why i am not a republican

[jefhatfield]

all the talk of trent lott has brought up another round of politics...macrumors.com style ;)

i belong to another political party than that of senator lott and even though that party is only slightly closer to my social and religious views, it's not the best fit either

because i am a minority, odds are that i will not be a republican as the numbers show...but there are exceptions

i could be considered a yuppie based on the work i do in one of my jobs, my education level, my appearance, and my car and that group loosely called the yuppies have traditionally been aniti-republican (btw...i hate the term yuppie ;)

i am from a heavily democratic state and an even more heavily democratic county and city...from way back

little demographics here and there like i mentioned above make me opposed to being a republican

but what if i was born different (very rich, or disenfranchised blue collar white, or white instead of being asian, or southern) and from a different area of the country?

what if you were?

thoughts?

[mcrain]

Are you Asian? I only ask because I'm half Indian, and we are the MAJORITY.

A little over 6 billion people in the world. About a billion or so in China. About a billion in India. Add to that Japan, N and S Korea, Indonesia, Thialand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, Russia, all the 'Stans, and all the others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

One little tiny bubble on the "Race" questionairre, but without a doubt the largest group.

0 Caucasion
0 African American
0 Native American
0 Hispanic
x Asian

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by mcrain
Are you Asian? I only ask because I'm half Indian, and we are the MAJORITY.

A little over 6 billion people in the world. About a billion or so in China. About a billion in India. Add to that Japan, N and S Korea, Indonesia, Thialand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, Russia, all the 'Stans, and all the others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

One little tiny bubble on the "Race" questionairre, but without a doubt the largest group.

0 Caucasion
0 African American
0 Native American
0 Hispanic
x Asian

I think he was referring to be a minority in the US. If asian, you'd be a minority here.

[jelloshotsrule]

so, because of the demographics you choose your party? ie, "the majority of minorities (in the US) are dems, so i'll go with them"... that doesn't make any sense.


it's impossible to say what one would be like if born again, as all those different things affect how you are. your views. etc.

in other words, i fear if i were born a rich honkey in arkansas, i might not become the "leader of the free world" via the pants pissers... but perhaps just a different route...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain
Are you Asian? I only ask because I'm half Indian, and we are the MAJORITY.

A little over 6 billion people in the world. About a billion or so in China. About a billion in India. Add to that Japan, N and S Korea, Indonesia, Thialand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, Russia, all the 'Stans, and all the others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

One little tiny bubble on the "Race" questionairre, but without a doubt the largest group.

0 Caucasion
0 African American
0 Native American
0 Hispanic
x Asian

i am japanese american and even though george hw bush got the asian vote in 1992, the japanese american vote was democratic in that election

however, since then, the asian minorities in the usa have voted democratic

i started this thread to try and have people understand what it would be like to be born different than they currently are

i really wonder how i would vote if i lived in georgia and my father was the head of the augusta national private golf club and i was in the highest tax bracket and i owned a chain of restaurants

or what if i was a minority but my dad was colin powell?

or what if every family member i had was in the kkk?

or what if i lived in new hampshire and i wanted to win a seat in congress and i was an up and coming prosector?

interesting thoughts to say the least

[pgwalsh]

I think we need to send you a label maker and then you can just stick labels on people.

Now for some thoughts.

I live in California, notoriously liberal (except in San Diego). I'm certainly not a liberal, but more so than my girlfriend. She'd appear to be liberal (so you'd be able to stick one of your labels on her), but her political ideas and actions are not.

I was raised to be a Republican, but it didn't work and I'd consider myself a libertarian or centrist. I like democratic social ideals and republican business ideals - this could be a conversation in itself. I think people that make money should give to charities without hesitation. Of course they need to know if it's a good charity or not. I don't like republicans that use money to "get it" their way. That's bad business in my mind.

Democrats want the wealthy to pay for the poor and they have it right when it comes to some issues, but not all. I don't think the redistribution of wealth is really fair. I think you should keep what you earn, but be generous to helping organizations. If you don't have money then dedicate time. If you don't have time and money then you will not be reading this.

To label someone because of the car they drive or the clothes they wear is a bit silly. Lot's of people in Silicon Valley are very wealthy and liberal. You're more likely to vote for the party that represents your views. I do. Some people go with a party because that's what their friends are doing. That's pathetic.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
She'd appear to be liberal (so you'd be able to stick one of your labels on her), but her political ideas and actions are not.


just curious... what do you mean by "appear to be liberal"? like literally physical appearance? or based on her economic status... or something else?

i agree, it's ridiculous to join a party just because someone else you know did.

likewise, i think it's silly to joina party at all, because a party will NEVER (unless you're that party's biatch) represent all your views via all their candidates. therefore, vote in each election one by one... rather than right down the party line... in my opinion.

[MisterBlack]

jefhatfield is a yuppie.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by pgwalsh

She'd appear to be liberal (so you'd be able to stick one of your labels on her), but her political ideas and actions are not.



are you suggesting something kinky?

toss in mr. black and i think you have a real party:p :p :p

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


just curious... what do you mean by "appear to be liberal"? like literally physical appearance? or based on her economic status... or something else?


Just the way she presents herself. She presents herself one way, but truly is another. Not as much to do with the way she dresses as the way she speaks and acts. I'm comparing her to my other liberal friends. She likes to defy authority just because, but believes in what they're telling her, for the most part.

People look at me and say conservative because of the way I dress and look (which is a great ploy) and then get to know me and say friggin crazy.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


are you suggesting something kinky?

toss in mr. black and i think you have a real party:p :p :p I like to party...... :p

[D0ct0rteeth]

I have changed my political beliefs several times. To me the conclusion is not if I am one party of another but what politicians do I respect and approve of. Who has character and class?

I vote for who I want running my country. Not along a party line.. especially as it is so blurred now. I admire Nader and many independants, but I cant vote for him... if i had my way McCain would be running the show today.

Im a huge revolutionary war fan and love the classical politicians such as Hamilton and Jackson. Perhaps my political beliefs are based on the fact that I do move often and tend to be independant of the trends and cultures of certain areas. Men such as Ted Kennedy, George Pataki, and yes even GW Bush have proven to be men incapable of true leadership and the sad thing is that they get elected strictly based on uninformed and partisan decisions.

When Bush gets re-elected I may have to go over to Prague.

At least their leader is an artist :)

-Doc

**edit spelling**

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
<snip>
I live in California, notoriously liberal (except in San Diego).<snip>

I didn't know SD was all that conservative...hmmm, time to move I guess. ;)

Seriously, though, what makes you think San Diego is any less liberal than the rest of the state?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I didn't know SD was all that conservative...hmmm, time to move I guess. ;)

Seriously, though, what makes you think San Diego is any less liberal than the rest of the state?

former governor pete wilson;)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
former governor pete wilson;)

One conservative leader does not a conservative city make. ;)

Other reasons?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


One conservative leader does not a conservative city make. ;)

Other reasons?

nixon, or is san clemente a suburb of la?

i was there once as a young kid

[solvs]

Most people don't know this, but long ago Republican's were the ones wanting to abolish slavery. Lincoln was a Republican when that meant (and stood for) something else. It's changed so much over the years, being a Republican means something completely different now.

I like the way Bill Maher put it, "I'd be a Republican if only they would be".

The whole party political system has become corrupted by the greedy and selfish, with only a few decent so-called politicians in the bunch. But that's neither here nor there. I don't call myself anything, not wanting to be stuck with labels, and vote for who and what I believe in. Regardless of party or affiliation.

And minority refers to people of a certain class or ethnicity or sex or whatever that don't have the majority of percepted power.

Just had to be a Know-It-All today.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
nixon, or is san clemente a suburb of la?

i was there once as a young kid

San Clemente is in no-mans-land between LA and SD, but it's in Orange county so technically LA.

[zarathustra]

I was born anything but white and wealthy and am a republican. Please do put your label on me "REPUBLICAN". This is plain silly - this is why I feel that talking to democrats is like throwing beans on a wall. If you can come to conlcusions like that, you are a racist of your kind, not better than Trent Lott.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I didn't know SD was all that conservative...hmmm, time to move I guess. ;)

Seriously, though, what makes you think San Diego is any less liberal than the rest of the state?

The largest amount of votes for republicans in CA came from SD. Part of that is due to the large military presence.

[solvs]

Originally posted by D0ct0rteeth
I have changed my political beliefs several times. To me he conclusion is not if I am one party of another but what politicians to I respect and approve of. Who has charater and class?

I vote for who I would want running my country. Not along a party line.. especially as it is so blurred now. I admire Nader and many independants, but I cant vote for him... if i had my way McCain would be running the show today.

Im a huge revolutionary war fan and love the classical politicians such as Hamilton and Jackson. Perhaps my political beliefs are based on the fact that I do move often and tend to be independant of the trends and cultures of certain areas. Men such as Ted Kennedy, George Pataki, and yes even GW Bush have proven to be men incapable of true leadership and the sad thing is that they get elected strictly based on uninformed and partisan decisions.

When Bush gets re-elected I may have to go over to Prague.

At least their leader is an artist :)

-Doc

I agree. But don't forget, Hitler was an artist (at least according to some accounts, and that controversial new movie). Albeit frustrated and struggling. Maybe the leader in Prague is the exception to the rule, but I don't know if being an artist automatically qualifies you to be a good leader. Creative, though, yes.

I dunno. I'm an artist, and I wouldn't want me as a leader.

Prague is supposed to be beautiful though. :)

[drastik]

Let's see.

I am a white, wealthy, southerner with a conservative family who was educated in an all-boys souther-conservative school. (fairly lieral university, however.)

Aside from my assailed views on the estate tax, I am pretty far left. I do favor less taxation and more controlled spending, but that's really a result of both working with the government and growing up around a well functioning business run in a completely different (and successful) way than any of the government offices I've worked around.

Don't know what I would think if I were someone else. There is a philosphical idea (can't remeber who right now, Hobbs, maybe) called the curtan of ignorance. This goes that if you took people nad placed them in a postition of ignorance about who they would be in life, and then allowed them to design society, they would create an equal and just world. The idea is that everyone wants to be the best, but in the abscence of knowing who you are going o be, you'd just make everyone equally good and happy.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
The largest amount of votes for republicans in CA came from SD. Part of that is due to the large military presence.

Agreed. The military is a large part of the community here in SD.

Other than that, I feel SD is a liberal city in many respects: lifestyle, culture, etc.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Agreed. The military is a large part of the community here in SD.

Other than that, I feel SD is a liberal city in many respects: lifestyle, culture, etc.

i thought san diego was so conservative that people only wore long sleeves and long pants to the beach...in other words, no bikinis:confused:

[D0ct0rteeth]

Originally posted by solvs


I agree. But don't forget, Hitler was an artist (at least according to some accounts, and that controversial new movie). Albeit frustrated and struggling. Maybe the leader in Prague is the exception to the rule, but I don't know if being an artist automatically qualifies you to be a good leader. Creative, though, yes.

I dunno. I'm an artist, and I wouldn't want me as a leader.

Prague is supposed to be beautiful though. :)

Please read a bit about Vaclav Havel before comparing him to Hitler. The man is a great leader and has accomplished great things for his country since 1989. I know it wasn't meant literally.. but the man is closer to Martin Luther King than Hitler.

-Doc

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i thought san diego was so conservative that people only wore long sleeves and long pants to the beach...in other words, no bikinis:confused:
You see Rower is slowly assimilating without really knowing what's happening. He'll soon be taking in the voice of James Earl Jones and start breathing funny.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by pgwalsh

You see Rower is slowly assimilating without really knowing what's happening. He'll soon be taking in the voice of James Earl Jones and start breathing funny.

pgwalsh...I...am your father...

...wait, uh, I mean, it's really nice and non-conservative here.









Yup...that's us here in SD, just being non-conservative all day.




Not a hint of conservatism to be found.










None at all.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


pgwalsh...I...am your father...
. no father... Please no.....

[Paladin]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I was raised to be a Republican, but it didn't work and I'd consider myself a libertarian or centrist. I like democratic social ideals and republican business ideals - this could be a conversation in itself. I think people that make money should give to charities without hesitation. Of course they need to know if it's a good charity or not. I don't like republicans that use money to "get it" their way. That's bad business in my mind.

Libertarians are right of the Republican Party, not in the middle. If you believe in "democratic social ideals," then you cannot possibly be a Libertarian. The Libertarians believe in a federal government that sticks to Constitutional guidelines as far as size and scope. Democratic social programs expand the size and power of the government, therefore leaving behind the Libertarian platform.

I'm always wary of people who call themselves "centrist." There are no centrist positions. If you believe in some conservative and liberal positions, then you are more than likely an "independent". However, you aren't in the center. On some issues you are left and on others you are right, but you are never in the center of an issue.

I tend to vote Republican, but I'd say that I'm more conservative than most of the candidates. I agree that people should give to charities (I do), though I don't think charitable giving should be mandated by the federal government. Nor do I believe in income redistribution, especially at government gunpoint (i.e. income taxes). We need to educate and empower; we don't need to create a class dependent on the government teet.

John McCain is a one trick pony. His lone issue, campaign finance reform, is now used up, and it's destined to be struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don't believe that George W. is a strong speaker/debater, but he looked 100 times better than McCain in the 2000 presidential debates. Every McCain sentence focused on "special interests", and apparently that single stance didn't strike a chord with Republican voters. However, it did resonate with the Democratic voters that voted for him in the Republican primaries.

Finally, a little note about hyphenated Americans. We will never have a society free of discrimination until we start referring to each other by the same term: American. In order to jumpstart the equality process, we should begin by designating each other on equal terms. I'm not an Anglo-American; I am an American. Stop verbally segregating yourselves into these hyphenated groups. Our elected officials should do what is best for all Americans. They should not pander to certain groups in order to gain votes. I want what is best for everybody. I want everybody to get a quality education. I want everybody to be treated fairly in the job market. These things benefit our society as a whole. But don't say, we need better inner-city schools. Hell we also need better rural schools, and alot of suburban schools could also use some help too. We should be constantly asking ourselves: what is best for ALL Americans? Not: what is best for my self-segregated group? Then you should ask: can the federal government do this most efficiently and effectively? And finally: does the Constitution give them the power to do so?

[Durandal7]

jef, why do even bother to be a part of either political party if they don't suit you. It really is an odd view to be part of a party because of demoraphics. I frankly don't see how either party offers a big benefit to minorities. Just become an independent and be done with it.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Paladin


Libertarians are right of the Republican Party, not in the middle. If you believe in "democratic social ideals," then you cannot possibly be a Libertarian. The Libertarians believe in a federal government that sticks to Constitutional guidelines as far as size and scope. Democratic social programs expand the size and power of the government, therefore leaving behind the Libertarian platform.


That's like saying Libertarians are extreme Republicans, which is not the case. I do believe in a localized government and in that respect I'm more Libertarian/Republican. However, I am more centrist because of my social concerns with regards to health care. Taxes? I think we should have a flat tax not a rising scale. I don't think that's fair. As other people have said, I go for the candidate that is inline with my ideals and that tends to be closer to the middle. Oh, and I think Marijuana should be legal and so do many of the republicans and democrats I know.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Durandal7
jef, why do even bother to be a part of either political party if they don't suit you. It really is an odd view to be part of a party because of demoraphics. I frankly don't see how either party offers a big benefit to minorities. Just become an independent and be done with it.

i am a democrat because i believe in having a strong middle class and not have them be taxed too much

i believe in social programs and increased spending on education

i am for bi-lingual education, gay rights, women's rights, and many other liberal causes

but my evangelical christian views makes me against the idea of abortion, but illegalizing it would cause more problems and is something i started to realize when i read colin powell's book...he is strongly pro-choice, as is former governor pete wilson, and former first lady barbara bush

i also think it is wrong for the federal government to ban a quiet time of one or two minutes in schools...let the kids pay to any god they choose to... why should a child be scolded for believing in a god or god(s)?

so i don't neatly fit into being a solid democat, but it's better for me than being a republican...and i also don't agree with "most" of their views

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
so i don't neatly fit into being a solid democat, but it's better for me than being a republican...and i also don't agree with "most" of their views

but why do you feel the need to "fit" into anything?

vote for you who like better, as it sounds like you do. who cares about a label?

it's pointless

[mcrain]

Originally posted by D0ct0rteeth
I vote for who I want running my country. Not along a party line.. especially as it is so blurred now. I admire Nader and many independants, but I cant vote for him... if i had my way MCrain would be running the show today.

Oh yeah!!!!! Give me the power I so richly deserve.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


but why do you feel the need to "fit" into anything?

vote for you who like better, as it sounds like you do. who cares about a label?

it's pointless

i do not believe in labels but i wanted to register democrat so i could vote in the democratic primaries...and i couldn't do that without the label of "registered democrat"

personally, i think we should all be able to vote in the primaries, registered in a party or not...but that is not the current law in california

sometimes identifying oneself is important for practical reasons...once, when i was conducting an interview over the phone for my now defunct advertising business, i was talking to a female graphic designer with a great resume

we talked and agreed to meet at a coffee shop...she thought i was a white, jewish, fat, bald, seasoned MBA...when in reality i was this young, asian-american MBA student....she almost didn't find me and wondered how someone like me could sound like richard dreyfuss and live in california where i was born and raised...it must be too many movies ;)

her dad was a jewish businessman and i must have reminded her of him with my yiddish humor which i didn't know i had

i am a little like kramer (from seinfeld) i guess

she got the job, the company/business went under, but she married me so everything turned out ok in the end:p

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i do not believe in labels ...


i just don't think your posts support this in general.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain


Oh yeah!!!!! Give me the power I so richly deserve.

i second that nomination...he has balls

i once was approached to run for the liberal party for city council in my city when i was a tax law student for one semester...he he...dropped that venture real fast, and i was frightened by the city politics

in 1984, clint eastwood became the first liberal mayor of my town and legalized ice cream and high heels:p

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i do not believe in labels but i wanted to register democrat so i could vote in the democratic primaries...and i couldn't do that without the label of "registered democrat"

personally, i think we should all be able to vote in the primaries, registered in a party or not...but that is not the current law in california

sometimes identifying oneself is important for practical reasons...once, when i was conducting an interview over the phone for my now defunct advertising business, i was talking to a female graphic designer with a great resume

we talked and agreed to meet at a coffee shop...she thought i was a white, jewish, fat, bald, seasoned MBA...when in reality i was this young, asian-american MBA student....she almost didn't find me and wondered how someone like me could sound like richard dreyfuss and live in california where i was born and raised...it must be too many movies ;)

her dad was a jewish businessman and i must have reminded her of him with my yiddish humor which i didn't know i had

i am a little like kramer (from seinfeld) i guess

she got the job, the company/business went under, but she married me so everything turned out ok in the end:p
Well now we know why this business went under. You were too busy playing hanky panky in the office.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


i just don't think your posts support this in general.

sorry if i come across that way...as human beings, we are too complex to be a "conservative" or a "liberal" because almost everything in life is gray...maybe everything is;)

i have called myself liberal

or middle of the road

or moderate

or a conservative democrat

or a moderate democrat

...so i don't believe in one-word oversimplifications either

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by pgwalsh

Well now we know why this business went under. You were too busy playing hanky panky in the office.

and getting married has a way of slowing down hanky panky...doh:eek:

[GeeYouEye]

I don't have much time right now, so I'll keep it brief: to those who think people can't be centrist, just right and left on varying issues to gain a balance, I have a feeling the 60-some-odd% of those who didn't vote in the last election would agree with you. It is quite possible to be centrist; it just involves not asserting any ideals whatsoever.

[job]

I'm half asian/half white.

I lived overseas in Germany and England for almost 7 years.

I would tend to vote Libertarian or Republican

I'd probably consider myself a moderate conservative.

Or what ever the label is now...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by hitman
I'm half asian/half white.

I lived overseas in Germany and England for almost 7 years.

I would tend to vote Libertarian or Republican

I'd probably consider myself a moderate conservative.

Or what ever the label is now...

now that we know more about you, are you really a hitman, soprano's style?

and if you are, i have a short list of two people for you to get

bin laden
saddam hussein

oh, and bill gates:p :p

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


and getting married has a way of slowing down hanky panky...doh:eek:

and either jerry seinfled or david letterman put it best about married sex

nipple pinching and the 9pm butt scratch:cool:

[solvs]

Originally posted by D0ct0rteeth


Please read a bit about Vaclav Havel before comparing him to Hitler. The man is a great leader and has accomplished great things for his country since 1989. I know it wasn't meant literally.. but the man is closer to Martin Luther King than Hitler.

-Doc

Oops. Sorry.

That came out wrong. I didn't mean to compare him to Hitler. What little I know about him, he seems to be the gentler type of artists. I meant just being an artist doesn't make you a good leader. Some artists create beauty, some depict pain.

I got the point, I just thought I'd share my view. Just to clarify, Hitler bad. Prague good. That was the "exception to the rule" part.

Again, I'm honestly really sorry for the mis-wording.

-

Most of the time I'm right... unless I say something stupid.

[MrMacMan]

[/Rant On]
[Start Raving with Sarcasm]
*loud gasps are heard* 'Is he going on a Political Rant?' 'OH NO! HE IS!' *as the rest of the Macrumors membors yell in horror*
Hello, I'm Rich, White as was born the son of A Rich, business man, but I took a different coarse then my dad.
Unluckily I have a huge temper when I get something wrong, and when I snap, all hell just brok' loose on you!
But that's not why I'm here, it's because I belive our super military needs to flex it's muscle, even against countries which have no real economy and have a slim change to have things like *WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION__*. Even though the country has little products to protect itself from forign attacks, it is good because they have a chance to optain *WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION_*. But that is not the only reason I vote with republicans, it is also because I like our intelligence agency.
We use-to have like 30, but now we have like 3, one monitors everything, one monitors the interweb and the other our skys. Aint that a Great system? I mean I don't like rights, well inless it is a tax-loop hole.
*erm, yeah I'd like to hold off my tax payments I fall under the 'Patriot Act' Clause 31 Section 3 Sentence 62. "All persons who use this clause and make over 500,000 yearly need to be in tax bracket 1 (lowest)." "You got that, thanks." You see, loopholes are great. Heck I love our government even more because they don't let us have those other rights that all americans have the right to. Right to free Press? noooo, we don't like that. Right to have a trial and no search and seizures without a judge's permission, nooo, why would you ever like those right?
Oh yeah I like what our government is doing now, people can be put under this special thing called 'enemy combattants' those are soooo cool, you wanna know why. Because while under those laws they don't have a right to a trial, jury, lawyers, or heck Basic Human rights! Those are GREAT!
That is why I love right, I mean really right, if the person was a member of the KKK, I vote for him, person grandson of Nazi party, vote for him.
If the U.S government says they need my help, I'll be there, if they ask me to spy for them, I'll be there, if they ask me to beat the crap out of little iraqi children then I'm gonna do it!
I'm TOTALLY with you america.
[/End Sarcasm]
[/end Rant]

[D0ct0rteeth]

Originally posted by solvs


Oops. Sorry.

That came out wrong. I didn't mean to compare him to Hitler. What little I know about him, he seems to be the gentler type of artists. I meant just being an artist doesn't make you a good leader. Some artists create beauty, some depict pain.

I got the point, I just thought I'd share my view. Just to clarify, Hitler bad. Prague good. That was the "exception to the rule" part.

Again, I'm honestly really sorry for the mis-wording.

Its cool. I knew what you meant.

I agree.

-Doc

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and getting married has a way of slowing down hanky panky...doh:eek:

Well, I'm about to be single again. Those words are so true.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by MrMacman
I mean I don't like rights, well inless it is a tax-loop hole.
*erm, yeah I'd like to hold off my tax payments I fall under the 'Patriot Act' Clause 31 Section 3 Sentence 62. "All persons who use this clause and make over 500,000 yearly need to be in tax bracket 1 (lowest)." "You got that, thanks." You see, loopholes are great. Heck I love our government even more because they don't let us have those other rights that all americans have the right to. Right to free Press? noooo, we don't like that. Right to have a trial and no search and seizures without a judge's permission, nooo, why would you ever like those right?
Oh yeah I like what our government is doing now, people can be put under this special thing called 'enemy combattants' those are soooo cool, you wanna know why. Because while under those laws they don't have a right to a trial, jury, lawyers, or heck Basic Human rights! Those are GREAT!
That is why I love right, I mean really right, if the person was a member of the KKK, I vote for him, person grandson of Nazi party, vote for him.


Where to begin...your comments about tax laws and loopholes are asinine. First of all, the Patriot Act has nothing to do with taxes. But while you mention it, the top 1% of wage earners in this country pay 37.4% of all federal income taxes. By comparison, the bottom 50% pay only 3.9% of the tax bill. Since those "evil" rich people earn 20.8% of the income and pay 37.4% of the taxes, I'd say that they are more than paying their fair share. There is no loophole that excludes these people from taxes. How much of the income does the bottom 50% earn? Try 13%. That's weird because they only pay 3.9% of all income taxes. It sounds like a lot of people are riding the coattails of the rich. Funny, those same people also use the majority of government services. Oh, and they also tend to vote Democrat because the liberals have relieved them of their tax liabilities. Before you start demonizing rich people, you should thank them for financing your government.

We don't have a free press? This is certainly news to me. I'd like to hear some kind of explanation for that statement. My bad, you just like to make ridiculous comments without using facts or evidence to back them up.

I'll agree with the search and seizure statement. The government is getting way too big in that area; however, I haven't seen anybody in this country denied their right to a trial. The "enemy combatants" are basically war criminals from foreign countries, therefore, they are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Since they are not protected, they don't have all of the rights of U.S. Citizens or other people who are in this country legally. Don't say that they are not afforded basic human rights. They have more rights and a better lifestyle in Guantanamo Bay than they could ever find in Afghanistan, except for the prisoner aspect of the situation. It baffles me that people care more about the rights of these prisoners than they do about rights of people in countries like China and Iraq. Also, the government doesn't have the right to randomly name people "enemy combatants." They are indeed prisoners of war, not law abiding residents of this country.

Next, the KKK is not a conservative group. For that matter, it's not a liberal group either. But since you are obviously trying to insinuate that conservatives are racist, I'll offer you a little history. Abraham Lincoln, Republican President, authored the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a Republican-led congress that proposed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was opposed by southern Democrats. Jim Crowe laws were passed by state legislatures with Democratic majorities. South Carolina had both a Democratic governor and legislature when they decided to fly the Confederate Flag over the state capital. George Wallace, Democratic governor of Alabama, tried to block integration at the Univ. of Alabama. Richard Nixon, Republican President, dispatched the National Guard to remove him. Robert Byrd, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, is a former KKK member and currently sits fourth in line to the Presidency as President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Shall I continue?

Finally, the Nazis were far left, not far right. You see, Nazi is short for National Socialist Party. The Nazis were indeed socialists, and therefore they were extreme left wing. That's why they had a government with enough power to round up citizens and systematically starve them to death. They also indoctrinated their children with socialist propaganda in government run schools. It was the essence of a police state. Make no mistake, those people were ultra-liberals, not conservatives. Thanks for playing.

[Groovsonic]

Congratulations Paladin, That was the BEST essay on why I am a Republican I have ever heard.

By the way, I HATE that stereotype that republicans are rich white men. About half of the country votes republican. There are not that many rich white men. I also HATE when they call the KKK a "ultra right wing" group. Huh??? When did being a horrible racist pig become a right-wing thing?

By the way, I am white, but not currently rich. And I am CERTIANLY not a racist.

[Choppaface]

Originally posted by Paladin
[B] I'll offer you a little history. Abraham Lincoln, Republican President, authored the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a Republican-led congress that proposed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was opposed by southern Democrats. Jim Crowe laws were passed by state legislatures with Democratic majorities. South Carolina had both a Democratic governor and legislature when they decided to fly the Confederate Flag over the state capital. George Wallace, Democratic governor of Alabama, tried to block integration at the Univ. of Alabama. Richard Nixon, Republican President, dispatched the National Guard to remove him. Robert Byrd, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, is a former KKK member and currently sits fourth in line to the Presidency as President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Shall I continue?


this reading of history completely neglects the change that the parties have undergone over the past 10-200 years. the democrats of the past tend to live where the republicans of today do....yet regional opinions and beliefs have generally not moved with the parties. arguing that the republicans of today (or even the democrats for that matter) have anything to do with Lincoln is to spout political marketing. if one is to take such a shallow view of the parties and history, it is just as easy to say that the Emancipation Proclamation was a compassionate act and therefore liberal. but things are a lot more complex than that

[Paladin]

Originally posted by Choppaface
arguing that the republicans of today (or even the democrats for that matter) have anything to do with Lincoln is to spout political marketing. if one is to take such a shallow view of the parties and history, it is just as easy to say that the Emancipation Proclamation was a compassionate act and therefore liberal. but things are a lot more complex than that

Yes, it is a little political marketing to talk about Lincoln. However, he was a Republican. My short history was given simply to prove that Republicans have a very good record over the last 150 years. The Democrats, I would argue, have more skeletons in the closet when it comes to minority issues. It was the Republican Party that came up with low-tax empowerment zones to spur economic development in poorer neighborhoods. It was the Republican Party that forced the passage of Welfare Reform (Clinton takes credit, though he vetoed it twice). It is the Republican Party that wants school vouchers to help lower income families get out of failing schools. Where are the Democratic ideas? Hint: they all deal with keeping people dependent on the government. That is the major difference between the parties. The Republicans want to empower others so that they can become successful. The Democrats want a dependent class of voters that will continue to keep them in power. Entitlement programs don't breed success. I don't know a single person that has ever become sucessful through income redistribution.

It's nonsense to say that all compassionate acts are inherently liberal. Show me a definition for the word "liberal" that means "compassionate." While unlimited time spent on Welfare and thirteen extra weeks of unemployment might seem compassionate, I'd argue that education and job training would mean much more to somebody's future. You know the old saying: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Entitlement programs ultimately create a class of people that are beholden to the government. Short-term benefits eventually lead to both long-term dependency and reduced self-sufficiency. We need to curb the giving and do more teaching. There is a definite difference in the ideologies of the two parties. The Republicans believe that this country is great because of both our people and our freedom. The Democrats believe that this country is great because of government. Never forget that you are much more capable than the government when it comes to providing for your future.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Paladin
Libertarians are right of the Republican Party, not in the middle. If you believe in "democratic social ideals," then you cannot possibly be a Libertarian. The Libertarians believe in a federal government that sticks to Constitutional guidelines as far as size and scope. Democratic social programs expand the size and power of the government, therefore leaving behind the Libertarian platform.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with right and left. (Ignore the `s)


```````````Libertarianism
````````` /``````` ``````\
`````````/``````````````` \
Liberalism `````````````` Conservatism
`````````\ `````````````` /
``````````\ `````````````/
``````````Authoritarianism

You can be a liberal libertarian, a liberal authoritarian, an authoritarian conservative, or a libertarian conservative. Or anything in between any of those. Everybody falls somewhere on that graph no matter what their political beliefs.
I'm always wary of people who call themselves "centrist." There are no centrist positions. If you believe in some conservative and liberal positions, then you are more than likely an "independent". However, you aren't in the center. On some issues you are left and on others you are right, but you are never in the center of an issue.
Centrists are those who don't have strong feelings on issues except to say that they generally agree with the mean between the two extreme views. (Example centrist view on taxes: "We do need to be taxed, but not a huge amount.")

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Paladin
We don't have a free press? This is certainly news to me. I'd like to hear some kind of explanation for that statement. My bad, you just like to make ridiculous comments without using facts or evidence to back them up.
I wouldn't go so far as to say our press isn't "free", but it's certainly not as free as it could be when you consider that it's almost entirely dominated by a handful of major corporations who will tell you what they want you to hear. Disney/ABC; Time Warner/Turner; News Corp; Bertelsmann; GE/NBC; CBS; Viacom; Microsoft; Gannet. And a few others I forgot. So the right to free press is technically there, but I think this is what MrMacman was kind of unsuccessfully getting at.
I'll agree with the search and seizure statement. The government is getting way too big in that area; however, I haven't seen anybody in this country denied their right to a trial. The "enemy combatants" are basically war criminals from foreign countries, therefore, they are not protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The "enemy combatants" have been declared "enemy combatants" because calling them "prisoners of war" would have meant that they would have to be released under the Geneva Convention. This doesn't have as much to do with the Constitution as it does international law. It could be argued that these "enemy combatants" are prisoners of war who are not being given proper treatment. Aside from that, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen accused of plotting a terrorist attack, is the first victim of the no-trial-for-you treatment. Anyway, he surely won't be the last. The Patriot Act grants the government power to indefinitely incarcerate anyone suspected of terrorist activity, with no oversight or checks on their power. (In other words: The government now has power to jail anyone they want, for any reason under the sun. Even if they don't suspect that you're a terrorist, they can lie and say they do, and nobody can do anything about it.)
Since they are not protected, they don't have all of the rights of U.S. Citizens or other people who are in this country legally. Don't say that they are not afforded basic human rights. They have more rights and a better lifestyle in Guantanamo Bay than they could ever find in Afghanistan, except for the prisoner aspect of the situation.
And John F. Kennedy is alive... except for the "dead" aspect of the situation.
It baffles me that people care more about the rights of these prisoners than they do about rights of people in countries like China and Iraq.
What makes you think anybody does? Personally, I care about rights, period, whether for everyday honest citizens or the most brutal killers. I care about rights in China and Iraq and I care about rights in Guantanamo Bay.
Also, the government doesn't have the right to randomly name people "enemy combatants." They are indeed prisoners of war, not law abiding residents of this country.
So you agree then that they should either be tried for war crimes under the G.C. or released.
Next, the KKK is not a conservative group. For that matter, it's not a liberal group either. But since you are obviously trying to insinuate that conservatives are racist, I'll offer you a little history. Abraham Lincoln, Republican President, authored the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a Republican-led congress that proposed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was opposed by southern Democrats. Jim Crowe laws were passed by state legislatures with Democratic majorities. South Carolina had both a Democratic governor and legislature when they decided to fly the Confederate Flag over the state capital. George Wallace, Democratic governor of Alabama, tried to block integration at the Univ. of Alabama. Richard Nixon, Republican President, dispatched the National Guard to remove him. Robert Byrd, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, is a former KKK member and currently sits fourth in line to the Presidency as President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Shall I continue?
You're correct in all of this, but your point is hollow because it means nothing. Democrats and Republicans have changed platforms so much over the years that what they used to be has nothing to do with what they currently are.
Finally, the Nazis were far left, not far right. You see, Nazi is short for National Socialist Party. The Nazis were indeed socialists, and therefore they were extreme left wing. That's why they had a government with enough power to round up citizens and systematically starve them to death. They also indoctrinated their children with socialist propaganda in government run schools. It was the essence of a police state. Make no mistake, those people were ultra-liberals, not conservatives. Thanks for playing.
The Nazis were ultra-right. When carried to as much of an extreme as these parties/countries did, it's easy to see that the far-left and far-right have a way of "wrapping around" and meeting each other as if left and right were on opposite ends of a circle. The Nazis were far right and not far left because, although they called themselves socialists, their social policy of mass exclusion was contradictory to leftist ideals of inclusion, and their economic policy was in no way socialist (aside from the central planning necessitated by war, which also happened in the conservative U.S.). So if you're trying to equate extreme liberalism with something truly "evil," equate it with the Soviet government, which was far left.

[Paladin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by alex_ant
I wouldn't go so far as to say our press isn't "free", but it's certainly not as free as it could be when you consider that it's almost entirely dominated by a handful of major corporations who will tell you what they want you to hear. Disney/ABC; Time Warner/Turner; News Corp; Bertelsmann; GE/NBC; CBS; Viacom; Microsoft; Gannet. And a few others I forgot. So the right to free press is technically there, but I think this is what MrMacman was kind of unsuccessfully getting at.


Yes, the major news organizations are owned by corporations, but, in my opinion, that has nothing to do with the free press argument. There are major barriers to entry (money being the biggest) if one wants to be a major player in the press; however, that doesn't mean that smaller press organizations are in any way hindered. For instance, I could start my own newspaper tomorrow and publish whatever news I wanted. The circulation might not be that high and I might not have a TV station, but I still have the freedom to acquire and publish the news. The press is free, as Congress has passed no law to limit that freedom. Unfortunately, some in the press have more powerful voices and tend to overshadow the minor players. Have no fear, those smaller voices are still out there if you want to hear them. Remember, while we do have freedom of speech, nobody can guarantee that others will listen. The same holds true for the press. I'm curious to hear your ideas about how to free up the press.

[Choppaface]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Libertarianism has nothing to do with right and left. (Ignore the `s)


```````````Libertarianism
````````` /``````` ``````\
`````````/``````````````` \
Liberalism `````````````` Conservatism
`````````\ `````````````` /
``````````\ `````````````/
``````````Authoritarianism

You can be a liberal libertarian, a liberal authoritarian, an authoritarian conservative, or a libertarian conservative. Or anything in between any of those. Everybody falls somewhere on that graph no matter what their political beliefs.
[/b]


what about somebody exactly in the center? then esentially there doens't seem to be any measurement..... it seems like a scale would need far more than two axes in order to accurately estimate somebody's political opinon

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Paladin
Yes, the major news organizations are owned by corporations, but, in my opinion, that has nothing to do with the free press argument. There are major barriers to entry (money being the biggest) if one wants to be a major player in the press; however, that doesn't mean that smaller press organizations are in any way hindered. For instance, I could start my own newspaper tomorrow and publish whatever news I wanted.
Could you really? How would you stay financially viable?
The circulation might not be that high and I might not have a TV station, but I still have the freedom to acquire and publish the news.
If the press is free but requires one to have huge masses of money and capital just to stay in business, is it really free for anyone besides those who dominate it? What good is freedom if it can't be exercised?
The press is free, as Congress has passed no law to limit that freedom. Unfortunately, some in the press have more powerful voices and tend to overshadow the minor players. Have no fear, those smaller voices are still out there if you want to hear them.
A few points:

- I'd be willing to bet that most people don't even realize the "smaller voices" exist
- Journalism from independent sources tends to be sloppy and spotty because these sources don't have the financial resources to hire good talent or to improve the breadth of their coverage, which traps them in a perpetual cycle of mediocrity
- They are seen as extremist and fringe because their message runs contrary to what is common (Headline News and its fashion model anchors)
- It can take great energy and time just to find an independent source worth listening to, and as I said before, a lot of them suck because they don't have, and can't gain, the resources to do better.
Remember, while we do have freedom of speech, nobody can guarantee that others will listen.
This is true, but the current economic advantage that the media corporations have virtually guarantees that others won't listen to independent voices, for the above reasons. It's an economic silencing.
The same holds true for the press. I'm curious to hear your ideas about how to free up the press.
I do have ideas on how this situation could be reformed, but they're irrelevant to the point I was trying to make (that freedom of the press is, to some extent - not a complete extent - an illusion). My argument is that although the press is free in law, it's not free in practice.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Choppaface
what about somebody exactly in the center? then esentially there doens't seem to be any measurement..... it seems like a scale would need far more than two axes in order to accurately estimate somebody's political opinon
A social/economic centrist would be exactly in the center of that plane. I'm pretty sure it covers any political belief, although it is only a vague measurement.