repulican the few the proud

[jarhead]

hello! I AM A CONSERVATIVE, BEWARE! non religious. i believe in america, non pc, and the obvious ride a vrod!!

[The_Man]

Jarhead,
Welcome to the forum. I especially like your means of transportation.

[nelson]

Congrats jarhead on choosing the best political philosophy for our times! ;)

["shazbat"]

Congrats jarhead on choosing the best political philosophy for our times! ;)

Closeminded sheep?
Nothing personal.
Following either party line is a path to stupidity.

[nelson]

Closeminded sheep?
Nothing personal.
Following either party line is a path to stupidity.Well, if you mean following the party line for the sake of following the party line, then I may agree. But I think one can certainly ascribe to the political philosophy of this party or that without being stupid or a closeminded sheep.

Each party's approach to governing evolves, and what we have come to expect as being the Republican or Democrat philosophy may change. But in brief here is how I still see them:

Republicans/Conservatives:
Small federal government is responsible mainly for national defense and some road infrastructure. Other government policies left to individual states, public is free to live where they see fit. Low, flat federal tax policy encourages individual success because those who work harder benefit more. Laissez faire or free market approach to economics.

Democrats/Liberals:
Government provides services for its citizens, and regulates the responsibility and obligation of more successful citizens to care for the poor and oppressed. Progressively tiered taxes ensure wealth is distributed as the government sees fit. Government regulation prevents free market economics from taking advantage of poor laborers.

I guess there's a lot more to it, but that's my general view. Probably pretty easy to see where I line up. :)

Add to this equation the fact that there are only two legitimate (i.e. having the potential to win power) parties currently in the United States, and suddenly towing the party line becomes a little more understandable.

["shazbat"]

Well, if you mean following the party line for the sake of following the party line, then I may agree. But I think one can certainly ascribe to the political philosophy of this party or that without being stupid or a closeminded sheep.

Each party's approach to governing evolves, and what we have come to expect as being the Republican or Democrat philosophy may change. But in brief here is how I still see them:

Republicans/Conservatives:
Small federal government is responsible mainly for national defense and some road infrastructure. Other government policies left to individual states, public is free to live where they see fit. Low, flat federal tax policy encourages individual success because those who work harder benefit more. Laissez faire or free market approach to economics.

Democrats/Liberals:
Government provides services for its citizens, and regulates the responsibility and obligation of more successful citizens to care for the poor and oppressed. Progressively tiered taxes ensure wealth is distributed as the government sees fit. Government regulation prevents free market economics from taking advantage of poor laborers.

I guess there's a lot more to it, but that's my general view. Probably pretty easy to see where I line up. :)

Add to this equation the fact that there are only two legitimate (i.e. having the potential to win power) parties currently in the United States, and suddenly towing the party line becomes a little more understandable.

Considering that the fact that the Federal Government has grown in size with every administration since the inception is no platform on which to stand.

Of your arguments the only ones that hold water are the Republicans do favor more "free market economics" the Democrats do sponsor more "support programs".

Little has changed under any admin to affect control of states rights since the War betrween the States. People are still free to live where they choose (at least I believe I'm living where I choose?)

My wife and I make enough that our $300 a year tax break would be better used helping some retired cogger on limited income get a better deal on prescription drugs.

With that said I do believe that programs of previous admins have been poorly managed and do not appear to be any better managed now. I am also supportive of governmental fiscal responsibility.

As for the "poor laborers", with the unchecked influx of low paid illegal aliens and off shore outsourcing it'll not be too many years hence when we'll all be "poor laborers".

You can still be profitable and socially concious.

Forgive me though, I have not meant to derail this thread and will no longer repliy to this one. I should instead have begun another like "The Few the Proud the openminded".

[nelson]

Considering that the fact that the Federal Government has grown in size with every administration since the inception is no platform on which to stand.An unfortunate truth. Power corrupts everyone, including those who claim to believe in less federal government.


Little has changed under any admin to affect control of states rights since the War betrween the States.Here I disagree, and think that this conflicts with your above statement. In my mind, slowly but steadily, through federal legislation, every year the power of the states has further eroded and folded into the federal government.


My wife and I make enough that our $300 a year tax break would be better used helping some retired cogger on limited income get a better deal on prescription drugs.The "conservative" approach would deem that giving this help ought to be your choice.


You can still be profitable and socially concious.Absolutely agreed, shazbat. In my mind, the question is.. who should decide exactly how, where, and to what degree one will be socially conscious? The individual, or the government?


Forgive me though, I have not meant to derail this thread and will no longer repliy to this one. I should instead have begun another like "The Few the Proud the openminded".No derailing noticed by me.

[nelson]

No derailing noticed by me.I should have added that I found your comments relevant and thought-provoking.

[Sonrisa]

I am more inclined to agree with Shazbat. I have voted Democrat twice, almost voted Republican once and at the last minute just couldn't, voted for Nader. I have voted independent and Green Party (undoubtedly throw-away votes, but at least I had respect for those I was voting for, a nice fuzzy, useless feeling). The differences between the two major parties seem to blur more and more. I try not to be a one-issue voter.

I would like to see more States rights; at least you could move to where you could agree with the status quo. I am very nervous about this constant talk about amending the constitution....I like it the way it is, thank you very much.

I am neither a hawk nor a dove; depends on what the occasion is.
I am an environmentalist, a tree hugger, if you will.
I would never vote for anyone who threatens Roe v. Wade or in any way tries to push back women's rights.

I believe strongly that all the founding fathers were deists.
I believe strongly that Jefferson rewrote the Bible and removed all references to God among other things....one of the mods has already stated they don't agree.....that's fine and I respect that but it does not change my mind.

I also believe that if a country is founded on a certain religion it does not necessarily have to stay that way; if we were talking about another country and a non-Christian religion my guess is most of you would agree.

Politicians I like and would guess most of you don't.....

I do not think he is a saint and he is very good with words to further his cause, but I like Michael Moore and get his newletter.

Russ Feingold (Wisconsin - D)
Barak Obama
Ralph Nader (out of touch with the times, probably, but I respect him absolutely). No corruption there. (I can hear the groaning over the TV!)

I would never vote for:
Hillary Clinton
John McCain
Al Gore
Barbara Boxer
Any of the Bushes or any of the Kennedy clan.

I would support wholeheartedly anyone who supports animal rights, but they would have to be well-rounded on other issues. (Yes, I am a card-carrying member of PETA and make no apology for it)

I wholeheartedly support the IRA, but not in a military or financial way, because that would be illegal in this country since they have been declared terrorists by the US.

Just a thought - regarding fanaticism - that is usually what we call people who do not agree with our views whatever they may be, especially if they are passionate about it. :rolleyes:

I practice Zen in a small way, but do not belong to any religion and probably never will. I am a fan of Joseph Campbell's books on philosophy.

I still like for people to treat each other decently because they want to, not because they have to, but have no illusions that for the most part that will ever happy, human nature being what it seems to be.

I doesn't matter to me you l believe in, I like you all, and see no reason why we should all think alike. I also realize I am hopelessly outnumbered (at least so far).

There is a young Asian man in Washington State whose name escapes me :confused: who has a talk radio show who is absolutely brilliant...if he ever runs for office I would vote for him in a New York minute. We need more young people with passion on both sides. I hate to say it, but too many old "established" people doing the same old stuff..the women are as bad as the men.....maybe we can change the laws to that people of modest means can afford to run.

Let's quit talking so much and get a solid plan of action and make things better. Let's quit calling each other names and see what things we can get together on and save our world and ourselves while we can. So now you know the "worst" about me. I am not ashamed of my views.

Cheers,

Sonrisa :D

["shazbat"]

Yo Sonrisa, Nelson (ladies first) continued in "The Few, the Proud, Oh Whatever!"
So as not to sidetrack this venue for newly joined Republicans to bond.