Would you ever vote Democrat?

[jimmyraythomason]

Vote for a Democrat?

When Satan complains about the ice in his apartment. So,now they are conservatives and moderates, riiiiight. That mask is due to come off right after the 2008 election is over.

 

[Deanimator]

James Webb vs Rudy Giuliani

Which one would you guys vote for?

I will NEVER EVER vote for Giuliani, under ANY circumstances, no matter against WHOM he runs. I wouldn't vote for Giuliani if he ran against a Bin Laden/Mullah Omar ticket. At least the Islamists are honest enough to SAY they want a police state.

Giuliani never met an act of violence committed by the police that he wouldn't defend or at least try to excuse. Louima, Diallo, Dorismond, etc., etc., etc. Giuliani's NYPD ran amok. Imagine that kind of thing at the Federal level, from one end of the country to another.

With Giuliani in charge of the BATFE and FBI, expect Waco a week.

 

[Deathrider1579]

I would vote for a Democrat if they were thus:

1. Pro - Life (not an option your pro-baby killing you don't get my vote)
2. Pro-gun (in a traditional give everyone a machinegun kind of way)
3. Not a socialist
4. Pro - American
5. Anti-ACLU
etc...

So if they believed in my principals and it wasn't a fake then yeah I'd vote for one.

-DR

 

[ripcurlksm]

I would consider voting for a Democrat if they were pro-life.

 

[MudCamper]

5. Anti-ACLU

FYI, the ACLU, with all of it's faults, is still the only organization that is definding the other 9 of your Bill of Rights, especially number 1, 4, and 5.

 

[MudCamper]

I would consider voting for a Democrat if they were pro-life.

Ironic. I would consider voting Republican if they were pro-choice. (and pro-freedom of religion, right to privacy, et. al.)

 

[Deanimator]

FYI, the ACLU, with all of it's faults, is still the only organization that is definding the other 9 of your Bill of Rights, especially number 1, 4, and 5.

Examine the history of the ACLU and it's often wildly contradictory positions on the same fundamental issues. For example, the ACLU supports the right of a minor to have an abortion without her parents' permission, but vehemently denied the right of a minor to refuse to return to the Soviet Union with his parents after having publicly condemned the Soviet state. Apparently the ACLU supports the right of a girl to not become a parent, but not the right of a boy to not become an "unperson". I say this as someone who supports abortion rights.

As a general rule, the ACLU automatically opposes state power... unless that power is wielded by a repressive, totalitarian state.

The ACLU has an agenda, and that agenda is NOT freedom. That having been said, it can sometimes be manipulated to support actual freedom, in spite of itself.

 

[MudCamper]

The ACLU has an agenda, and that agenda is NOT freedom.

That is utterly absurd.

 

[ripcurlksm]

I have always heard negative things about the ACLU. So what have they done that is "good" in the past 5-10 years then? LIST EM!

 

[Deanimator]

That is utterly absurd.

Explain their position on the Tontelevich(sp?) case.

Take as much space as you need.

 

[wooderson]

JFK proposed across the board tax cuts to stimulate the economy and increase tax revenues. Tell me the last time Teddy or ANY Democrat has suggested that.

Has any Democrat entered office with marginal tax rates comparable to those of Ike's term (which is what JFK helped alter)?

No? Huh.

(By your logic, of course, the GOP isn't the party of Eisenhower... some days I think JFK for Ike would be a fair trade.)

You should warn people before you associate Democrats with fiscal conservatism.

Um, did you read what I wrote? I never said they were, as a party, 'fiscal conservatives' - I said they had, as a party, moved 'right.'

Note the difference.

He probably in fact did have them, but all the months of wasting time with the United Scoundrels aka United Nations, gave him more than ample time to hide them or move them out of country.

Ah, the "everyone else said they did" excuse (which isn't, of course, actually true) followed by this nonsense conspiracy theory. "He, uh, moved them! He really did! We can't prove he had them or anything, but I'm sure that delay..."

Whenever I see someone attempt to defend the pack of lies that got us into Iraq, a dismal and historic failure - it's kind of like seeing a unicorn. Just not so common these days.

Capitalism is privately (as opposed to publicy) owned commerce which when combined with free enterprise produces goods and services regulated by free market supply and demand forces.

And it requires a state of some form to enforce property rights (etc.). Which is what taxation (including the income tax) funds.

 

[wooderson]

The Polovchak case - in which the ACLU actually sided with the parents against the federal government, for giving their little kiddie a bogus asylum based on religion. I know it's crazy that the ACLU doesn't support the right of pre-teen runaways to defy their parents.

Abortion, of course, is a right enjoyed by all women of any age, and "parental-notification" is an infringement on that right.

No similar caselaw or rights exist for a defiant little kid.

 

[10-Ring]

When I turned 18, I registered as a dem because mom & dad were dems. That lasted one election when I realized the people I was voting for did share my same basic ideology. Over the years, my beliefs have evolved to the point that I doubt I would ever vote for a dem again.

 

[Lew]

I may never vote for either again. They're both advocates of big government, big lies, and the death of our freedoms (and us, lately).

www.lp.org

There are other options.

 

[MudCamper]

I have always heard negative things about the ACLU.

From the ACLU's own documents:

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

What follows next is what makes a lot of people hate them. Many people, and sadly many on this forum as well, are bigoted, and hate the ACLU for this:

We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

But even if you are a bigot, read a little further:

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

and this applies to you too.

 

[Jackal]

Republicans now, are what Democrats were about 35 years ago.

 

[Tbu61]

Admittedly I'm not very well educated when it comes to Politics, that being said...

Sorry if this doesn't fit in, but I noticed something.

Political parties only Advertise/Expound issues that have a high shock value.
These issues generally only have "YES and NO" answers or Opinions.

The most hotly contended issues seem those that have a 50/50 chance of
failure or (success). Gun Control is one of those 50/50 issues

Seems to me that the "Bad" party, be it either flavor, only has to mention a sensitive subject and get everyone in a tizzy....

Instead of wasting time Debating on these issues, What else can we do to further our cause?... Seems that nobody offers any suggestions on that topic. I dunno, maybe a collective drive to write to Congress, Letters to the Editor of local media, Take a neighbor and his kid shooting, etc...

Thoughts?????

 

[Cliff47]

Would I ever vote Democrat? With the bunch that is in there now, and the current attitude on the issues at hand: Only at gunpoint.

 

[Deanimator]

The Polovchak case - in which the ACLU actually sided with the parents against the federal government, for giving their little kiddie a bogus asylum based on religion. I know it's crazy that the ACLU doesn't support the right of pre-teen runaways to defy their parents.

Abortion, of course, is a right enjoyed by all women of any age, and "parental-notification" is an infringement on that right.

Thank you for providing the correct name.

You trivialize the Polovchak case. Walter Polovchak did not wish [for obvious reasons] to return to the Soviet Union. Having publicly and vociforously criticized the Soviet State, he had even greater reason not to wish to return.

I recognize the right of "women" (including minors) to have abortions. Do you not similarly recognize the right of "pre-teen runaways" to not suffer grievous political persecution at the hands of a brutally repressive, totalitarian state?

Clearly the ACLU did not. But as I said, the ACLU has an agenda and it's not individual liberty.

 

[Deanimator]

What follows next is what makes a lot of people hate them. Many people, and sadly many on this forum as well, are bigoted, and hate the ACLU for this:

I disdain them because they are hypocrites who [rightly] uphold the right of women and girls to not suffer unwanted pregnancies, but NOT the right of men and boys not to suffer savage oppression and retaliation at the hands of a totalitarian dictatorship embodied in auto-genocide.

 

[Plink]

You pose an interesting question and one that me and some friends have been talking about lately. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life and I've been voting since I was old enough to do so. The reason we were talking about it recently is that after Bush, we figure the odds are slim of keeping the Democrats out this time around. Our discussion focused on whether our vote was best spent trying to keep the worst Democrat out by voting on the least destructive one or wasted voting on a republican that will probably not get in. I think it'll take a lot of poll watching and keeping my eyes open, but I think in my case the answer is yes, I would vote for a Democrat if I had no other strategic option. If we can get a republican in, he'll get my vote in a heartbeat. If there's no chance, I'm going to vote for the least destructive one that has a chance.

 

[wooderson]

You trivialize the Polovchak case. Walter Polovchak did not wish [for obvious reasons] to return to the Soviet Union. Having publicly and vociforously criticized the Soviet State, he had even greater reason not to wish to return.

If a kid doesn't want to move from Hawaii to Idaho, should the state be able to step in and tell his parents no?

A pre-teen is under his parents' jurisdiction for most everything - he goes where they go, whether you like their choice of living area or not. A 12-year is not yet capable of making life decisions of that sort. (And, coincidentally, neither are 12-year old girls - when you conflate parental-permission laws that apply primarily to 15-17-year old women that gets glossed over.)

I recognize the right of "women" (including minors) to have abortions. Do you not similarly recognize the right of "pre-teen runaways" to not suffer grievous political persecution at the hands of a brutally repressive, totalitarian state?

That was the problem with the Reagan Admin's offer of religious asylum - there's no evidence that he was going to suffer grievous harm. How far do preteen rights go in getting to decide where they want to live or don't?

 

[F4GIB]

Since there is no difference between the two major parties, why not.

Dems will put you behind the wire "for your own good."

Reps will put you behind the wire "because the good book says."

Same wire, same reeducation camp. Same police officers too.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

ACLU

Many people, and sadly many on this forum as well, are bigoted, and hate the ACLU for this:

When the ACLU defends the Second Amendment with the energy it now spends defending "equal protection under the law" for perverts and invaders, I might reconsider.

The ACLU fights hard for "religious rights" -- that is, the right of people to be free FROM religion rather than free to PRACTICE religion.

The ACLU fights hard to throw off the shackles of morality.

In the eyes of the ACLU, killing someone is only REALLY wrong if you HATE the person you murder. Murder per se? Meh. That's someone else's problem. Kill whomever you like. Just don't hate them.

Not once, ever, have I heard of the ACLU embracing the second amendment. At All. Ever. Did I say "ever?"

The ACLU isn't about rights. It's about power and control. It's about political correctness. And "political correctness" is the brainchild of Lenin.

Come back and talk to me when the ACLU stands up for the Second Amendment. Until then, I will view them with the suspicion and distrust with which I view ANY political thug.

 

[Havegunjoe]

Heck NO!

A. - A party plank is not an absolute binding agreement. I wouldn't trust them to honor it.

B. - If you think your privacy and liberties are being trampled now wait and see what Hilary and Obama do to them.

C. - High taxes and big government are pseudonyms for the Democratic party. If the Republicans are bad, they are far worse.