Stuff Republicans say.

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, maybe if they vote for a Democrat they aren't

Personally I don't believe anyone should vote republican. Pick an issue...they either don't believe it exist or is totally against it..they prove this with many of their policies....

That being said..one is free to vote for whoever they what from whichever party they want. Heck...in many cases they can write in a candidate if they don't like the choices. I personally don't want to take these choices away from anyone.

But it's still not a good look when you have mouthpieces in close elections outright insulting voters. Scott Walker has enough problems be they legally or the fact that his record isn't all that great than to now be dealing with an election PR problem...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Personally I don't believe anyone should vote republican. Pick an issue...they either don't believe it exist or is totally against it..they prove this with many of their policies....

Pretty much. Since Reagan the Republicans have been about protecting the wealthy and being the moral police of society. Looking at them today, it's hard to believe that their party actually gave us OSHA, the EPA, the national parks system, and that a Republican was even actually pro-environment enough to be championed by the Sierra Club.
And there is also how today's Republicans claim to be all about small and limited government, but even at the municipal level they are trying to use government to make it big enough to enforce Christian morality as law and create weaknesses that allow education standards to be severely degraded. And all there "free market" stuff really does is allow the rich to take even more for themselves and it clears the way for our the destruction of the home we all share.
Not that the Dems are necessarily free of all these charges, but the Democrats are much less likely to push for laws that legally define transsexuals as their birth sex and forbid them to use restrooms of their identified and presented gender.

 

[esmith]

Pretty much. Since Reagan the Republicans have been about protecting the wealthy and being the moral police of society. Looking at them today, it's hard to believe that their party actually gave us OSHA, the EPA, the national parks system, and that a Republican was even actually pro-environment enough to be championed by the Sierra Club.
And there is also how today's Republicans claim to be all about small and limited government, but even at the municipal level they are trying to use government to make it big enough to enforce Christian morality as law and create weaknesses that allow education standards to be severely degraded. And all there "free market" stuff really does is allow the rich to take even more for themselves and it clears the way for our the destruction of the home we all share.
Not that the Dems are necessarily free of all these charges, but the Democrats are much less likely to push for laws that legally define transsexuals as their birth sex and forbid them to use restrooms of their identified and presented gender.

It seems that the same underlying thread is common among liberals. "The Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats are the party of the working class. However, it appears that the policies put forth by the current administration have only helped the rich.....the stock market is the only place that has gained and the working class doesn't have the money to invest in the stock market. You seem to belittle the rich yet the Democrats have no problems associating with the rich and influential to obtain their campaign funds. Seems to be a little hypocrisy there.

 

[metis]

It seems that the same underlying thread is common among liberals. "The Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats are the party of the working class. However, it appears that the policies put forth by the current administration have only helped the rich.....the stock market is the only place that has gained and the working class doesn't have the money to invest in the stock market. You seem to belittle the rich yet the Democrats have no problems associating with the rich and influential to obtain their campaign funds. Seems to be a little hypocrisy there.

That's sorta like saying that a grape is exactly the same as the moon because they're both round. IOW, a false equivalency.

However, no doubt that probably most of the Dems have sold their soul by catering to the powers that be because they need the money to finance their campaigns. IMO, almost our entire political system is bad need of serious revamping, but that ain't gonna happen, and even if it did the powers that be would probably even more have their way.

But who deserves most of the blame? To me, the average Joe & Mary Schmoe, who either don't vote or whom don't spend the time to actually study what's really going on. TV advertising is now the #1 driving force for voting patterns with most people, who then vote more on image and emotion than on rational study. And ignorance has its consequences.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

It seems that the same underlying thread is common among liberals. "The Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats are the party of the working class. However, it appears that the policies put forth by the current administration have only helped the rich.....the stock market is the only place that has gained and the working class doesn't have the money to invest in the stock market. You seem to belittle the rich yet the Democrats have no problems associating with the rich and influential to obtain their campaign funds. Seems to be a little hypocrisy there.

I agree that hypocrisy exists in both the left and the right side of the political spectrum. That is why I can't, in good conscience, consider myself to be part of either the political left or the right. I like the idea of Libertarianism, because it seems to draw together the strong points of both parties, while rejecting the weak points.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It seems that the same underlying thread is common among liberals. "The Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats are the party of the working class. However, it appears that the policies put forth by the current administration have only helped the rich.....the stock market is the only place that has gained and the working class doesn't have the money to invest in the stock market. You seem to belittle the rich yet the Democrats have no problems associating with the rich and influential to obtain their campaign funds. Seems to be a little hypocrisy there.

But you left out the fact that the majority of the legislation Democrats want to implement to help the working poor and the middle income in this country is either filibustered by the minority in the Senate or tabled by the majority in the House. The Veterans Jobs Bill, The Overall Jobs Bill, Minimum Wage Increase, Various infrastructure bills are just a few that have been either blocked or tabled......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I agree that hypocrisy exists in both the left and the right side of the political spectrum. That is why I can't, in good conscience, consider myself to be part of either the political left or the right. I like the idea of Libertarianism, because it seems to draw together the strong points of both parties, while rejecting the weak points.

But this isn't reflective of all Democrats. "Government Regulated Economy". It's sounds like a dirty term but we've seen what happens when you allow the financial institutions, big oil, big pharma and others police themselves. Many of them are responsible for a lot of the financial problems (along with dem and pub help) we faced not too long ago. Many of them are responsible for some of the worst public toxic dumping we've seen in decades...and so on and so on.

As far as the UN...well I don't believe in the US getting involved in any foreign war unless we have allied cooperation. Sure we can lead but usually when we lead we tend to make things worse than they are.

Eminent Domain. Well check the KXL Pipeline. Many dems are against foreign companies coming into the US and running over farmers and Native Americans. It's actually a problem on both sides of the isle but the current imminent domain issues surrounding KXL is to the north in pub controlled states where they're pushing for Obama to let this thing happen. In fact most pubs in congress want this to happen...regardless of imminent domain or the cost to our environment.

Personally I wish we can have a third party such as the Libertarians but currently there's two...so then the question is...if we elect more Libertarians to office who will they caucus with...Democrats or Republicans........my money is on them caucusing with republicans.....So until we can mix it up by adding a third party I see more of the same when in government from all three of them.

 

[esmith]

So, what is your opinion of the following? Yeah, I know, it's FNC but it was conducted by an independent source.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...s-polls-us-voters-weigh-in-on-isis-and-ebola/

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So, what is your opinion of the following? Yeah, I know, it's FNC but it was conducted by an independent source.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...s-polls-us-voters-weigh-in-on-isis-and-ebola/

The polls are what they are. But the headline says it all. Did the president wait too long to deal with ISIS. No... because ISIS members are some of the same people many on the left and the right were urging the administration to arm. At least one or more republicans went to Syria to give the rebels their full support and for a photo op...

Are they hiding something on Ebola. Heck no. That's just fear mongering at its best by many on the right.

Texas nurse Amber Vinson now free of Ebola virus, family says - LA Times

 

[metis]

A reminder that the polls had overwhelmingly stated that we should not put boots on the ground and we should limit our actions in that region-- that's until two Americans got beheaded. IOW, the Fox poll results seem to represent "Monday morning quarterbacking".

 

[metis]

As far as Ebola was concerned, according to one of the American survivors of ebola (the bearded guy-- what his name?) interviewed on CNN (a real news channel ), most experts felt that stopping flights to and from Africa would actually make both their and our situation worse because if what's happening in Africa is not brought under control and fairly soon, the spread could become vastly wider, thus making it even more difficult to stop.

Who did screw up, however, was the head of the CDC who simply didn't provide the necessary guidelines that were needed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It seems that the same underlying thread is common among liberals. "The Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats are the party of the working class. However, it appears that the policies put forth by the current administration have only helped the rich.....the stock market is the only place that has gained and the working class doesn't have the money to invest in the stock market. You seem to belittle the rich yet the Democrats have no problems associating with the rich and influential to obtain their campaign funds. Seems to be a little hypocrisy there.

And I did acknowledge the Democrats are not innocent. But when compared side by side, how many Dems want to force some form of Creationism into school ciriculum? How many Reps want this? How many Dems push for gay marriage bans? How many Reps do this? And last I checked, while the Dems were trying to do something to help people who were hurt by the recession, Boehner was calling those who needed help lazy bums (he even said he didn't care how many government jobs would be lost due to budget cuts), and the Reps overall didn't seem too thrilled about relieve programs that were enacted.
And if the working class doesn't have money, whose fault is that? Is it the government's fault even though they can only set a minimum wage, or is the "job creators" who aren't paying enough? The wealthiest Americans have been raking in tons of cash over the last six years while everybody has been loosing. Where's the money that's supposed to be trickling downwards?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As far as Ebola was concerned, according to one of the American survivors of ebola (the bearded guy-- what his name?) interviewed on CNN (a real news channel ), most experts felt that stopping flights to and from Africa would actually make both their and our situation worse because if what's happening in Africa is not brought under control and fairly soon, the spread could become vastly wider, thus making it even more difficult to stop.

Who did screw up, however, was the head of the CDC who simply didn't provide the necessary guidelines that were needed.

Oh...but it gets even worse. There's no "money" in this capitalistic society by providing Ebola medicine. So like the American being beheaded to make Americans come the conclusion boots should be on the ground the same is happening with Ebola. Now that it's in our back yard pharmaceuticals companies are looking to test out their drugs....even though they've been holding onto them for years now....So many want to throw the president under the bus but is pharmaceutical research and development companies keeping it all under wraps because there's was no money to be made until a scare happened...Now they can capitalize on it. It's the American way.

Without Lucrative Market, Potential Ebola Vaccine Was Shelved for Years

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree that hypocrisy exists in both the left and the right side of the political spectrum. That is why I can't, in good conscience, consider myself to be part of either the political left or the right. I like the idea of Libertarianism, because it seems to draw together the strong points of both parties, while rejecting the weak points.

This is misleading. Actually this whole linear dynamic of our political "spectrum" is misleading. There isn't simply "left" and "Right" on issues. Most political tests to determine where you stand are at least a square with four main quadrants to test you on several different aspects of political opinion. However it would probably be better to have a bar graph with about 12 different political "aspects" that we can measure.

Anyway that aside the picture here is misleading in that libertarians aren't some mesh or middle ground between "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints. While it has aspects for both calling it somewhere in the middle would simply be false. Much like the green party isn't the middle ground either.

In most cases political parties are based around a single viewpoint and then every other specific claim they make on other issues is a byproduct (usually out of necessity) of their original premise.

Libertarians for example is the closet thing we have to an anarchist party in the USA. While most Libertarians (at least the ones running) do not support total anarchy they wish to promote less government power wherever that may be. So by extension giving homosexuals, women and minorities the same rights and freedoms would be a necessity to keep their low government involvement. The same way their anti-war position stems not from any disgust at war but rather the government expense it causes.

Likewise for conservative values they want lower spending on social programs and less regulation of the private sector.

If we look at how the party was formed it is clear to see the original intention of the party. It has changed somewhat, however, over the years but who it would benefit would be the same.

 

[Sunstone]

This is misleading. Actually this whole linear dynamic of our political "spectrum" is misleading. There isn't simply "left" and "Right" on issues. Most political tests to determine where you stand are at least a square with four main quadrants to test you on several different aspects of political opinion. However it would probably be better to have a bar graph with about 12 different political "aspects" that we can measure.

Anyway that aside the picture here is misleading in that libertarians aren't some mesh or middle ground between "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints. While it has aspects for both calling it somewhere in the middle would simply be false. Much like the green party isn't the middle ground either.

In most cases political parties are based around a single viewpoint and then every other specific claim they make on other issues is a byproduct (usually out of necessity) of their original premise.

Libertarians for example is the closet thing we have to an anarchist party in the USA. While most Libertarians (at least the ones running) do not support total anarchy they wish to promote less government power wherever that may be. So by extension giving homosexuals, women and minorities the same rights and freedoms would be a necessity to keep their low government involvement. The same way their anti-war position stems not from any disgust at war but rather the government expense it causes.

Likewise for conservative values they want lower spending on social programs and less regulation of the private sector.

If we look at how the party was formed it is clear to see the original intention of the party. It has changed somewhat, however, over the years but who it would benefit would be the same.

Libertarianism seems to me best characterized as a naive reaction of some sort against the state.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is misleading. Actually this whole linear dynamic of our political "spectrum" is misleading. There isn't simply "left" and "Right" on issues. Most political tests to determine where you stand are at least a square with four main quadrants to test you on several different aspects of political opinion. However it would probably be better to have a bar graph with about 12 different political "aspects" that we can measure.

Anyway that aside the picture here is misleading in that libertarians aren't some mesh or middle ground between "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints. While it has aspects for both calling it somewhere in the middle would simply be false. Much like the green party isn't the middle ground either.

In most cases political parties are based around a single viewpoint and then every other specific claim they make on other issues is a byproduct (usually out of necessity) of their original premise.

Libertarians for example is the closet thing we have to an anarchist party in the USA. While most Libertarians (at least the ones running) do not support total anarchy they wish to promote less government power wherever that may be. So by extension giving homosexuals, women and minorities the same rights and freedoms would be a necessity to keep their low government involvement. The same way their anti-war position stems not from any disgust at war but rather the government expense it causes.

Likewise for conservative values they want lower spending on social programs and less regulation of the private sector.

If we look at how the party was formed it is clear to see the original intention of the party. It has changed somewhat, however, over the years but who it would benefit would be the same.

There are also different types of Libertarianism, some of which would be hell on all of us. Robert Nozick, for example, wouldn't even let the state provide police or military, his role of government would only exist to enforce his ideas of fairly acquired property but there would be no taxes so the government couldn't even do that. His system provides for no education, no roads, absolutely nothing more than enforcing his entitlement theory. Milton on the other hand realizes it's not plausible to have a privatized military, would still have a basic education, and he establishes guidelines for how much the government can spend.
What is the main issue for Libertarians though is the free market, and the believe that a free market is needed to maximize and preserve our freedoms, even though this claim is easily disproven. It is also very hard to find environmental protections within Libertarianism, as they restrict freedoms and the free market, even though destroying the environment hurts all of us.

 

[Revoltingest]

Libertarianism seems to me best characterized as a naive reaction of some sort against the state.

Are we Libertarians naive to think we matter. Sure.
But we prefer the view that ours is the sane reaction against the Big Two's vision of government.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are also different types of Libertarianism, some of which would be hell on all of us. Robert Nozick, for example, wouldn't even let the state provide police or military, his role of government would only exist to enforce his ideas of fairly acquired property but there would be no taxes so the government couldn't even do that. His system provides for no education, no roads, absolutely nothing more than enforcing his entitlement theory. Milton on the other hand realizes it's not plausible to have a privatized military, would still have a basic education, and he establishes guidelines for how much the government can spend.
What is the main issue for Libertarians though is the free market, and the believe that a free market is needed to maximize and preserve our freedoms, even though this claim is easily disproven. It is also very hard to find environmental protections within Libertarianism, as they restrict freedoms and the free market, even though destroying the environment hurts all of us.

I advocate environmental regulation precisely because of libertarian values.
Consider oil spills. What runs off of one person's property will flow onto & harm
another's. This violates our dictum that one's right to swing one's arms ends at a
neighbor's nose. It's all about making compromises which reach some optimal
libertarian society. Ain't nuthin practical which would be pure in the extreme.

There is one significant difference between small "l" & capital "L" libertarians.
The Libertarian Party explicitly supports libertarianism within the framework
of the Constitution. Thus, we are a subset of more general libertarianism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Libertarians for example is the closet thing we have to an anarchist party in the USA. While most Libertarians (at least the ones running) do not support total anarchy they wish to promote less government power wherever that may be. So by extension giving homosexuals, women and minorities the same rights and freedoms would be a necessity to keep their low government involvement. The same way their anti-war position stems not from any disgust at war but rather the government expense it causes.

Aye, I was a draft dodger who didn't oppose war, but I opposed the Viet Nam war &
the military draft. I worked in the ole military industrial complex designing flight
controls & refueling systems because I support a strong defense. I just dislike war,
especially when it's not in self-defense.

 

[metis]

Oh...but it gets even worse. There's no "money" in this capitalistic society by providing Ebola medicine. So like the American being beheaded to make Americans come the conclusion boots should be on the ground the same is happening with Ebola. Now that it's in our back yard pharmaceuticals companies are looking to test out their drugs....even though they've been holding onto them for years now....So many want to throw the president under the bus but is pharmaceutical research and development companies keeping it all under wraps because there's was no money to be made until a scare happened...Now they can capitalize on it. It's the American way.

Without Lucrative Market, Potential Ebola Vaccine Was Shelved for Years

Oh, I hear ya.