Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Poll: Which U.S. political party do you most strongly agree with?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Unity please
I voted democrat because officially I am registered as one, but I am not big on anyones agenda.
I feel that the more we try and seperate ourselves the more we see that we are all one.
I voted democrat because officially I am registered as one, but I am not big on anyones agenda.
I feel that the more we try and seperate ourselves the more we see that we are all one.
Re: Re: Legalize weed
It's nice to see a fairly polite political discussion going on. Thanks, everyone!
It's nice to see a fairly polite political discussion going on. Thanks, everyone!
I'm curious but ignorant. Can someone explain why this is true?
He's the only candidate who says he prefers Macs to PCs without hedging. That oughta be worth a few votes.Originally posted by leet1
no no no...its all about Pres. Sharpton
That's better than being a registered member of the Donner Party!
libertarian? why am I skeptical that you are libertarian, er... Libertarian with the above comment?
A true Libertarian would advocate a smaller government, with public lands being sold to private individuals and parties, and the only public lands that are the 10 square miles in Washington DC, and for forts, arsenals, docks, magazines, etc.
Here is the Libertarian position on the environment
I think you need to look at the individuals rather than the party. There are some very liberal Republicans (Arlen Specter comes to mind) that are really RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). If people vote for those guys, they should be stuck with them. If you want the more free-market oriented Republicans you need to support those. There's a great group called the Club for Growth that works to elect Republicans that truly believe in free markets and economic liberty. If this is the kind of thing that interests you, you might consider joining.
Re: 2 things the US needs to solve
Democracy is not all its cracked up to be. Better to live in a constitutionally-limited republic.
Here is an article comparing a democracy to a constitutionally-limited republic. PaulWhannel might recognize the author, if he is Libertarian, as he claims to be. (Sorry, with the last comment about environmental issues, you don't sound Libertarian to me.)
A simpler analogy for Democracy and constitutionally-limited republic is...
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on whats for dinner.
Constitutionally-limited Republic is where the sheep has veto power over the choice made by the wolves.
Here's another article where a Democracy vs Republic is discussed. This one is more colorful.
Democracy is not all its cracked up to be. Better to live in a constitutionally-limited republic.
Here is an article comparing a democracy to a constitutionally-limited republic. PaulWhannel might recognize the author, if he is Libertarian, as he claims to be. (Sorry, with the last comment about environmental issues, you don't sound Libertarian to me.)
A simpler analogy for Democracy and constitutionally-limited republic is...
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on whats for dinner.
Constitutionally-limited Republic is where the sheep has veto power over the choice made by the wolves.
Here's another article where a Democracy vs Republic is discussed. This one is more colorful.
Hear! Hear!
I just got a notification from my HR saying that the amount for the 401K tax-exempt contribution has increased. I think that there should be NO limit to the 401K tax-exempt contribution.
If I can live off of macaroni and cheese and Top Ramen, and put away 80% of my income for retirement, why should the first 10% be the only part that is untaxed?
Re: Consumer sovereignty
Consumers have always had the power over the businesses. Its just that consumers have not exercised that power in a long time. As to only supporting companies that behave correctly, that is a power/choice that consumers already have, in capitalist societies. For some consumers, a correctly behaving company is one that is responsive to their customers, have good customer service and gives value. For other consumers, they add on other criteria on top of a company delivering value, such as environmental concerns, conservative family value concerns, etc. Here, the market will decide for itself what it wants.
Current market conditions indicate that Sin companies (tobacco, gambling, etc) make more money than the other types of companies (ice cream). That is just the way the market is at this point. Besides, there is nothing (except advertising costs) that is stopping a consumer group from berating Sin companies and exalting the 'good' companies. Its when you start using the government stick to do so that people get worried. Because now that you have given government the ability to stick it to certain companies/individuals, what is there to stop it from doing to others?
Its better to have the power in private consumer groups where it can be counteracted (if used badly) by other private consumer groups, than have the government be involved.
Consumers have always had the power over the businesses. Its just that consumers have not exercised that power in a long time. As to only supporting companies that behave correctly, that is a power/choice that consumers already have, in capitalist societies. For some consumers, a correctly behaving company is one that is responsive to their customers, have good customer service and gives value. For other consumers, they add on other criteria on top of a company delivering value, such as environmental concerns, conservative family value concerns, etc. Here, the market will decide for itself what it wants.
Current market conditions indicate that Sin companies (tobacco, gambling, etc) make more money than the other types of companies (ice cream). That is just the way the market is at this point. Besides, there is nothing (except advertising costs) that is stopping a consumer group from berating Sin companies and exalting the 'good' companies. Its when you start using the government stick to do so that people get worried. Because now that you have given government the ability to stick it to certain companies/individuals, what is there to stop it from doing to others?
Its better to have the power in private consumer groups where it can be counteracted (if used badly) by other private consumer groups, than have the government be involved.
Its very weird.
Somehow, the Democrats have been given the credit for being more caring of the environment than Republicans.
But I pose to you one question. Which party would the consumer group that lobbied to subject themselves to a 10% excise tax (Pittman-Robertson) vote for?
Seems to me that this group has been more pro-environment than the recent environmentalists (read, lawyers), and have actually put their money where their mouth is, and actually have used the money for wetland preservation and habitat improvement.
How many of these recent environmentalists are millionaires after getting large multi-million dollar environmental lawsuit judgements? How much of these monies are funnelled back into actually improving the environment?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For the Google-impaired, the consumer group I talk about are the hunters and fishermen. They have been paying 10% of sporting supplies for use in wildlife habitat improvements, and even some outright purchases of land for conservation (and even some for preservation).
Difference between conservation and preservation is one is wise use of renewable resources, while preservation is no use of nonrenewable resources.
Recent environmentalists are preservationists, wanting no use of resources, even if they might be renewable. This is what turned me off from the environmentalist groups.
Somehow, the Democrats have been given the credit for being more caring of the environment than Republicans.
But I pose to you one question. Which party would the consumer group that lobbied to subject themselves to a 10% excise tax (Pittman-Robertson) vote for?
Seems to me that this group has been more pro-environment than the recent environmentalists (read, lawyers), and have actually put their money where their mouth is, and actually have used the money for wetland preservation and habitat improvement.
How many of these recent environmentalists are millionaires after getting large multi-million dollar environmental lawsuit judgements? How much of these monies are funnelled back into actually improving the environment?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For the Google-impaired, the consumer group I talk about are the hunters and fishermen. They have been paying 10% of sporting supplies for use in wildlife habitat improvements, and even some outright purchases of land for conservation (and even some for preservation).
Difference between conservation and preservation is one is wise use of renewable resources, while preservation is no use of nonrenewable resources.
Recent environmentalists are preservationists, wanting no use of resources, even if they might be renewable. This is what turned me off from the environmentalist groups.
Glad to see there are a few Republican Apple users out there.
BTW, thanks, Frohickey, for making the "democracy" vs. "republic" argument. I don't know what words some of these people use when they say the pledge of allegiance (assuming they ever say it).
I used to consider myself a Dem when I was a naive high-schooler and didn't understand why we all just couldn't "get along". Then, I fell under the Libertarianism spell when I realized that there are truly evil people out there who would as soon kill you as look at you. Now that I have a kid, I guess I'm a Republican ("Libertarian lite", if you will), since I'm protective and despise most of the current popular culture. Besides, Libertarianism kind of falls apart if you just watch "Cops". You really think some of these people can determine their own lives? Think the rest of us can stomach watching them try?
A national sales tax would be great. I would love to see it spelled out on every receipt, that way it's not taken from your pay before you even see it. Plus, it would simplify everything and get rid of the bureaucracy. Exactly why it won't happen.
Just too bad most Republicans don't care enough about environmental issues (and people in general are just too lazy to recycle). It's a very short-sighted view which will bite (cost) us eventually. Sure, landfills are cheap. Do you want to live next to one? Never happen? Maybe...
BTW, thanks, Frohickey, for making the "democracy" vs. "republic" argument. I don't know what words some of these people use when they say the pledge of allegiance (assuming they ever say it).
I used to consider myself a Dem when I was a naive high-schooler and didn't understand why we all just couldn't "get along". Then, I fell under the Libertarianism spell when I realized that there are truly evil people out there who would as soon kill you as look at you. Now that I have a kid, I guess I'm a Republican ("Libertarian lite", if you will), since I'm protective and despise most of the current popular culture. Besides, Libertarianism kind of falls apart if you just watch "Cops". You really think some of these people can determine their own lives? Think the rest of us can stomach watching them try?
A national sales tax would be great. I would love to see it spelled out on every receipt, that way it's not taken from your pay before you even see it. Plus, it would simplify everything and get rid of the bureaucracy. Exactly why it won't happen.
Just too bad most Republicans don't care enough about environmental issues (and people in general are just too lazy to recycle). It's a very short-sighted view which will bite (cost) us eventually. Sure, landfills are cheap. Do you want to live next to one? Never happen? Maybe...
Contradiction
I'm a pro-environment, pro-states rights, pro-Constitution, liberal Republican.
Yes, that's right.
I agree with what the Republican political party is supposed to stand for. (Small government, little taxes, balanced budget, and little interference from the government in personal and corporate affairs.) But I am a social liberal (pro-Abortion, pro-Assisted suicide, pro-death penalty, pro gay marriage, pro-gun, pretty much pro-letting-you-do-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-it-doesn't-infringe-on-my-freedom,) and I strongly support environmental protection (I believe that federally controlled wildlands should *NOT* be clearcut or have mining or drilling allowed.) I believe in giving over most of the control to the individual states (as the constitution says,) with a tiny federal government that exists solely to handle international affairs and the military.
Oh, yeah, and I'm pro military. I support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, but I don't support the lies that were used to make it come about.
Needless to say, it's really hard for me to find a presidential candidate I actually like. I care more for personal freedoms than anything else, so even though I'm registered as a Republican, I tend to vote Democrat more often than not. (I'm also a realist, so I don't vote for candidates that have no chance of winning, even if I prefer them, like Nader.)
I'm a pro-environment, pro-states rights, pro-Constitution, liberal Republican.
Yes, that's right.
I agree with what the Republican political party is supposed to stand for. (Small government, little taxes, balanced budget, and little interference from the government in personal and corporate affairs.) But I am a social liberal (pro-Abortion, pro-Assisted suicide, pro-death penalty, pro gay marriage, pro-gun, pretty much pro-letting-you-do-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-it-doesn't-infringe-on-my-freedom,) and I strongly support environmental protection (I believe that federally controlled wildlands should *NOT* be clearcut or have mining or drilling allowed.) I believe in giving over most of the control to the individual states (as the constitution says,) with a tiny federal government that exists solely to handle international affairs and the military.
Oh, yeah, and I'm pro military. I support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, but I don't support the lies that were used to make it come about.
Needless to say, it's really hard for me to find a presidential candidate I actually like. I care more for personal freedoms than anything else, so even though I'm registered as a Republican, I tend to vote Democrat more often than not. (I'm also a realist, so I don't vote for candidates that have no chance of winning, even if I prefer them, like Nader.)
Re: Re: Consumer sovereignty
I think we're basically in agreement. My point is that most people don't pause to think about what their dollars are supporting when they make a purchase. Even those of us who do think about this are usually in possession of so little information about the corporations we're buying from (and the corporations that own them) that we can't make an informed decision. What I'm suggesting is that, in order for society to function in this post-democratic century, we need to develop and use more tools for 'following-the-money'.
For the determined, there are ways to find out what the companies you're supporting are up to, globally, but they're difficult/expensive. One role I'd like to see governments filling is in the dissemination of complete and unbiased data on what corporations are doing what (and who owns what percentages of who, and how much they're making).
Given that governments are now no longer in control of what corporations can and cannot do, at least they could be telling their citizens what corporations are doing, so that the citizens could make rational decisions about whether they wanted support said corporations.
Cheers
I think we're basically in agreement. My point is that most people don't pause to think about what their dollars are supporting when they make a purchase. Even those of us who do think about this are usually in possession of so little information about the corporations we're buying from (and the corporations that own them) that we can't make an informed decision. What I'm suggesting is that, in order for society to function in this post-democratic century, we need to develop and use more tools for 'following-the-money'.
For the determined, there are ways to find out what the companies you're supporting are up to, globally, but they're difficult/expensive. One role I'd like to see governments filling is in the dissemination of complete and unbiased data on what corporations are doing what (and who owns what percentages of who, and how much they're making).
Given that governments are now no longer in control of what corporations can and cannot do, at least they could be telling their citizens what corporations are doing, so that the citizens could make rational decisions about whether they wanted support said corporations.
Cheers
I live outside US and we here are really afraid of people running white house. I sincerely hope that Mr. Bush will loose next elections. Bill Clinton was one of greatest US presidents ever. He wasn't perfect(no human being really is !!hm maybe except me ) but that dude was so damn cool. Call me wrong here but looking back 30-40 years it seems to me that only democratic presidents had that aura of humanity around them(Kennedy,Carter) while republican presidents were more cold calculated,ignorant and sometimes rather nasty.
Regards
) but that dude was so damn cool. Call me wrong here but looking back 30-40 years it seems to me that only democratic presidents had that aura of humanity around them(Kennedy,Carter) while republican presidents were more cold calculated,ignorant and sometimes rather nasty.Regards
Originally posted by Frohickey
Yeah.
Redistricting ought to be done by a computer, subdividing the location with hex grids, ala board wargames.
That is close to what they have gone to. They use the computers to gerrymander. Its more efficiently evil.
Personally I think the boundaries should follow county lines, then major water features.
A flat national sales tax would put so many tax preparers and accountants out of work that I doubt it would happen. It would be nice if it happened though.
As to the myth that Republicans don't care about environmental issues. I think that is a myth. Republicans breathe air and drink water too. Recycling is a good thing too. I remember before this current trend of recycling aluminum cans and plastics and stuff, back in the 80s. My sister and I would go and dumpster dive for cans, and go to the recycling center. We'd get money for recycling, and that would supplement out small allowances. This continues on to a smaller degree. I still save my cans and bottles, but I do so on my own, and I don't put it in the yellow bin provided by the city trash. Why should I give them money that I could otherwise have on my own if I recycled it myself?
What this large scale recycling by the municipalities have done is given more city bureaucracy, and have dropped recycling prices. You used to have street people hover around the recycling places, and some make enough to do just that, and not panhandle, prices are low enough now that these guys are hurt.
Libertarianism and 'Cops'. People should be able to run their own lives. Thats what freedom is all about. Not saying that people should be able to run around and hurt other people. That is what government is for, to protect my rights from others. What the Demopublicans have done is not that at all. No knock drug raids on the wrong house ending in dead homeowners that tried to protect himself from the ninja-clad drug police breaking down his door at 3am in the morning. Or the pregnant wife that got thrown during these raids to miscarry!
As to living near landfills... I was told stories that landfills are good places to shoot at rats for target practice.
He does have some wonderful ideas, if only the damn media took him seriously.
Right now I'm leaning Dean, mainly because, like Kucinich, he's not afraid to say what needs to be said, and, unlike Kucinich, is electable.
I used to be a staunch republican, but I had an INCREDIBLE epiphany a few years ago. Now I believe the neo-cons (NOT the average republican) are the most dangerous threat to America since we were founded.
Originally posted by Gyroscope
I live outside US and we here are really afraid of people running white house. I sincerely hope that Mr. Bush will loose next elections. Bill Clinton was one of greatest US presidents ever. He wasn't perfect(no human being really is !!hm maybe except me
Regards
Wow. Someone that actually thinks the measure of a good president is being a cool dude. Tell you what, how about getting US citizenship before you start talking about internal US elections and politics.
As to aura of humanities, Kennedy did not do a thing for blacks during his term. It took LBJ to do what Kennedy talked about. Also, getting out of Vietnam, or at least getting to the point where we can disengage from Vietnam, it took Nixon and his escalation of the war in order to bring the Vietnamese back to the table in Paris. Bankrupting the old Soviet Union, and the liberation of the millions trapped in that area... Ronald Reagan.
Carter brought us the current mess in Iran, where we cut and ran and was seen to be bullied by terrorist hostage takers, plus his negotiation with North Korea for fuel/food to stop their nuclear development program. Oh sure...
Clinton was not a good role model for personal behavior for young people as President. He did some good welfare reform while in office, but there were lots of talk of corruption, such as disappearing Pittman-Robertson funds, disappearing White House furniture, etc.
For a democratic politician that I respect, hmm... I would need to go back to Truman, or maybe RFK, if he were elected.
Eisenhower should have supported Vietnamese independence from France when he had the chance. Here, we got caught in what ol' Georgie-boy warned as 'entangling alliances'.
Not saying Republicans are saints... that guy Hutchinson from Arkansas that divorced his wife when he was caught cheating with a campaign staffer???!!!
Originally posted by MongoTheGeek
That is close to what they have gone to. They use the computers to gerrymander. Its more efficiently evil.
Personally I think the boundaries should follow county lines, then major water features.
Well... a hex-grid system would make for districts where the center of mass of a district is inside of the district. Each one would be a circular-ish district. Not looking like a Level-99 difficulty 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle.
- Status