraband Whether They Cross State Lines Or Not" apparently only rhyme if you're a liberal post-FDR Supreme Court Justice.

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

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I just cannot support legalizing drugs, no matter how good the theoretical argument for it may be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[gburner]

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

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

 

[Blackhawk]

Mao or some other reknowned commie said "Religion is the opiate of the people," but political parties are the opiates of Americans.

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

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

 

[2nd Amendment]

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

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

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

 

[Blackhawk]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mike]

I believe it was on TFL where I read "Republicans are just slow socialists". I've always liked that. Anyone want to claim it?

 

[Finch]

Originally posted by Mike
I believe it was on TFL where I read "Republicans are just slow socialists". I've always liked that. Anyone want to claim it?

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

 

[2nd Amendment]

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

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

 

[pax]

300lbGorilla,

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

pax

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

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

 

[bastiat]

Lone_Gunemen:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Glock Glockler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TimH]

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

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Is the drug issue one of jurisdiction, state versus federal?

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