Political Affiliation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
I care what you think. As far as your list goes I know it’s a sterotype (as you stated). However, I started a thread several months ago and asked not only which political party you are affiliated with, but if you are a Christian as well. I don’t think more than one or two claimed to be liberals and also claimed to be a Christian.

Now I know that that poll was in no way scientific. However, I think there is a trend. I would bet that a very small amount of those who consider themselves as liberals also claim they are Christian.

I listed those as a joke, becaus I am a liberal and an athiest but I do not hate christians and I love this country.

I just want my freedom. Oh and for those of you who think liberals are anti-gun ownership…I LOVE GUNS!!! When they are owned by law abiding citizens, not illegally aquired by scumbags.

[/quote]

Jersey

You gotta convince more of your buds to think the same way!!! Guns are good in the right hands.

42

I tend to vote Republican because on balance I favor more Republican positions than Democrat positions, and I tend to care more about keeping my money than about social issues. My beliefs on various issues range from libertarian to conservative, depending on the issue.

43

True Blue Northeastern elitist heathen Democrat.

Keep God and his commandments out of my goddamn government. listen to science over bible thumping hillbillys and loudmouth ministers.

When you dont help the poor at all, they rise and murder you.

Call it Socialist or whatever, but help the poor, feed the hungry, and fuck the rich.

44

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
True Blue Northeastern elitist heathen Democrat.

Keep God and his commandments out of my goddamn government. listen to science over bible thumping hillbillys and loudmouth ministers.

When you dont help the poor at all, they rise and murder you.

Call it Socialist or whatever, but help the poor, feed the hungry, and fuck the rich.

[/quote]

Amen brother…what part of Jersey are you from? I grew up in Elizabeth.

45

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
True Blue Northeastern elitist heathen Democrat.

Keep God and his commandments out of my goddamn government. listen to science over bible thumping hillbillys and loudmouth ministers.

When you dont help the poor at all, they rise and murder you.

Call it Socialist or whatever, but help the poor, feed the hungry, and fuck the rich.

[/quote]

I was with you till the fuck the rich part.

In the conservative world the rich are expected to help the poor out of free will not government mandate.

46

I like how democrats are Kumba-Ya but consevatives magically all have good will and just happen to actually care about their fellow man… as long as it isn’ somehow turned into a policy.

Seems to be another sort of Kumba-Ya to me.

Yeah, spare me the “studies” showing contributions and the like to tax break charities, I’ve seen it already. There are good people (and bad people) on both sides of the spectrum.

47

We call it compassionate conservatsim. Not sure what the Liberal equivelant is to that idea?

Charitable giving by the wealthy has a long and honorable history. Charity administered by the government has a somewhat shorter and less enviable record.

Isn’t freedom to choose where your money goes a libertarian concept?

48

Hedo, I’m justing pointing out that believing in the “goodwill” of your fellow man is a bit Kumba-Ya also.

49

Moderate republican.

50

When I turned 18 in 1986 I joined the Republican party because I believe in:

  • balanced budgets and general fiscal responsibility
  • a strong military
  • limited government interference
  • PRAGMATIC government
  • Bill of Rights
  • Right to Privacy

I also joined because the Republicans were the avowed anti-corruption party and they proclaimed that professional bribers (lobbyists) were unethical.

Obviously I am no longer part of the Republican Party since today?s GOP believes in none of the things I listed above.

I now have a tendency to vote Democrat since they are much more aligned to what I listed above now. But I also realize that if the Dems control all 3 branches of govt in the future as the Repubs do now they will become just as corrupt and turn their back on there avowed beliefs just as the Republicans have done.

So I guess after all of that I have to say I am an independent now since I vote the man not the party.

51

[quote]mica617 wrote:

ntroych,

4est pretty much sums up my explaination (other than Agnostic- I’m a Christian). As for what I meant by GOP leaning to the right wing, I’m referring to the morality legislating. God specifically says in the Bible that He will judge us when our number is up. I don’t like the govt legislating what I can and can’t do TO MYSELF (even if I agree with the basis of the legislation). I agree only to legislation that controls the effect of your actions interfering with the rights of other people. (for example- allowing the prohormone ban. I still have yet to see anyones basic liberties violated because their next door neighbor too Androstenedione).[/quote]

I think we’re fundamentally in agreement, but the terminiology being used is unclear.

On the Left/Right political spectrum, the further to the Right you are, the LESS federal gov’t would interfere with our lives - the extreme right being a complete lack of gov’t (anarchy).

The Left, on the otherhand, strives for equality through gov’t intervention - the extreme being Communism/Socialism where nearly every facet of human existance is controlled by a centralized gov’t.

Your examples of the GOP leaning to the Right are actually examples of leaning to the Left (ie: gov’t telliing us what we can and can’t put in our bodies).

Nick

52

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
True Blue Northeastern elitist heathen Democrat.

Keep God and his commandments out of my goddamn government. listen to science over bible thumping hillbillys and loudmouth ministers.

When you dont help the poor at all, they rise and murder you.

Call it Socialist or whatever, but help the poor, feed the hungry, and fuck the rich.

[/quote]

I think that’s more communist - or at least Marxist.

53

[quote]vroom wrote:
I like how democrats are Kumba-Ya but consevatives magically all have good will and just happen to actually care about their fellow man… as long as it isn’ somehow turned into a policy.

Seems to be another sort of Kumba-Ya to me.

…[/quote]

To try to illustrate, it’s the difference between someone taking your money at gunpoint to give it to some “charitable” enterprise for which they choose the rules of eligibility versus your choosing to give it to a charitable organization that you believe actually helps the recipients.

54

So if you neocons got sick and went bankrupt you wouldn’t accept government aid. While a lot of you republicans are very bright but confused individuals, some are just fuck-tards who don’t deserve such a prime country to live in. Sure communism is a very flawed ideology, but so is having the top few percent of rich people holding the majority of stocks and funds. The democrats and the republicans are both messed up parties but the democrats are the closest to center. Bush is the kind of guy id like to have a beer with and go fishing, he is not suitable to be the leader of the free world.

55

Boston, thanks for the “attempt” at illustration. Perhaps I should try to illustrate my own point further since you seem to have missed it completely.

56

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Hedo, I am a firm believer in every honest citizens right to carry concealed weapons, BUT! You should have to pass an extensive psych test as well as background checks and pass a law enforcement approved weapon safety course. The more guns on my side on the street the better. Any half wit thug can buy a gun faster than me and carry it, gun control only hurts the honest citizen. The dishonest will always be able to obtain what they want thru the streets.[/quote]

While I agree with the second half of your post it seems that you are somewhat contradictory.

On the one hand you want rigorous testing in order to own a hand gun. On the other hand you admit that “the dishonest will always be able to obtain a gun.” Really then what’s the point of all the hoops you want to make honest people jump through?

I say that our right to bear arms should not be weighted down with further governmental interference!

If someone has reached the age of 21 and does not have a record of arrest and wants a hand gun then he should have it!

One more point: it is very easy for someone to purchase a shot gun, or rifle at a local sporting goods store. We have anti gun people up in arms (pun intended) because of hand guns simply because they can be concealed easier? How silly.

By the way you can also kill someone quite easily with a knife, club, bow and many other ways. The anti hand gun people are becoming just as credible as the tree huggers and those who belong to PETA.

57

[quote]vroom wrote:
To try to illustrate, it’s the difference between someone taking your money at gunpoint to give it to some “charitable” enterprise for which they choose the rules of eligibility versus your choosing to give it to a charitable organization that you believe actually helps the recipients.

Boston, thanks for the “attempt” at illustration. Perhaps I should try to illustrate my own point further since you seem to have missed it completely.[/quote]

Yes, I would like a further explanation of your point. It seems that Boston described it pretty well to me.

58

Zeb, you have got to be kidding me. My point was that simply expecting wonderful behavior out of your fellow man is a recipe for disaster.

Democrats are often accused of this Kumba-Ya attitude where the world should be a great place and so on.

I’m saying, it appears republicans seem to do the same thing, but in different ways. The particular policy issue is just a side note here.

Democrats apparently “fail to note” that people will gasp take advantage of social systems and be a financial drain on their beloved systems.

Republicans apparently “fail to note” that people are greedy and will gasp often not bother to be charitable on their own.

Please note, I’m not describing whether or not democrats or republicans are taking advantage of social systems or are behaving in a greedy manner – because I’d expect all manner of people to commit these acts.

It just seems the “direction” of the Kumba-Ya beliefs are different between democrats and republicans, but they are in there… you can see it in the assumptions about behavior they each make when putting forth their own proposals.

Honestly, the goals of both parties have great ends in mind. A social safety net is a great concept, even if it hasn’t been put into practice in such a way that it can be run efficiently without creating dependency.

At the same time, putting more control of spending into the hands of people and reducing taxes is also a great concept. However, there are some services, such as funding a military, that simply won’t happen without government intervention. There are some situations that a free market economy can’t address well… especially if there are non-monetary costs attached.

Maybe if both sides applied some brainpower to both recognizing and then reducing the capacity for problems of whatever systems are put in place, then things could be done a bit better than they are today. However, the way politics is played now, my way or the highway, leaves little room for understanding the need for any of the principles put forth by the opposing party.

Oh well.

59

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb, you have got to be kidding me. My point was that simply expecting wonderful behavior out of your fellow man is a recipe for disaster.

Democrats are often accused of this Kumba-Ya attitude where the world should be a great place and so on.

I’m saying, it appears republicans seem to do the same thing, but in different ways. The particular policy issue is just a side note here.

Democrats apparently “fail to note” that people will gasp take advantage of social systems and be a financial drain on their beloved systems.

Republicans apparently “fail to note” that people are greedy and will gasp often not bother to be charitable on their own.

Please note, I’m not describing whether or not democrats or republicans are taking advantage of social systems or are behaving in a greedy manner – because I’d expect all manner of people to commit these acts.

It just seems the “direction” of the Kumba-Ya beliefs are different between democrats and republicans, but they are in there… you can see it in the assumptions about behavior they each make when putting forth their own proposals.

Honestly, the goals of both parties have great ends in mind. A social safety net is a great concept, even if it hasn’t been put into practice in such a way that it can be run efficiently without creating dependency.

At the same time, putting more control of spending into the hands of people and reducing taxes is also a great concept. However, there are some services, such as funding a military, that simply won’t happen without government intervention. There are some situations that a free market economy can’t address well… especially if there are non-monetary costs attached.

Maybe if both sides applied some brainpower to both recognizing and then reducing the capacity for problems of whatever systems are put in place, then things could be done a bit better than they are today. However, the way politics is played now, my way or the highway, leaves little room for understanding the need for any of the principles put forth by the opposing party.

Oh well.[/quote]

Well…thank you for that explanation. It was very clear and I could not agree more!

60

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
True Blue Northeastern elitist heathen Democrat.

Keep God and his commandments out of my goddamn government. listen to science over bible thumping hillbillys and loudmouth ministers.

When you dont help the poor at all, they rise and murder you.

Call it Socialist or whatever, but help the poor, feed the hungry, and fuck the rich.

[/quote]

That’s what the world needs, another damn communist.

I knew someone who started out with very little. He had a good idea for a product, saved some money and started a business out of his basement. Hard work and frugal living allowed the business to grow and purchase more machinery. It wasn’t long before the business had to move into the garage. By adhering to conservative financial guidelines, the business never had to borrow a dime to finance any machinery or inventory.

Fast forward to right now. This individual built a multi million dollar company that employs near 100 people. This business carries ZERO debt in regards to his machinery, inventory, or any of his buildings. He owned beautiful homes in west Michigan and Florida, and drove terrific cars.

Oh and by the way he gave more money to charaties than you’ll make in a lifetime. Not to mention the employment he provided to so many people over the years.

Did he achieve all of this by adhering to some bulshit idea like “fuck the rich”. No. He pulled himself up by his bootstraps and refused to make excuses.
Capitolism works, communism and socialism are dead political ideoligies.

Laborers who walk around saying “fuck the rich” will always be employed by people who educated themselves and learned how to run a business.

Good luck!