Republican Principles

[engjamerican]

Many people vote based on the beliefs that republicans are for "Rich White America" and "Democrats for the minorities and social programs".

It is disturbing to me that there isn't a clear explanation of what each party stands for; thus I'd like to have your thoughts of the true differences between the two parties and any helpful resources that you may have

[No Affiliation]

In New York both parties are liberal. In New York Republicans are arrogant liberals, whereas democrats are ignorant liberals. How do you like your liberalism?
________
Babi mac proved that (http://babimac.com/)

[ergo sum]

Republican principles - what an oxymoron!

[Brookhaven gop]

Screw you fellow republicans.screw the taxpayers and line you pockets, if you get caught blame another republican you dont like.kill all young and risin talent.only be nice when you have to be, so you can get something from the other person.all other fellow republicans are your enemy.steal whatever you can whenever you can.help those who only can help you.we have no retirement age so stick around till you die in office rather than let people move up or younger ones move in.This is the godaweful truth from one of your own brookhaven.

[WantaghDem]

Republicans make a show of claiming general principles, and then betray them every waking moment. The party is a sham cover for people who wish to use the democratic system to ther line thr pockets or advance thr personal belief systems as national policy.

I know that will get a response, so here are some specific examples:

Supposedly, Republicans are for "smaller government." They say that the federal government, especially, is too involved in the day to day lives of its citizens, and should stay out. Republicans then say that women cannot have abortions; adult homosexuals cannot have consensual sex in thr own homes; that adults cannot purchase pornography; that adults can smoke anywhere, and drink and drive, but cannot use marijuana; the list of hypocrisies is endless.

Supposedly, Republicans are for limiting the power of the courts to "make laws." Instead, they only want them to rule on the law, not to make new case law. They call this "activist courts." Integral to this ideal is that Republicans believe that state courts should have more power than federal courts. Then, Republicans on the Supreme Court of the United States in December of 2000 interpreted state law, overruled a state supreme court, and appointed a fellow Republican President of the United States.

I think it's clear that Republican politicians will abandon any hint of principle if it will further thr cause; they will also about-face on any issue if it means a political gain. You don't see that as a consistent pattern with Democratic politicians.

Generally, Democrats are in politics to make people's lives better and to advance the cause of progress. Can Democrats become corrupted? Absolutely. But they rarely betray thr principles in order to make a political gain.

Generally, Republicans are in politics to advance thr own political/religious/philosophical beliefs, and to make sure the country adheres to the status quo. And, as has been clearly demonstrated by recent history, Republicans are more likely to break the law in furtherance of thr political goals than are Democrats.

Whenever you modify a noun with an adjective, it is understood that you are changing the basic definition of the noun. When Bush claims that he is a "compassionate" conservative, that means that unlike the "average" conservative, he has compassion for people (which based upon his actions is a complete falsehood, but...). Why the need for the adjective? You don't say "tall giants" or "short midgets." Saying that means that he admits conservatives to NOT be compassionate.

There is a terrific study recently published that examines the psychological underpinnings of conservativism. See it here:


________
VAPIR OXYGEN VAPORIZER (http://oxygenvaporizer.com)

[WantaghDem]

www.berkeley.edu/news/med...tics.shtml
________
Wellbutrin Side Effects (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/wellbutrin/)

[Jill]

Sounds like you are a young person with "talent" frustrated by the workings of an older gop.
Let me tell 'ya, sunshine-Our town supervisor LaValle was thought to be a young, talented wiz-kid. Look how many lives he's destroyed in his assault on our party and democracy! Next time you want to vent about the older gop, look no further than John LaValle for the very reason why young people cannot be trusted with power.

[Whatever]

The biggest difference between the two parties is how they see human nature. Thus, they define both both the problems and the solutions differently.

Democrats tend to see human nature as basically good. They favor programs like income redistribution, welfare, etc because they feel that many people have no control over most circumstances in thr lives and if the gov gives them a hand, they will use the opportunity and become valuable citizens.

Republicans tend to see human nature as basically evil. They favor harsher punishments for lawbreakers and less gov handouts. This is because they feel that they will be taken advantage of by the welfare recipients, whom they feel are there largely because of thr own decisions.

Also interesting is the difference between "liberal" and "conservative". This is fascinating because the accepted definitions for the two terms have completely switched in the last 100 or so years.

In the 1700s and 1800s, a "liberal" wanted to change the status quo, while the "conservative" wanted to preserve it. The liberal favored greater freedom and less government, while the conservative wanted to hold on to big government, which was the status quo at the time.

Now, liberals are the ones who favor big government, and they want to preserve the current status quo of big government. Conservatives nowadays favor smaller government and, since the status quo is not something they like, they do not want to conserve it, but change it. This summary is a poor attempt to describe the evolution of the two terms. I can post something more detailed with documented sources of anyone would like.

engjamerican, I hope that helps you.

As far as principles go, there are politicians on both sides who are there because they truly care about people, and there are also politicians on both sides who are merely power-hungry. Blanket statements about political parties inaccurate are 99.9% of the time.


________
Extreme Vaporizer Review (http://vaporizers.net/extreme-vaporizer)

[WantaghDem]

"Blanket statements about political parties inaccurate are 99.9% of the time"

If this were true, there would be no need for political parties. The whole notion of political parties stems from people wanting to get together and MAKE blanket statements! Otherwise, it would be impossible for parties to have PLATFORMS!

Doh!


By the way, you could not be more off the mark in your "historical" analysis of the terms liberal and conservative.

Liberal has always meant progressive, for change, application of scientific principles to solving problems, moving forward, etc. - regardless of the size of government.

Conservative has always meant status quo, fearful/distrustful of change, application of personal/religious/philosophical beliefs towards mandating and regulating personal behavior, standing still, etc. - regardless of the size of government.

And a second by the way - liberals have no such love of "BIG" government. Liberals believe, and rightly so, that government is simply the practical application of the will of the people. We get together, we pool our resources, our talents, and our product. The name that we give to this organized pool is "government." Government IS the people; the people ARE the government. No such separation exists, no matter what conservatives say.

Unfortunately, we all cannot make these decisions and carry them out all of the time. That is why we elect REPRESENTATIVES to make these decisions for us. In turn, they raise groups of workers, such as clerks, soldiers, doctors, etc., who carry out the decisions of OUR representatives - OUR decisions.

That bng the case, whatever the people decide to do with thr resources, thr talents, and thr product results in the size of the government. If we the people decide to spend money on roads, utilities, and other infrastructure, we do, and the "government" carries this out. If we the people decide to spend money on education, health care, and protecting the environment, we do, and the "government" carries this out. If we the people decide to spend money on defense and public security, we do, and the "government" carries this out. There is no such thing as "the people" without "the government." It is not an "us vs them" thing...WE are the GOVERNMENT.

People who believe that "government" is separate from "the people" - the same people who believe that they are "self-made" without the help of government, are in a fantasy world. NO ONE would be able to make ANYTHING of themselves without government. From food, water, and air safety to education to transportation to utilities to regulation of commerce to defense (the list is almost endless) government sets up the playing field, and makes sure it is generally safe and generally fair.

It is utter nonsense to hear people use the terms "big" government and "small" government - especially when applied to the national parties! When conservatives find something that they wish to spend tax dollars on, they spend it as much - actually, MORE - than liberals? Did you know that the current Administration is spending the most amount of money in history? Under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent!! Is THAT "small" government?!?!?

Now, one can argue the 9/11 card, and say that the increases are "necessary" - that we need to be safe and secure in this country. Perhaps, but what about all of the other, MORE URGENT national problems - is solving THEM NOT necessary?!? Tobacco, drunk drivers, poverty, crime - these all kill HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of times more citizens than who died in 9/11 - EACH YEAR! These are premature deaths and needless injuries that we CAN reduce - we just have to spend the money fighting them.

I am really fed up with this nonsense about "big" government, about how it's OUR money, etc. You know, you are right - taxes really are OUR money - the GOVERNMENT'S, that is. It is the patriotic duty of EVERY American to pay thr taxes, as REPAYMENT of what America has given and is giving us every day.
________
NEXIUM LAWSUIT INFORMATION (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)

[Whatever]

First, notice that when I mentioned big and small gov, I was talking about liberals and conservatives, NOT Democrats and Republicans. There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. So your jump to the current administration assumed that conservative = Republican and liberal = Democrat, which it doesn't. I suppose I should have clarified that big gov = lots of gov programs and small gov = less gov programs. By the way, Republicans are just as capable of spending $$, as you point out, which is why I did not link them with small gov.

Second, a platform (the issues you support) and a blanket statement (all _______ are ______) are two very different things. It's pretty pathetic that we have to clarify this.

Third, your comment on liberal and conservative. What you listed is the dictionary definition of those two terms. That definition, as you point out, has not changed. But when you start talking about what those terms mean in political ideology - outside of the dictionary - than change is evident. Let me give you a more structured arguement.

The term "liberal", in its Greek meaning, refers to the free man, as opposed to the slave. Liberals, like the American founders, were committed to three types of freedom - economic, political, and speech/religion. In the classical liberal view, freedom meant limiting the power of the gov, thus increasing the scope for individual and private action.

Classic liberalism underwent two dramatic changes in the last 100 years: one in the 1930s, and one in the 1960s. The FDR administration in the 30s argued that people who lack life's necessities are NOT free. FDR thought that to give citizens true liberty, the gov should insure them against deprivation, job loss, illness, and impoverished old age. So FDR established gov programs galore to give citizens these things so they could be "truly free". In the 60s, the revolt was against the WWII ideas of hard work, marital fidelity, duty, etc. 60s factions called this moral consensus narrow and oppressive. The factions - the antiwar movement, the feminist movement, the gay movement - saw true freedom as bng true to yourself, whether or not the gov recognized it.

Now to the term "conservative". American conservatives are very different from European conservatives. European conservatives were reactionaries - they wanted to preserve the established king and church against modern science, modern capitalism, modern democracy. But American conservatives left Europe to escape this. What they supported was conserving the principles of the American Revolution...life, liberty, property.

What we end up with are two groups, each emphasizing a different type of equality. Modern American Conservatives emphasize equality of rights, while accepting that inequalities result from differential capacity or merit. Modern American Liberals emphasize equality of outcome, and they attribute inequality to unequal opportunity.

Those modern conservatives, placing the value on individual liberty, are almost identical ideologically to the liberals of the 1770s, wheras modern liberals support larger gov and greater gov power and are more like the European conservatives of the 1770s.

If you don't believe me, do the research yourself. And you probably won't find it under liberal authors, ther.

________
IOLITE VAPORIZER (http://vaporizers.net/portable-vaporizers)

[WantaghDem]

"Second, a platform (the issues you support) and a blanket statement (all _______ are ______) are two very different things. It's pretty pathetic that we have to clarify this."

Seems the clarification responsibility is mine towards you, and the pathetic is, well, if the shoe fits...

The original post of this thread asked what were the true differences between the two major national parties. My answer, while one may disagree with it, attempted to explain the differences - which are vast, Ralph Nader notwithstanding.

Since the two parties are national organizations, OF COURSE there are variations among members. But the original post - and my answer - did not deal with MEMBERS. It dealt with PARTIES.

And the IDEA of parties is to be able to make blanket statements....if this were not true, someone could stand up and say, "The Republican Party is for limited government" and someone else could stand up and say, "No, the Republican Party is for moderately-sized government, depending upon the situation" and so on.

Instead, the ROLE of the parties - stick with me now, I know I've used some polysyllabic words and all - and not the MEMBERS of the parties - is to elucidate general, or, if you will, BLANKET statements on the issues of the day.

THEREFORE, one CAN make general, or blanket, statements, when describing the differences between the national parties, because the parties themselves have established identities through thr statements and actions.

As for the rest of your "academic" post: someone who misunderstands FDR, the New Deal, the 60s and liberalism as much as you do would not benefit from the limited correctives available to me in a forum such as this. Besides I would not know where to begin to correct you, there is so much deep misunderstanding evident in your post.

As to your comment about "liberal" authors...indeed. I do not rely, as conservatives do, on "authors" for my reading of history and political science. I rely instead on academicians, who, unlike authors, actually must prove thr conclusions in peer-reviewed literature, and who must (again, unlike authors, and especially conservative authors) abide by rigorous methods and principles.
________
MARYJANE (http://maryjanes.info/)

[Whatever]

Ever wonder why academia tends to be more liberal while the business world tends to be more conservative?

Liberals know thr ideas don't work in real life, so they stay where the debate is theoretical. (This isn't a joke. Think about it.)

You (WantaghDem) are in no place to comment about authors if they are so beneath you that you don't read them.

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them." (source unknown - no, it's not Mark Twain)

And since you don't read yourself, you can't even recommend books to correct my "deep misunderstanding". How sad.

I rely on principles proven by history instead of on academia, where the offering of intellectual conclusions to the like-minded proves nothing.
________
BUY VOLCANO VAPORIZER (http://www.vaporshop.com/volcano-vaporizer.html)

[WantaghDem]

"You (WantaghDem) are in no place to comment about authors if they are so beneath you that you don't read them."

You need to go back and read my post again. I said that I do not rely on "authors" for my reading of HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. I rely on HISTORIANS and POLITICAL SCIENTISTS.

I did NOT say that I did not read NOVELS, or POETRY, or DRAMA, or LITERARY CRITICISM, etc.

Conservatives really DO have a problem reading WHOLE sentences..and here I thought it was just the 2nd Amendment they couldn't read all the way through.

"I rely on principles proven by history instead of on academia"

You DO, do you? Oh, my. What a wonderfully bold little statement. And where, pray tell, do you find out ABOUT history? From conservative authors who have no compunction about twisting the facts to suit thr purposes, or from HISTORIANS? And, in case you didn't realize it, HISTORIANS ARE ACADEMICIANS. Someone who simply writes a book about an historical event is NOT an historian, and is NOT writing history. They are writing OPINION.

I could write a book about neuropharmacology; after all, I too have OPINIONS about mental illness and the use of drugs to treat it. However, since I don't know the first thing about neuropharmacology, any book I write on the subject should not be taken seriously.

But I really really want to write - more importantly, sell - that book. So I can make some wild accusations about how the Clintons used to use the NIH labs to cook up thr own secret mood elevators LSD etc. Maybe I could include my own rather marginal views about forcing certain political types to take mind altering drugs to shut them out of talk radio. Then I could market the book in such a way that EVERYONE will read it and EVERYONE will believe me - except that NO ONE can prove a single thing I say in the book.

That process does not make me an expert in neuropharmacology.

Nther does writing a book full of lies about liberals (oh, make that TWO books full of lies about liberals) make Ann Coulter a political scientist.

"...where the offering of intellectual conclusions to the like-minded proves nothing."

You have a world-class ignorance of the academic world! In conservative terms, you are to be congratulated for bng such a dolt when it comes to academia!

Academics have to prove thr conclusions in PEER REVIEWED literature. That means they have to publish not only results but theory and method, so that others - PARTICULARLY those with whom they disagree - can attempt to DISPROVE thr conclusions. This is rigorous, real-world, adult stuff. LIVES depend on this stuff....unlike conservative talk radio and so-called "authors" - where nothing matters except making a buck, no one ever suffers the consequences of thr actions, and nothing important is at stake.

If you are so distrustful of academics, then you really should stop typing this instant and turn off your computer. Don't go to the doctor when you are sick, certainly don't get on an airplane, and don't use any product connected to an electrical outlet. Because each of these things - and hundreds more in your daily life - are the result of ACADEMIC INQUIRY. Serious, dedicated, QUALIFIED professionals work every day in the academic world to make YOUR life better. Progress, technology, medicine - these things ALL come from ACADEMIC life. They are the result of applying the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to solving problems, not praying to the empty clouds.

Good luck marinating in your own ignorance. If you really get low on the intelligence scale, and fail at everything you ever do on your own, you too could become appointed the President of the United States!
________
HERBAL SHOP (http://herbalhealthshop.com)

[engjamerican]

Okay folks; these are my inferences based on your responses.

If someone believes in the representative form of government that favors social equality via government involvement in the lives of its citizens and adheres to liberal principles such as; reform and constant change formed of new philosophies, gun control, social programs, pro-abortion rights and liberty to break with societal norms such as sexual preference, that individual ought to be a member of the Democratic Party? Conversely; if someone believes in the representative form of government that favors individual achievement with little or no government intervention, opposes change and adheres to traditional values and societal views, that individual ought to be a member of the Republican Party?

Is a Democrat nothing more than an individual who believes in a representative form of government that favors a political system fashioned off socialistic ideologies as a means to shape society into a group of citizens who have a somewhat equitable share of the nation’s wealth? The aforementioned definition of a Democrat would indicate that a Republican is essentially an individual who subscribes to the truest connotation of the word capitalism based on the belief that the ability to success and prosper is a derivative of one’s own use of the means of production to carve a niche for himself thus eliminating the need for government intervention. In a nutshell; does bng a Democrat equal needy citizens and a Republican equal self-sufficiency???????

[nonsense]

There is no difference between the two parties. Politics is a rich man's business and they are there to line thr own pockets while throwing a bone to the public to keep them busy. They may differ on the issues like abortion but that is it. Chose a party based on your views not on the political system.

[In the middle]

I grew up not sure what party I should belong to. I always seemed to like the Republican philosophy about personal freedoms, etc. But yet I was puzzled by the constant abortion war and why so many Republicans are anti-choice. I am not crazy about abortion but I had a problem about the choice/freedom issue.

Another is the gay issue. Currently, the gay marriage debate is heating up. Why are there so many Republicans against this? This is basically a contract between two people. And Republicans are certainly the party of contracts, if any party is. So what gives. Also there are at l three gay republican congressman that I know and only 1 gay democrat. Wrd.

I'm not gay and am not passionate about this issue but I remain confused about the strong Republican opposition.

Many Republicans I know point to the hijacking of the party by religious fanatics, especially in the south. But why would these types have been attracted to the party in the first place if the party stands for individual freedoms? I have heard that the Lincoln Republican no longer exists but dont understand why. Perhaps if there are any real Republicans out there that arent too dominated by thr religious beliefs, they can shed some light on this.

So back to the drawing board. What is a Republican and what is a Democrat? I still am not so sure.

The good news is that when I go into a voting booth I tend to split my vote. This also seems to be the trend around the country and I think that isnt such a bad thing.

[South Shore]

what principles?
________
Philippine girl Webcam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/asian-girls/)

[Yodel]

Okay, so conservative-backed candidates have been in charge of Suffolk County for eons -- is Suffolk Gov't bigger or smaller than ever?!

Suffolk Gov't is HUGE!

Nationally, is the gov't smaller under GWB???! No, he adds a new department seemingly every week.

I agree with the poster who said that it isn't about size of government -- Liberals would reduce the military complex nationally; that would shrink government.

Locally, if a Liberal somehow took over Suffolk Gov't, he would get rid of all the Conservative patronage positions that have piled up over the years -- that would lower taxes.

A Liberal would also be more apt to ban certain perks, like gas-eating SUVs.

Conservatives are afraid of change -- because they would lose the most by change. They like gov't that's a boys' club. They like deals that help thr wealthy friends. They like to be able to sell thr property for as much as possible -- even if it is pristine land to a shady developer.

This history of American Liberalism is a "for-the-people" style that resulted in dramatic change in the mid-20th century. Unions, rent control, conservation, open gov't, ballot access, choice, integration -- these were Liberal ideals turned into law.

Citizen Kane's nickname was "The Fighting Liberal."

It once was a positive term -- and it should still be today. The Liberals have to define what thr ideals are going to be for this century, and gov't will follow.




________
Political risk insurance forum (http://www.insurance-forums.org/political-risk-insurance/)

[PetieBoy]

Republicans still like freedom; it's just that killing people shouldn't be one of them.

Smaller government, a strong efficient military, and adhering to the text of the Constitution are really all that is needed to ensure that freedom is maintained. Personal freedom means that the maximun opportunity to better yourself is maintained as well. I'd go into mroe detail, but it's a little late.

[Whatever]

in the middle, you said something in your post about how you don't understand the Republican opposition to homosexual marriage. maybe i can shed a little light on this particular subject.

marriage has, for hundreds and thousands of years, been exactly what you called it, a contract. two people of opposite gender married for social status, mutual gain, and family line continuation. if you were a woman your husband was most likely chosen for you by your parents. love was not a factor. period.

love is, obviously, a factor in how marriages are made today. the US leads the world in this - many cultures still have arranged marriage - and yet marrying for love didn't really start to become socially acceptable until well into the 21st century.

the government has an interest in promoting marriage because marriage produces children and it is the most effective unit for raising the children to be good citizens. kids learn that much better from thr parents than they do from thr teachers.

for these reasons, married couples get all kinds of benefits...tax deductions, etc.

what the homosexual agenda wants to do is allow people of thr particular sexual orientation to obtain a "marriage". but this marriage is based solely on love. it cannot produce children (for obvious biological reasons).

let's say we allow two gay men to "get married" because they love each other. well, brothers and sisters often love each other and we don't marry them. we don't marry cousins even if they love each other. and if love is the only standard, why can't we then marry three men? or two men and a woman? or three women and three men? or five women, six men, and a dog? these groups all love each other, so why can't they get married?

the reason is obvious - when you change the required standard for marriage, you make it possible for anyone to get a marriage...and if anyone can get a marriage, why should the government give it exclusive benefits?

what you end up with is "marriage" that can be obtained by anyone...and the government now has no incentive to give marriage benefits like the coveted tax deduction.

many Republicans see that marriage is on the track to becoming completely meaningless if gay marriage is allowed.

and yes, it is possible to oppose the homosexual agenda without bng a religious fanatic.

________
Buy Portable Vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/portable-vaporizers)

[Whatever]

i meant to say the 20th century, not the 21st. sorry about that. this mistake was major enough to merit acknowledgement.
________
MAKE A VAPORIZER (http://howtomakeavaporizer.info/)

[In the middle]

Whatever:

Well I have to say that your post reeks of what is known as "homophobia".

Anyone who makes an ignorant statement like "six men and a dog can get married" shows where your head is at.

I dont know if you live a sheltered life or not. Perhaps you come from a family where "no one is gay". This, of course, is not true. What it means is that no one in your family is bng honest. And by family, I mean Aunts, Uncles, cousins, brothers, sister, nephew, etc.

If you did know any gay people, you would know that, like straight people, MOST are serious when wanting to get married and dont jump into it just because they "love each other" and they wont be bringing in a third, etc. There is more to it. And besides, I believe it is legal for gays to adopt so there goes that "continuation of family line" theory. I also know some gay people who have thr own biological children in tow as well.

I am sure you have known straight people who got married and you didnt think they were right for each other. Hell, I see people getting married all the time because thr "clock is ticking" or "they want to have children", etc. Great reasons.

The point I was trying to make was that you may not be a religious fanatic but you are taking a personal belief (prejudice) and trying to tell me it is a "Republican Philosophy". This is interpreting Republican ideas to fit your beliefs. This is what is wrong with some factions of the Republican Party.

You speak a lot about Conservative and Liberal philosophy. Check out the Grandfather of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, ideas on "the homosexual agenda".

And personally, no I dont think marriage is the right thing for the gay community to try and obtain. I believe thr relationships are generally different from straights and that a "civil union" is probably the best way for them to go. And, no, I dont think that it should allow just anyone or more than two, or a dog, etc.

Now anyone who opposes Civil unions is just proving my point.

[Whatever]

just where in my post do you find homophobia?
________
Marijuana vaporizer (http://weedvaporizer.info/)

[In the middle]

Homophobia is the irrational fear that homosexuals can somehow make you gay, which is usually what is at the root of most anti-gay people. Let's face it, people who are comfortable with thr sexuality could care less what gays do with thr lives.

If you disagree with me check out what Arnold S has to say. The future governor of California is 100% hetro, 100% republican and cant believe govt. is even debating gay equality issues.

When you start comparing men marrying men to people wanting to marry thr dogs you lose credibility or basically, become irrational. AKA..homophobia.

It is ridiculous to think that allowing gays to marry will affect you in any way. It is a waste of time to worry about the institution of marriage bng ruined by any other group anyway.

So can we get back to my original post in which I just used the gay marriage issue as an example of Republicans not bng true to thr original ideology. Which is that they state that GOVT SHOULD STAY OUT OF PEOPLES PERSONAL LIVES.

[had enough]

The problem in Brookhaven and even Suffolk is that there really is no difference. The whole game is about "Let's Make a Deal" You do this for me and I'll give you this. LaValle cuts deals with Laufer (ie Ward Candidates were no accident) and Neppell cuts deals with Schaeffeer. It's all about what can I do for you so you don't really come after me with everything. Enough to make you gag!

[rmcgin]

I have to say I really enjoy seng the discussions going on in this thread. Democracy does not come from speaking out against the establishment, democracy comes from having differing views and bng able to discuss those views intelligently.

I am no political expert, but I know what my views are and that I vote based on those views (like everyone else). To me a republican is a conservative and generally supportive of biblical views: anti-abortion; anti-gay marriage; small, non-intrusive government; strong, local schools, strong military, lower spending and lower taxes (flat rate accross the board).

I get confused when I talk about democrats because I tend to lump them in with liberals. I think the original democrats were very patriotic and supportive of the USA. I think the overall platform now is to increase federal (centralized) government control (maybe they don't trust that others can do it - doesn't that make them elitists?); downsize the military; ensure equality for everyone (socialization of medicine, taxes, welfare, gays in military, etc.); Pro-abortion (even partial birth abortion - you should research this and make sure you look at the pictures. I don't know how anyone can condone this); and to cover all of this, increase spending.

If you cannot tell, I am a republican, admittedly. However, I started off as a democrat until I realized that they just are not in tune with most of America anymore. They seem to push thr agenda no matter what the people say.

So my confusion comes in with liberalism. I know a few people that would consider themselves to be liberals: they are pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, pro self-indulgence, extreme free speach (I personally believe that as soon as you become hurtful of others or slanderous then that should not fall under free speach), athst and ANTI-GOVERNMENT. That's what confuses me the most. My personal experience with "liberals" is that they are somewhat anarchistic, when the party that is supposedly all about liberalism is for big government.

Some of the earlier posts ask what the big deal is about gay marriage... again, republicans follow a biblical morality. The bible says that gays are an abomonation (defined as disgusting, not hated). I think much of the hoopla about gay marriage is just about winning and bng able to basically say "in your face". Why does a gay couple feel the need for a government to approve of thr union (serious question)? I understand about survivor's benefits and all, but there are ways to get around much of that.

The same goes for a lot of the race focused issues going on. I am a white guy, so I will not pretend to know what other races go through. I have had limited exposure to reverse racism, but I cannot say I am an expert. But, in my opinion, if some of the "activists" stopped bng so active, would things get better? We know that when news channels stop showing police pursuits the number of pursuits go down in a city. Why would this not work for hate-related activism (I may be extremely naive here)?

Overall, I think parties are good as long as they don't let thr party get in the way of running the country. I will always vote for "the best" person be it man, woman, black, white or whatever.

I think as adults we have a responsibility to lead our children by example. Theft, murder, adultry, accepting bribes, betraying your morals and ethics, speaking out against your country to the benefit of our enemies or just because you don't like someone, lying, changing the data to suit your needs... These are all bad things and up until the 60s was not widely accepted.

I think newspapers and other media should be held accountable for what they print or broadcast and should report on the facts, not further thr political goals. Free speach only goes as far as your subject can be proven and doesn't harm others. If our child writes something hurtful about a teacher we punish them. Why wouldn't we hold the media accountable as well?

Oops.. I am getting into a rant so I will stop.

[WantaghDem]

Since you admit "confusion" about liberals, let me buy you a clue:

Most Americans are liberal, or support liberal ideas without knowing they are liberal.

Just like most women are feminists, or support feminist ideals without knowing they are feminist (if you need proof, see survey after survey after survey that shows some women saying "no, not a feminist" and then agreng with every single item that would identify them as feminists, such as equal pay for equal work, etc.).

Webster's dictionary defines liberalism as "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties." No matter what you may WANT to define liberalism as, THIS is the definition of the word.

From the beginning, Americans have believed that the conditions of thr lives could and would be improved; that is, they have believed in progress. One cannot concve of a nation dedicated to democracy that does not rest on faith in "the essential goodness of man." It would seem even more likely that in a democratic society most of the citizenry would accept the importance of personal freedom-"the autonomy of the individual"-as well as the need to protect that freedom.

Thus, except for the most confirmed standpatter or unswerving cynic, nearly all Americans have some identification with liberalism, whether they know it or not.

Just about every educated person I encounter around the world is a liberal. Almost every working journalist, nurse, and flight attendant leans toward liberalism; nearly every teacher, scientist, clergyman, and child-care worker is a liberal. I can't remember the last time I met an illiberal professor of history, my old profession. How could anybody read history and not be a liberal?


How indeed.

________
NO2 VAPORIZER (http://no2vaporizer.net)

[EvilPieMaker]

you just can not get your hand off the keyboard, can you? really, your mind is full of crap as your some big shot that like to shot off your mouth.
________
HAWAII MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES (http://hawaii.dispensaries.org/)

[Bad Grammar]

Please go back and repeat your last three years of English. Your spelling is almost as bad as your grammar. If your lack of English language skills is typical of young conservatives, the party is doomed!
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Just look at the idiot in the White House.

[WantaghDem]

....that if EvilPieMaker went back and repeated the last three years of English, he would be in pre-K!

It doesn't do much good to engage this tree stump.
________
MAGIC FLIGHT BOX REVIEW (http://www.vaporshop.com)

[Wantagh Dem and Evil Pie]

, don't feel bad about bng washed up. Everyone has second acts in America. Granted, not everyone has third acts, and bng relegated to hacking out "political interviews" on a fourth-rate local politics site won't guarantee you yours (especially the poor way you "write" which is a JOKE...you could actually take lessons from the "writers" at Anton News) - but that doesn't mean that you have to take out your frustrations about never actually amounting to anything in politics - even LOCAL politics - on the rest of us smart, successful folks!

Awwww. Don't cry now, !

How 'bout a round of applause for our resident frustrated loser hack ?

No?

OK, then. The rest of us who have lives will continue living them.

[Out You Go]

Republican Principles:

1. Borrow and spend.

2. Borrow and spend.

3. Borrow and spend.



No more Borrow and Spend Republicans

Vote the bum out!

[yeah but]

Sure, like ANY of the dem candidates would not tax and spend. Get real.
________
Volcano Classic (http://www.vaporshop.com/volcano-vaporizer.html)

[In Again]

The RINO's tax as much as the Dems. Maybe more. Who do you think pushed through all the tax and fee increases from the state and signed them? Martians? 2/3 of NYS government is GOP-controlled. They tax and spend with the best of any mythological Dem. They also borrow and spend and just spend, spend, spend.

When will the taxpayer realize they've been had? After another Nassau-like meltdown?

[Loves Wantagh Dem]

Go Wantagh Dem!!!!

Hit Disgruntled Republican...I mean Taxpayer!!

Hit 'em again!!
Hit 'em again!!!
Hit 'em harder!!

[Liberal Man]

Juxtaposing the terms "Republican" and "Principles" in the same sentence creates an oxymoron with an emphasis on the "moron" part.

[wookibender]

Quote: Sure, like ANY of the dem candidates would not tax and spend. Get real.
Uh, are you really that stupid?
All politicians tax and spend. The issue is BORROW and spend? There's a difference. One is having the money from taxes to spend and the other is asking for money to spend and paying it back later with interest.

Tell me what Republican President in the last 30 years has balanced a budget?

Before you go look that up, I'll just tell you, there is none.
Republicans and fiscal responsibility do not go together. Remember that.
________
SQUIRTING TUBES (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/38/squirting/videos/1)

[TheYukonMan]

Republican Principals:

1/ reduce crime by executing more people faster
2/ Reduce welfare by withdrawing medical support for them - they'll die faster
3/ Improve Puplic Education by eliminating it through the voucher system
4/ Improve international relations by bombing innocent women and children living in stone-age societies
5/ Elect the Fuhrer as Governor of Calee - phone - e - a
6/ Watch Rush Limpdick daily on TV listen to him daily on Radio
7/ Females repeat after me: "Rush is not a limpdick"

[TheYukonMan]

I almost forgot....:"> Repubs:"> despise homosexuals but then so do many of us Liberals. .