Would you ever vote Democrat?

[rbernie]

And it requires a state of some form to enforce property rights (etc.).

Wooderson - Capitalism exists independantly of the state. It requires NO protection from the state, or enforcement of rights. Capitalism is the very definition of INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms.

The whole principle of Capitalism is that, left to their own devices and without adult supervision from an Overseer/Nanny government, plain old folk will endeavor thru creative effort to generate personal wealth which they will then dispense at their whim. Nowhere does that REQUIRE that somebody else enforce property rights or anythinhg else. In fact, thru most of human history property rights (intellectual and real) were protected by the force of the individual creator (or his/her surrogates). The notion of needing a Nanny Government to regulate, oversee, or facilitate Capitalism is an outgrowth of FDR's grand experiment at melding Socialism with Capitalism.

You're using the Socialist tenets popularized by the Democrats to define what Capitalism means/does/needs. Do you not see the logical problem with that?

 

[rbernie]

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

I will caution that the ACLU of late has come out with several documented legal actions in FAVOR of the freedom of public expression of religion.

As much as I detest the ACLU for failing to defend the entirety of the US Constitution, they aren't quite the rabid 'PC UBER ALLES' organization that they are sometimes portrayed to be.

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.)

And this is where the ACLU gets into trouble; they are often caught speaking out of both sides of their mouth on issues involving minors and parental rights (usually on subjects dealing with feminism or other 'hot' social issues)...

For example, they want to allow a 15yr old grrl to be able to get an abortion without her parent's knowledge (not to mention permission) yet they will not recognize a minors' right to seek religious asylum in defiance of his parent's wishes.

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

WTFO? You can't be a woman and be a minor; your very own logic states that a minor is incapable of making an adult decision because (say it with me) they are not yet an adult. Either you're a minor (child), or you're an adult (man or woman). It's like being pregnant - a binary state in which you cannot exist simultaneously in both.

You can't have it both ways, but certainly the ACLU will try if it's a touchie-feelie hot button.

 

[proud2deviate]

I decided a long time ago not to vote for a party. Just never made sense to me.

I generally try to vote for the person who is most likely to preserve the most freedom possible, even if it's a freedom I don't personally like, understand, or care about.

 

[wooderson]

It requires NO protection from the state, or enforcement of rights.

Theoretically, no it does not. Just as, theoretically, Leninists never mention the suppression of dissent.

In practice (and following theory to its logical conclusions), yes, capitalism requires a state - be it de jure or de facto. You need someone to enforce the existence of your property rights (with the barrel of a gun) - call 'em cops or call 'em 'private security.'

How does American capitalism exist without the legal fictions that are corporations? How does contemporary global capitalism function without banking regulations - from the FDIC to simply ensuring (again by force) that your banker isn't going to take flight in the middle of the night with your money? (That's without even thinking about fiat money.)

Capitalism as theorized (rugged individualism) and capitalism as practiced - rarely the 'twain shall meet. (Which is even more true for whichever brand of Marxist-derived ideology you might choose.)

The notion of needing a Nanny Government to regulate, oversee, or facilitate Capitalism is an outgrowth of FDR's grand experiment at melding Socialism with Capitalism.

FDR didn't "meld socialism with capitalism" - at no point did he introduce measures to nationalize a damn thing. He pursued a Keynesian policy, nothing more.

Bush II and Reagan both followed similar paths, actually - military Keynesianism. You introduce capital into the economy through military spending - it's functionally no different from the New Deal. Fighter contracts and new recruits vs. the WPA and FSA. (It is different however, insofar as military Keynesian practices tend to benefit the wealthy and lack the lasting impact of other federal spending - just as the economy booms with every war and recesses with every peace.)

 

[Deanimator]

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.

I'm sorry, that's simply nonsensical. "Slandering the Soviet State" was a CRIME in the Soviet Union, a CRIME with GRIEVOUS consequences. To equate a move to the Soviet Union AFTER having PUBLICLY denigrated the Soviet State with a "move" to Hawaii is disengenuous to the point of absurdity. Had Walter Polovchak returned to the Soviet Union, his life would have been OVER, figuratively at the very least, not inconceiveably LITERALLY.

 

[BigFatKen]

If certain things happened

If the Tampa Bay Bucannerrs run back a kickoff for a TD.
If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays win the World Series.
If the Tampa Bay Lightning win their cup.

And finally:

If the Green Bay Packers leave Green Bay Wisconsin.

 

[rbernie]

In practice (and following theory to its logical conclusions), yes, capitalism requires a state - be it de jure or de facto. You need someone to enforce the existence of your property rights (with the barrel of a gun) - call 'em cops or call 'em 'private security.'

Absence of property rights is certainly a detraction from the premise of Capitalism. However, the presence of a State is not required to protect property rights; folks have been protecting their property rights for tens of thousands of years before Jefferson conceived of our Patent/Copyright system and the notion of an Government-managed full time community police force was implemented.

FDR didn't "meld socialism with capitalism" - at no point did he introduce measures to nationalize a damn thing.

What do you call Social Security? It's a [illegal-if-I-did-it Ponzi scheme implementation of a] nationalized, mandatory retirement plan. FDR without a shadow of a doubt instrumented and implemented the nationalization of a mandatory retirement savings program, and it's become one of the great Government Entitlement Debacles of our time.

And since we have FDR's nationalized retirement savings plan and property rights being debated in the same thread - tell me how FDRs Social Security program protects my property rights and supports the Great Capitalistic Way? As far as I can tell, in the current Social Security plan the Nanny State takes my property away from me without my permission and promises to return it at some shifting point in the future with no guarantee therein. You call that protecting my property rights or lubricating the wheels of Capitalism?

Sounds like a Democrat.

 

[.45&TKD]

No, they are would still be lying socialist baby killers.

 

[Offwhite]

I don’t particularly care for either Democans or Republicrats (Democrats & Republicans). Anymore they are the same. No they don’t have the same views but hey both want more power in their hands & less in yours. I had a Political Science professor in college pose the question “What is the difference between a Democrat & a Republican?” Everyone in the class gave their little versions & told the different ideas of both parties but no one really capture what was being asked. My response was this:

“One is the “fox” & the other is the “wolf.” What I mean by this is the Democrats are going to tell you that they are not going to screw you & as soon as you turn around they go ahead and do it – the fox. Republicans are going to look in the face and tell you straight up “We are going to screw you, and this is how we are going to do it” – the wolf. Both are going to screw you over in the end, its all about how you like to take it.”

 

[hornadylnl]

The only Democrat that I'd ever vote for is in jail. James Traficant. http://www.traficant.com/speech.htm

Read through the archives of his one minute speeches. We need more congressmen like him.

I wouldn't vote for a Democrat for dog catcher. When you look at all the special interests that make up their platform, you have to at least agree with them on the national level if you are going to run as a Democrat on the local level.

Abortion
Gun control
Welfare
High taxes
Wealth redistribution
Absolving people of personal responsibility
Anti Christian
just to name a few. If you didn't agree with any of this, then why would you run as a Democrat for town council?

 

[.45&TKD]

The only Democrat that I'd ever vote for is in jail. James Traficant.

OK, maybe one Democrat.

 

[hornadylnl]

I would even vote for a worthless rino republican over Zell Miller even though he is a great guy and I would probably agree with 90% of Zell's positions. What good does one great senator do when it puts Harry Reid in control of the Senate? The same could be said for the house and Nazi Pelosi.

 

[Rem700SD]

Gun control isn't the only failing of the Democrat party. If they dropped their socialist platform, adopted free trade econimics, adopted a stand supporting the Bill of Rights, along with personal responsibility, and dedicated themselves to reducing the fiscal size of government, then I'd vote Democrat. But then I'd really be voting Libertarian, wouldn't I?

Dan

 

[JP1954]

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.)

I would love to respond to this if I could only figure out what on earth you are trying to say.

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

I did read what you wrote. That is why I QUOTED YOU.

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

Believe it or not we have finally found some common ground, albeit it is about as large as a postage stamp. It goes without saying that government is required for any nation. There has to be order and civility for society to function. The founders in their wisdom and experience also knew that power corrupts and viewed government more as a necessary evil than a benevolent entity and therefore did their best to seperate and limit the powers as much as possible. Furthermore, they viewed government's role as being a servant of the people, not the other way around. In a free society, government should be as minimal as possible.
An example would illustrate my point. A baseball game needs umpires in order to have a fair and orderly game. The game would be ruined, however, if the umpires told the pitcher what pitches to throw, the batter what pitches to swing at, the runners when to steal bases, etc., etc......are you starting to get the picture ?.........( not pitcher...we will get to that next.)

Whenever I see someone attempt to defend the pack of lies that got us into Iraq

Remember my

If you ever find some verifiable evidence that Bush lied to get us to invade Iraq, send it to Dan Rather ok?

Well did you find any? Did you send it to Dan? I noticed you didn't post it here in this forum.

I finally found a link that explains the belief of some people that Bush "LIED" to get us into Iraq.

http://www.hastingsmuseum.org/exhibitions/kaexhibit/index.htm

 

[Gene Beasley]

Not a chance

You can take the plank out, but with few exceptions, it is part of who they are. Republicans, for the most part, espouse support for my position on no gun control but when push comes to shove – they waffle and can at best be counted on to hold the line when the should be pushing to overturn the current unconstitutional laws that have been in place for generations. I don't support either unless the specific candidate supports overturning these unconstitutional laws.

 

[Deanimator]

Read through the archives of his one minute speeches. We need more congressmen like him.

Don't get snookered by Trafficant.

He used to guest host on what became WTAM-AM. He essentially would agree with the position of whoever called in, regardless of how many times in an hour that caused him to contradict himself.

He's an entertaining character, but nobody I'd ever vote for. He's a semi-moderate Dennis Kucinich.

 

[alucard0822]

jp1954, im not sure how kool-aid debunks or confirms the assertion that Bush lied, maybe a wrong link?

 

[Glockfan.45]

Probably not, I have never had any reason to trust Democrats. Even the ones that tend to side with my views on the issues I have a hard time trusting as I fear their party loyalty. That counts double with Pelosi in charge.

 

[JP1954]

jp1954, im not sure how kool-aid debunks or confirms the assertion that Bush lied, maybe a wrong link?

No.....it's the right link....but maybe I didn't phrase the intro. to it clearly enough......I have edited it for clarity based on your post here.....As far as the significance of Kool-aid, anyone who watches O'reilly knows the meaning, anyone who doesn't watch him should check him out.....In my opinion he is a great patriot....Anybody who hasn't watched him, heard him, or read any of his books, yet hates him because of what others have told them about him, should check him out for themselves, unless you like to live your life letting other people do your thinking for you in which case you should enjoy the kool-aid site.

 

[Drysdale]

Vote Libertarian.

 

[wooderson]

I would love to respond to this if I could only figure out what on earth you are trying to say.

Your argument was that JFK was not a 'Democrat' because he helped lower taxes inherited from the Eisenhower era. Which then begs the question - has any Democrat inherited marginal tax rates similar to those inherited by Kennedy, and was Eisenhower 'not a Republican' for presiding over those rates to start with.

This is not a difficult thought process.

I did read what you wrote. That is why I QUOTED YOU.

So you purposely mis-reported what I said? You claimed I had called the Democrats "fiscal conservatives" when what I said was "they moved right."

Again, not a difficult thought process.

Well did you find any?

You mean, again, aside from claims about WMDs and al-Qaeda?

 

[Deanimator]

Vote Libertarian.

That might be an option if:

1. They were a serious party. They're not. They make the Democrats look like a model of organizational efficiency. It's the geeks' "AV Club" of domestic politics.

2. I agreed with their "photographic negative of socialism" ideology. I don't. Unlike socialists, I don't believe that government is the solution to all of humanity's problems. Unlike Libertarians, I don't believe it's the solution to NONE of them.

 

[Lew]

Rem700SD

free trade econimics, adopted a stand supporting the Bill of Rights, along with personal responsibility, and dedicated themselves to reducing the fiscal size of government...?

Dan

It's like....the way America was.....supposed to be But then whom can I blame for all my short-comings as a: worker, student, parent, neighbor, citizen, consumer, etc. ?

 

[wooderson]

Absence of property rights is certainly a detraction from the premise of Capitalism. However, the presence of a State is not required to protect property rights; folks have been protecting their property rights for tens of thousands of years before Jefferson conceived of our Patent/Copyright system and the notion of an Government-managed full time community police force was implemented.

"Property rights" haven't existed for thousands of year. Property has (to differing extents) but not the concept of "property rights."

Property rights require enforcement - that enforcement (outside of non-existent lone wolves - there is no meaningful rugged individualism) rests on the barrel of a gun which has the backing of a state (again, de facto or de jure, large or small). That state may be a single township or it may be a tribe or it may be a superpower. But it holds a monopoly on the use of force, aimed at the protection (fundamentally) of property rights.

Even in anarcho-capitalist fairytale land, as power devolves to the select few who rise to the top, they form de facto 'states' with their own forces to protect holdings.

What do you call Social Security? It's a [illegal-if-I-did-it Ponzi scheme implementation of a] nationalized, mandatory retirement plan. FDR without a shadow of a doubt instrumented and implemented the nationalization of a mandatory retirement savings program, and it's become one of the great Government Entitlement Debacles of our time.

Ponzi schemes are capitalism at its basest - dog eat dog, winner take all.

But it's a national retirement plan, nothing more. It's welfare capitalism - too many people lost their savings and livelihoods during the Depression, the SSA (like most of the New Deal) was created to offset hardships. It's a modification of the social darwinism of previous eras, but ultimately a reform designed to stave off the harshest effects of capitalism and make it acceptable to the masses.

That's why the New Deal dealt a serious blow to Bolshevik recruitment of the era. The masses didn't need a revolution to ensure a chance at continued existence.

s far as I can tell, in the current Social Security plan the Nanny State takes my property away from me without my permission and promises to return it at some shifting point in the future with no guarantee therein. You call that protecting my property rights or lubricating the wheels of Capitalism.

Yes. If you don't protect society's weakest, capitalism becomes far less palatable to those at the bottom. You need social welfare (and SS etc.) to hold crime down and keep those individuals involved in the economy.

 

[.45&TKD]

JP1954,

I watch FOX News and I watch O'Reilly, and I am not a big fan of O'Reilly because he is not intellectually consistent. He is not a consistent conservative.

For example: He is self proclaimed as being tough on crime, but he against the death penalty. His analysis is riddled with other contradictions and lacks consistency. He gets it right about half the time and is more interested in sensational positions as opposed to the truth.

And he's not pro-gun, as he had nothing to say when he played the video of that little old lady having her revolver forcefully taken from her in her home in New Orleans by police. No outrage about this woman's civil rights being trampled on TV.

He's no Rush Limbaugh.