In America, we are electing our Congressmen

[Pop]

Not necessarily.

 

THe party I'd probably vote for would be Republican, because I'm right wing economically, but I'm far left socially.  Which I guess would make me a libertarian.

 

And I am not against homosexuality, abortion, nor non-marital sex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But aren't Democrats actually Libertarians? From where I'm standing they seem to be economically right wing, and socially left wing. As opposed to republicans who appear to be right wing on both counts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really. Democrats tend to be liberal on both economic (as in, regulation) and social issues, whereas libertarians are conservative on economic issues and usually pretty liberal on social issues. They're small-government types, "rugged individualists" who preach civil liberty and states' rights, and a classical libertarian will say that the government shouldn't enforce economic control (they tend to promote "Invisible Hand" non-regulatory capitalism, and it's where they tend to lose a lot of their credibility) as a Republican might, but they'll also say that the government shouldn't restrict an individual from buying and using drugs, as a Democrat might.

 

So generally, the libertarian view is that the right to be married is not something that should be restricted by the federal government. The fact that they line up with the Dems here is happenstance, as they're at it for different reasons. Dems want gay marriage to be legal. Libertarians don't want gay marriage to be illegal.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Pop

[Dark_Raven]

Eeeew, my site reeks of contamination as Mothie is harrassing my PM folder. I sure hope some of that christy stuff doesn't rub off on me.   

 

Oh and btw. I'm fairly sure this guy...

 

 

... wants you over for a private "prayer" session, you know, the american way.    :joy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Purgatorio]

^

 

I agree with Pidesco on this that is why I don't vote for a party if they have a bigoted leader.

[Dark Moth]

Eeeew, my site reeks of contamination as Mothie is harrassing my PM folder. I sure hope some of that christy stuff doesn't rub off on me.   

 

Oh and btw. I'm fairly sure this guy...

 

 

... wants you over for a private "prayer" session, you know, the american way.    :joy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm so there. Nothing like good ol' American fun.

[Sand]

That though is going a little too far.  First off you're generalizing the majority of the Republican and pretty much accusing them all of living in the dark ages.  You're saying that to be Republican is to be Christian, which is untrue.  Also, as much as it may seem easy to believe, the chances of the U.S. becoming a theocracy even under Republican control would be slim to none.  That'd be like saying American would be a communist nation if the Democrats took control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I said the majority not all. Nearly every Republican running for office here in Iowa were for embryonic stem cell research, want to place gay marriage bans in our constitution, ban all abortion (and I do mean all), and teaching Intelligent Design (teaching creationism which is a religious doctrine) at our public schools. These same views, in one form or another, were spout of by Republicans in several other states as well.

 

I don't care how good of an economic plan a politician has, if he can't keep church and state separated and will not promote equal civil liberties for all that are governed then there is no way I will vote for him.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

THe party I'd probably vote for would be Republican, because I'm right wing economically, but I'm far left socially.  Which I guess would make me a libertarian.

 

And I am not against homosexuality, abortion, nor non-marital sex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am a card carrying, registered voting member of the US Libertarian party. I even ran for a seat in the Florida State House in 1996 when I got out of the military (don't ask how that went!). We are big believers in the 10th Amendment. The words Gay, Abortion, or Marriage do not appear in the US Constitution, therefore should never be uttered by any US government official. That is purely a State issue. If South Dakota wants to ban abortion, that is their business. If California votes to allow gay marriage, good for them. But don't be mad if Tennessee does not. You get the picture.

 

Personally I believe in a totally free society. My religous convictions tell me abortion is wrong and I would never condone anyone having one. At the same time, it is not my place to tell anyone they can or cannot. Nor is it anyone elses. If you want to smoke dope, that should be your business and not a legal problem. At the same time, if the company you work for fires you for it, that is their business. You knew they administered drug tests when you lit up.

 

A Libertarian society would be a free one but not an easy one. No welfare. Yep, you can work or not as you please but do not expect the government to hand you a check to stay home. If you will not work you must live on the charity of others.

 

At the same time, no Federal income tax. That is right. The US constitution provides ample means for the Federal Governement to fund itself without taxing it's citizens. As to state taxes. That will depend on what programs the voters want in their states. If California wants socialisim, California can fund it. Don't ask Florida for help.

 

US forgien policy would be simple. All US troops in non treatied forgien commitments (i.e. not NATO or UN) would be redeployed to the US. Also, all US forgien aid to any non western hemisphere country would come to a screeching halt. Tsunamis, floods, earthquake? We'll look after our own and ask the rest of the world to do the same. If another country seeks war with the United States, we would give it to them with all of the power at our command, and when it is over we would leave. No more Marshall plans, no more nation building. The military is no good at it anyway. I saw that first hand in 1992-93.

 

So that is Libertarianism. Anyone interested? I am.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Guard Dog

[Lucius]

where'd you get the 30 million figure from?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All over the news actually, but I just visited the National Association of Evangelicals site to confirm it.

 

"The force of 30 million Americans united under a common banner is an effective and powerful tool in shaping legislation."

 

They haven't updated their site yet, since I'm fairly sure gay Ted isn't their leader anymore.

[Sand]

Interesting view, not one I wholly disagree with but not one I wholly agree with either.

[alanschu]

US forgien policy would be simple. All US troops in non treatied forgien commitments (i.e. not NATO or UN) would be redeployed to the US. Also, all US forgien aid to any non western hemisphere country would come to a screeching halt. Tsunamis, floods, earthquake? We'll look after our own and ask the rest of the world to do the same. If another country seeks war with the United States, we would give it to them with all of the power at our command, and when it is over we would leave. No more Marshall plans, no more nation building. The military is no good at it anyway. I saw that first hand in 1992-93.

 

Perhaps I am not libertarian, because I do not feel that foreign aid should be stopped, particularly in the moment of a disaster.

[Purgatorio]

So the Libertarian Party is different to "Civil Libertarians"?

[Guard Dog]

Perhaps I am not libertarian, because I do not feel that foreign aid should be stopped, particularly in the moment of a disaster.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Those are my views but many fall right in line with the party platform. A political party really is just a collection of people who have similar beliefs. The democrat party is not socialist but there are socialists in the party because they find common ground with the party philosophy. Ditto with the Christian Right and the Republicans. Not every LP member agrees with me on every isse but we ALL agree in a strict and literal interprtation of the framers intent and letter when it comes to the role of the US government is American society and the world.

 

Check it out for yourself here: www.lp.org

[taks]

THe party I'd probably vote for would be Republican, because I'm right wing economically, but I'm far left socially.  Which I guess would make me a libertarian.

 

And I am not against homosexuality, abortion, nor non-marital sex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my sentiments exactly. well, "socially liberal" as well as "economically liberal." oddly, "liberal" as it applies to economics means capitalist. we yanks have perverted their meanings...

 

taks

[taks]

No, I said the majority not all.  Nearly every Republican running for office here in Iowa were for embryonic stem cell research, want to place gay marriage bans in our constitution, ban all abortion (and I do mean all), and teaching Intelligent Design (teaching creationism which is a religious doctrine) at our public schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the unfortunate consequence of running for office is that the politician must adhere to the party platform rather consistently on major issues (major as seen by the party) in order to get funded. it's a catch-22 of sorts. most republicans really don't care about embryonic stem cell research and abortion, and certainly don't agree with intelligent design (most that i know on the latter, believe in evolution but god is still hanging around, i.e. god may have kicked it all off, but it was evolution that got us where we are). as a result, the only candidates you see are polarized by the far-right "official" platform of the party as a whole.

 

taks

[taks]

All over the news actually, but I just visited the National Association of Evangelicals site to confirm it.

 

"The force of 30 million Americans united under a common banner is an effective and powerful tool in shaping legislation."

 

They haven't updated their site yet, since I'm fairly sure gay Ted isn't their leader anymore. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, OK. that would mean 1 in 10 folks in the US are evangelicals. given that i live in an _extremely_ religious community (more on that below), and i know none, i find their number to be a bit of an exaggeration. of course, i'm an engineer and my social life revolves around a pool-hall, neither of which are magnets for evangelicals.

 

colorado springs is where teddy "i only got a back rub from him and i didn't snort the meth" haggard resides. in fact, his building, the New Life Church, is NEXT DOOR TO ME. yup, i'm probably 500 yards from their building... the lot immediately next to us is the "New Life Expansion Property." boy those folks are busy. they do a lot of praying. you should see the huge temporary "tent" they put up in the parking lot. apparently the massive building they reside in is not enough. granted, these are good people and the do a lot for the community, but whoa...

 

taks

[Dark Moth]

No, I said the majority not all.  Nearly every Republican running for office here in Iowa were for embryonic stem cell research, want to place gay marriage bans in our constitution, ban all abortion (and I do mean all), and teaching Intelligent Design (teaching creationism which is a religious doctrine) at our public schools.  These same views, in one form or another,  were spout of by Republicans in several other states as well.

 

I don't care how good of an economic plan a politician has, if he can't keep church and state separated and will not promote equal civil liberties for all that are governed then there is no way I will vote for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did say majority, not all. You were generalizing the majority.

[taks]

the majority of americans in general don't want gay marriage, btw. republicans or otherwise. the last OK taboo i guess.

 

taks

[Dark Moth]

More like the 'living in the dark ages' part. As for the majority of Americans, being against gay marriage, it's a slim majority.

[~Di]

There's no 'policy' of the Republican party...

 

Then what would you call that holiest of holies, passed down from National Convention to National Convention, the vaunted Republican Party Platform? As far as I'm concerned it is the official "policy" of the Republican party, just as the Democratic Party Platform is the official "policy" of the Democrats. Both platforms together form the basis for my personal theory, "a pox on 'em both, amen."

 

 

(No, this conversation isn't really beating a dead horse. I just happen to love that smilie!)

[Dark Moth]

You know what I meant!

 

I meant that it's not a policy in the sense that it's not something that's written down in some kind of contract you have to sign to be Republican.

[~Di]

You know what I meant!   

 

I meant that it's not a policy in the sense that it's not something that's written down in some kind of contract you have to sign to be Republican.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nobody has to sign a contract to register as Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or any other party. In a sense, however, when one votes for a Republican or a Democrat, one is voting for the tenants of the party platform since the politicians involved are basically committed to enforcing those tenants while in office. A Republican who votes pro-choice is going against the platform of his/her party, and risks being voted out of office by those same Republicans he/she who put him/her in office in the first place. It's called "alienating the base", and it's a pretty risky move for any politician EXCEPT in years like this one where the 1/3 of the voting public who are independent/moderate/centrists get up on their hind legs and show their real power by doing what they do best... voting ISSUES instead of party lines.

 

I will vote for any politician who agrees with me on the issues I find most important. I don't care whether he rides a donkey or an elephant or a spotted owl into office.

[Sand]

Agreed, Di, it just seems that the majority of Republicans have policies of the issues I care about most that are repugnant to me. Breaking separation of church and state is a major no-no in my book.

[Guard Dog]

Agreed, Di, it just seems that the majority of Republicans have policies of the issues I care about most that are repugnant to me.  Breaking separation of church and state is a major no-no in my book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just curious Sand, where did you ever see the Repubs violating the establishment clause? It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If you were referring to introducing intelligent design in text books it was to be taught in addition to evolution. Not to the exclusion. And I just searched www.house.gov using the terms "intelligent design". There are no and have been no bills about it. Is there another one I missed?

Edited November 10, 2006 by Guard Dog

[taks]

Agreed, Di, it just seems that the majority of Republicans have policies of the issues I care about most that are repugnant to me.  Breaking separation of church and state is a major no-no in my book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you mean "the majority of Republican politicians," right?

 

guard dog has a pretty good point, too. there's a difference between pushing ideas based on your moral background, e.g. religion, and advocating for government acknowledgement of a specific religion. all people base their opinions on some, personal, moral guidelines (though some seem to have very loose guidelines). that they may be based on religious teachings is in no way contrary to the constitution.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

You got it taks.

[Sand]

Agreed, Di, it just seems that the majority of Republicans have policies of the issues I care about most that are repugnant to me.  Breaking separation of church and state is a major no-no in my book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just curious Sand, where did you ever see the Repubs violating the establishment clause? It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If you were referring to introducing intelligent design in text books it was to be taught in addition to evolution. Not to the exclusion. And I just searched www.house.gov using the terms "intelligent design". There are no and have been no bills about it. Is there another one I missed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Teaching Intelligent Design in public schools is one of them. Intelligent Design is Creationism and that comes straight out of the Bible, thusly religion. There were a number of Republicans here in Iowa that stated if they were elected they were push for replacing the teaching of evolution with Intelligent Design. Most notable being the republican lieutenant governor candidate.