What Political Party are you?
 

Hey, I've been reading a lot of political threads on this forum and learning more and more about political parties in my AP government class and I was wondering what party everyone belongs to.

It seems that the majority of people here are Republicans - and hate Democrats. I believe I'm a Republican also, like my parents (can't vote until July).
Have fun with this guys!

Later,

Nick

I am neither. Quite frankly, the party system is a joke. All it does is create a bipartisan atmosphere more centered on competition between the two parties than actually representing the people.

At least it's predictable for how legislators are going to align based on what party they are sponsored by. Since politicians are horrible liars, cheats, and theives, you wouldn't be able to figure out what they would do if they weren't running under the guise of a party.

Political party time!
 

I'm a conservative Republican. Surprise!

The two-party system is alive and well in America and the premise that they are both the same is easily disproven by simply looking at the difference between President Bush and former President Clinton. If you can't see the difference, you shouldn't bother to vote next time.

We get the government and the politicians we want.

If we allow 'our' party to nominate and back people who do not represent our views then we are just as responsible for the 'bad' politicians that generates as the party hacks that offer us these losers.

On the other hand, if we choose to stand back, sneer and claim that the 'system' is corrupted, we lose any chance to have the slightest effect on who gets elected and what laws are passed. If you want to fight, get in the game and don't just throw up your hands and complain.

I'm politically active but I don't back Republicans that don't reflect (at least) a majority of my views but I also understand that no politician will agree with me 100% , all the time.

I love partianship!

I want my State Representative, Congressman, Senator and President to fight the other side for my (our party) point of view. If he/she is going to go along with the other side all the time, why bother? There is a lot of difference between the Republican and Democrat parties and they can never agree on some important issues but they can- and do - compromise.
I believe they should, when possible, but in the end, I want my man/woman in Congress or wherever to fight for party principles.

That's why I strongly support President Bush. He's a staunch Republican but he compromises when he can. I don't agree with everything he's compromised on, but overall, he does a great job and is an excellent leader for the times we live in.

Did I mention that I was a Republican?
:D

Well most of us southerners get stuck being called Democrats.
I lean toward's the Republican side. Thank God Al BORE didn't win or we would be kissing bin Laden's rear end.

Sorry, I usually don't bring up politics or religion, it's always an argument, but Slick Willy and Bore really let this country go to h***** so if I had my way I would move to Spain & let all the Super-Powers have it out.

Call me a traitor or whatever.
I served 12 years in the military and all I got was lost buddies & bill's from VA for my effort's, so I will just say America is becoming the world's police-why?

:confused:

Republican.

God only know how Gore would have handled Sept. 11.

Go Dubya:D

hey josh just a little change of subject, how much would it cost for me to get a ,ole miss state flag, i have the old ga. flag, & would like to get the,ole miss flag before all the crybaby's make them change it too, e-mail me or pm - my e-mail -crazyhorsegt@msn.com thank's,cya marty -the last rebel.:D

Jim, I'm shocked! I always figured you as having a Nader sticker mounted crookedly on the rear bumper of your Mustang. ;)

I'm not allowed to vote, and am currently not registered. I still voice my opinions, and participate in anything I think is in my (sometimes our) best interest. I also encourage others to vote, if we agree on issues.

I was raised in a strong Republican household, and was the only kid on my block with Nixon/Agnew stickers on his Schwinn (I still believe Nixon was one of the better Presidents in my lifetime). I was brought up to believe that Republicans were Men, and Democrats were whiny little pussies.

As I got older, I discovered that, at least for me, it wasn't that cut and dry. There are many issues that I believe in that are more supported by one party or the other.
I firmly believe that the Govt. has little or no business in what you and I do privately, and support the Republican attitude of "less Govt control". What I do find odd is that it always seems to be the Democrats that push for rights and "freedoms", yet they are the ones who want to increase spending, and add more and more publicly supported programs that result in increased taxes, and take my guns away. Sounds like more Govt. to me.

The Republicans aren't completely innocent in this area either.
If they want less Govt., then why do they support the death penalty, yet are against personal decisions like abortion rights and drug laws? What happened to making your own decisions? Drug laws are a good tool to use for my example: I firmly believe that each person of adult age should be able to do to themselves whatever they please, in the privacy of their own home, and the laws regarding such things are mixed up with no rhyme or reason. I'm not advising that anyone should smoke pot, for example, but not one single person has ever died from a pot overdose, yet it's illegal. Meanwhile, alcohol kills tens of thousands every year, and is legal. When some one gets stoned, they want to stay at home and veg. When someone gets drunk, they want to go out and do something stupid. Stoners rarely fight. Drunks make up the vast majority of people arrested for fighting. Accidents involving stoners are less than 1 percent of what they are for drunks, yet again, pot is illegal, and alcohol isn't. I have seen the facts and weighed the issues, and there is no logical reason for this paradox. I think that is one of the things that really bothers me about the Republican party; that they tell me they want to be less involved in my life, yet want to regulate everything I do, even in the privacy of my home.

That all being said, I would have moved to Mexico if Gore had been elected. Democrats scare me. It's kinda like letting a 13 year old drive the school bus. Not a good idea for everyone concerned.

Okay, that's it for now.

Take care,
-Chris

Marty, I PM'ed you.

Thanks Josh. Hey, I know a guy who has every kind of Ford V-8 you might ever need -289, 302, 351W, 351 Cleveland, even a 429 with the C-6 to go with it.

Let me know because he says he's going to scrap them. The 429 needs an oil pump, but is fine otherwise. It's a 4v engine. I would like to get the 351W but oh well.

Oh yeah, Democrat's...aawww, never mind.
PKRWUD - I'll e-mail you Sunday. Got a question for ya.

Gotta go to bed , later .:rolleyes:
:D

I hope nobody interpreted me as thinking we can sit back and just blame the system.

I vote for whoever I think will do the best job in the office. If that means voting for a democrat (rarely), or a republican, or a third party, so be it.

The main point I was trying to make is about all this bickering back and forth that does nobody good.

I'm a Republican all the way.

I register as a democrat, but really, I try to go for the better guy! I did vote for gore, but believe that Bush handled 9-11 better than Gore could ever have.

I am a republican when it comes down to wich one you are it is really easy to decide.

Republicans- Less government, and encourages people to be independent.

Democrats- more and more government, They want people to be dependant upon the government for any and everything wich is responible for the large number of people that abuse the system and choose not to be a productive member of society.

The next big challenge America will face is keeping Hillary Clinton out of the Oval office to pick up were her husband left off. She is worse than a democrat I think she leans more towards being a marksist or a communist than anything else.

I could go on and on on this subject but ill keep it short.

Republican baby! Ol' George does me proud!:D :p

I love the smell of politics in the morning!
 

Nice to see so many sensible people - and Republicans - around here. No place like home.


Marty:

America is THE superpower. Russia is on it's arse, China can't feed it's people and has a limited nuclear capability and other countries are dangerous but no superpower. We're it.

We're the world's policeman because we're the target of most of the bad guys - it's in our own best interest to protect ourselves - and we're also the only country that has the military might and the money to kick foreign butt halfway around the world and do it in weeks (i.e. Afghanistan and the Taliban).
Clinton wasted the military on 'peacekeeping' missions that just got American soldiers killed; Bush uses the military where and when it's needed, then we get out and let the locals take over. We keep an eye on them (Afganistan) but we don't occupy the country for long.

For all it's faults, you won't do any better than America, Marty, and you're no traitor. Disappointed maybe, but no traitor. Get that idea out of your mind. We all disagree with our government on various issues, but we have that right (First Amendment). That's what makes our country great - freedom.



Chris:

On the surface, you sound like a Libertarian; they advocate personal responsibility - and personal freedom (they want all drugs legalized) as well as smaller government but I've studied the party philisophy and debated with a few Libertarians on the internet (not on this website) and they generally seem to have a utopian view of society and government that clashes with reality, in my opinion.

I can't support them but you would a good prospect for the Libertarians, especially since the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate (Harry Browne) only received about 400,000 votes (.04%) in the 2000 election. I understand that you can't vote, but they need everyone they can get.

I have to disagree regarding legalizing drugs and the damage that would do to a population already ravaged by the negative effects of alcohol. I don't see drugs as the benign substances you do and the concept of solitary stoners, quietly getting high in the privacy of their own homes with no negative effects on the general population is a bit, well, utopian.

That scenario may be true of the people you know, but a legalization of drugs nationwide would see a lot more stoned drivers (who are just as dangerous as drunks - just not as obvious without a test) and other problems we don't need in this country would also grow.
While some would control drug use others would become addicts with all the attendent grief that causes to family and friends trying to help them while they sink into - and die from - drugs.

With all the harm alcohol use has wrought in this country since it's inception, why would we, as intelligent people, wish to unleash yet another addictive and potentially debiliating drug into the mainstream and make it easy and legal to obtain?
I know many use drugs now - illegally - but drugs - and alcohol - do nothing good for anyone, other than detatch one from reality, and we can hardly deal with the problems alcohol has brought us; from dead men, women and children caused by drunken drivers to babies murdered by drunken boyfriends and husbands to robberies and assaults committed by those who were drunk. I cannnot see why we need more and even stronger and addictive intoxicants on the legal market.

That stated, I note that every poll I've ever seen has shown the majority of adult Americans firmly and decisively against legalization of drugs.
I doubt that will change anytime soon and so I see no chance of drugs becoming legal in our lifetime, making the argument moot. Still, worth commenting on.


I agree with Unit about the partisan political bickering being unproductive. It's mostly posing and/or trying to bash the other party or person but - that's politics.
Usually, a Democrat will have one idea that he proposes (i.e. raising taxes) and the Republican will oppose that idea and the fight begins.
Or - vice-versa.
Just as we see on this very forum, pure logic and a focus on facts soon gives way to name-calling and often the questioning of motives and finally, character, all of which accomplish nothing at all.

I believe President Bush has truly tried to set a new tone in Washington and has been somewhat successful. You never hear him or his senior staff attack another politician's character over a disagreement. At least not in public.

Bush has been successful partly because he tries to compromise with the Democrats but never loses his conservative focus. He is trying to do the best for the country (knowing that he won't please everyone) and his high (85%) approval ratings - even five months past the attack on America on September 11th) - show that the President is seen as honest, capable and on the right track. Meanwhile, the Democrats, seeking some issue to exploit in the fall elections, are obstructing the President's proposals in Congress and climbing all over the Enron mess to find something they can blame Bush for. Won't happen.

Sure, Enron gave money to the Bush campaign, but they gave money to practically every politician in the country at one time or another and the Bush Administration did nothing for Enron. No scandal. No 'issue' for the Democrats to yell about.
Enron was a business scandal, not a political one. Guilt by association doesn't work. Just because Enron sent Bush some campaign funds along the way doesn't mean that it was a quid pro quo. It wasn't and thats obvious.

So, yes, I'm a Republican but I do vote for the man and the issues. I don't support the Bush Mexican immigration policy (now dormant after 9/11) or the 'faith-based' initative (nice idea - not workable) and his tax cuts were good, but too small to help the economy .
Still, I cashed my tax rebate check just like everyone else.
The Bush/Kennedy education bill was like adding more deck chairs while the Titanic sinks. Looks nice - accomplishes little.

Well, I said I don't agree with everything the President does.

I predict big Republican gains in the House and Senate this November. Bush is on a roll and the Democrats can only complain about it but are fresh out of ideas and have weak, unpopular leadership. More government intervention doesn't play well right now. 'PC' has taken a big hit, too, thank goodness.

We're a far cry from the constitutional republic we stated out with in 1776, but with George Bush as President, at least we've restored some sanity to the White House and our foreign and domestic policies.

I'm proud to be a Republican and proud of my country and our President.

Flags wave in the breeze as Mr. 5.0 steps down from the podium as the crowd rises to it's feet and erupts in frenzied, sustained applause. Then he wakes up. :D

I agree with everything MR. 5.0 said.

There will always be arguing between politicians, that's how it works. Our country's politics are based on compromise basically which is why the third parties don't get elected - but still are important.
Also, the candidates who are extreme won't get elected either because they must show that they are moderate yet still retain conservative or liberal qualities.

Bush seems to be a very good President so far, despite all the early ridicule because he wasn't the best at speeches in public.

Later

Republican here.

O.K. Mr. 5.0, I guess you got me.

Only about 4 people on this site know this, but here it is:

I have Gulf War Syndrome.
All I get from VA is a bill for $50.00 every time I go there.
They don't want to talk to me about anything, except i smoke. No not that stuff , but,they dont want to talk or help me with anything else. Yes, I'm p.o.'ed at that - especially when I hear; "Oh, let's take care of our vet's, Oh let's remember our vet's!

I have been to 6 funeral's - so far - of my brother's-in-arms in Iraq. YES - I'm a disappointed American.

Sorry for the vent.

I signed the paper's but should I have to pay money 11 year's later? At least the Republicans know we need a stong military, I agree.
Sorry, I served my country but feel now as though I was a freaking lab rat. Geez!

I apologize, but I just don't feel like a big flag waver anymore.

Mr. 5.0 I'm not flaming you - don't take it that way - but the way I feel is...you remember CCR, the song, Fortunate Son? That's me.

I would say independent but that always gets a bad rap. Frankly I think that the system we have now doesn't represent the people the way it should. I vote for who I like. It doesn't matter if they are democrat, republican or otherwise.

Don't take it the wrong way, but I didn't particularly like any of our choices for President. ::shrug:: But I thought that whole election was a sham, and I'd personally like to see something done about things rather than shoving it under a rug in light of current events going on now. The whole thing was too fishy for me, and I think the electoral college is BS being that we have the technology we do now. If it's going to be the majority, then it should be the REAL majority, IMNSHO.

On a different note I was impressed with how Bush handled things after Sept. 11. Mostly the events immediately after. Proved to me that he can handle things even if I don't personally like him.

Well what can we say...at least our country will have a history book that has a Clinton between two Bush's. Fitting no?

SilverPoet,
I'm no governmental genius, but there is a HUGE reason that we have an electoral college.... it keeps states like New York and California from running the entire decision making process for our country. Why would a Presidential candidate give a crap about any issue in Kansas as long as he had good ties with New York? our founding fathers understood this dilemma and is a reason why the Senate is comprised of equal representation by state and the House is represented by population. Not a perfect solution, but it works...

Also, you'll only see this dilemma in EXTREMELY close elections, I think this was like maybe the second time that the popular vote was different than the electoral college.

Also, if I remember correctly, The numbers came out to like 50.1% for Gore, 49.9% for Bush. (Sounding like a democrat here:) Considering that the number of lost votes, miscounted votes, and just plain freaked out votes could have easily made up the count in the popular vote total.... I don't think ANYONE will really ever know the true count. It was just too close considering a country of around 285 million folks....

Just one other thing, I remember seeing a map of the US divided on how the states voted.... It looked like a sea of states for Bush and a few populous states for Gore.... sort of makes me thankful for that TERRIBLE electoral college...;)

Jim-
I'm in agreement with most of what you said. I haven't smoked pot in many years, and I don't really drink anymore, either (maybe 6 beers in the past 12 months). I still get angry with the way the govt. is handling the "war on drugs". Criminalization is not the answer, and that's been proven. As far as seeing polls, keep in mind that several states have put it up for a vote, and the voters said to legalize it. Polls are opinions, votes become laws. Unfortunately, we are no longer free enough to make our own decisions. Even if a state votes for legalization, the federal government slaps the state in the face and firmly tells them to go stand in the corner for suggesting such a thing. What's the point of having state elections if the federal government is going to overrule what the people voted for? The only reason alcohol is still legal and pot isn't is money, IMHO.

Please remember that I am not advocating the use of drugs. What I am is sick of pouring billions of our tax dollars into a war we are losing, and can not win. If it were legalized, we (the govt.) could tax and regulate it. Pot would bring money in, rather than come out of all of our paychecks for the "war". There are other alternatives. I actually support what has worked in other countries, which is decriminalization. It's not quite legalization, but it's close. It's basically saying that if you can get stoned, and still be a responsible person, go for it. But, if you screw up, we'll arrest you. What in the world is wrong with that?

Take care,
-Chris

"All research and succesfull drug policy shows that treatment should be increased and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minumum sentences" System of a Down.

I just thought i would put that in there. I cant remember what song that is though and i cant go check since im at school. doh!

Later

Republican. why? 'Cause I'm an active duty Marine. 'Nuff said!

Politics, continued
 

crazy horse gt:

Marty, you have a perfect right to both disagree with me - or anyone else here - and to express your opinion. No need to apologize for anything you've posted.

I sympathize with your medical problems resulting from your military service and I agree that you - and the other Gulf War vets - have been treated poorly. I understand your frustration with the government and especially the VA.
I suggest that you give the Bush Administration a chance to do the right thing for vets. We're coming off of eight years of a military-hating administration that cut defense budgets to the bone and it takes time to increase those budgets - as Bush is doing - and for the money to actually get to the the military, including the vets. Hopefully, this will happen soon and things will improve at the VA hospitals and for Gulf War vets like yourself, suffering with Gulf War Syndrome.

Marty, I know you realize that we live in the best country in the world in terms of freedom and opportunity.
Americas faults - and we have plenty - don't come close to equating to it's positive aspects.
You may not desire to 'wave the flag anymore' - and I can understand that based on your VA experiences - but I still wave that flag for the concept of liberty and the freedom it represents, not for the federal bureaucracy , a political party or a politician.


Chris:

I agree that the War on Drugs is an abject failure and many lives have been ruined due to this misguided attempt to stop drug use, especially among the younger members of our society. The War on Drugs has to end, soon.

Decriminalization is one way to go but the nagging problem is that as drugs (unlike alcohol) can be so addictive, so quickly that just allowing pot to be legal but keeping the hard stuff illegal may not work for some people. Like making beer and wine legal but keeping spirits illegal.
Worth considering though.

As for the states not being allowed to decriminalize some drugs; as I understand it, that stems in part from the DEA and FDA and federal laws that supercede state regulations regarding controlled substances.

I think there is real ambivalence in America when it comes to drug laws. We want our freedom to ingest what we decide pleases us and going to prison for smoking a joint is clearly unfair and wrong. However, when it comes to opening the Pandora's Box of legalizing drugs in any meaningful way, a lot of us pull back, as we've seen the total devastation drug use has caused...sometimes in our own families. No, not mine, thank God, but I've seen some good, smart, decent people turn into bums in a few years directly due to drug use. I know a young lady who has stolen from her (poor) family...everything they had to live on that week, gone...so she could buy crack. She leaves a ten-year-old child alone for days, rescued only but a disabled but caring grandmother.

I could go on but you know these stories as well as I do - we've all heard them, seen them on TV. It's tragic.

This is why, when some folks say "I have a right to get high" some of us say, "Go ahead, knock yourself out" but then, we see that the stereotypical middle-class person smoking a joint after dinner in his or her own home, bothering no one, minding their own business, is mostly a myth. Drug use usually has negative consequences at some point, for some people.

So, politicians avoid the subject, not wanting to appear 'pro-drugs' and a lot of people who don't do drugs are not very interested in addressing drug laws that don't affect them directly.

The fact is that we all know that drug use can be dangerous and while I support the right of people to ingest whatever garbage they choose (I drink a lot of coffee) I'm also at a loss as to how we handle legalizing drugs - but only some drugs? How do we deal with addicts? Etc, etc. Tough questions.

I believe that all the talk about 'treatment' belies the fact that drugs are addictive and make problems for users. If they didn't, why would we need all these 'treatment' centers?

It also seems reasonable to suggest that with all the problems alcohol causes (death, injuries, robberies, etc) why do we need more 'legal' intoxicants around to spur some people to commit criminal, maybe deadly acts that they probably wouldn't commit were they not high on drugs at the time. Granted, people will get the drugs illegally, but why hand it to them? Seems illogical to me.

I have serious reservations about the ability of the government - who can't even give us a correct answer to a tax problem when we call the IRS for help - to keep any real controls on harder drugs once that old favorite, marijuana, is made totally legal and readily available at the local government (taxpayer-subsidized, no doubt) 'drug' store. Miracles can happen but I don't see this working out for the best.

I also believe that the citizen or politician that does come up with a workable answer to the 'drug problem' in America and can find a generally constitutional and reasonable way to decriminalize but still control drug use to reasonable levels will be a national hero.

Good luck.

Hammer: I guess I'm baised, I live in a VERY democatic state. Say I liked Bush (I didn't but for the sake of arguement lol) even if I vote for him, MY vote doesn't get heard. I think that sucks. I think the majority should be the true majority, point blank period. People shouldn't have to pay for living in a populous, one party minded state any more than those who live in a state with more people. It isn't really a STATE that has the say in an election, I was under the impression it was the people. Voting is supposed to have a persons opinion heard...even if only in a little way.

As for that crap of an election we will never know who was the true winner and I don't care any more. lol. I think that the democrats drug it out, I think the republicans worked some magic. It's water under the bridge. I'm more concerned with what Bush is doing now, and it isn't horrible..yet. lol

Mr 5.0 - i sincerely apoligize, I was just in a stressed out mood last night.

I do agree America is the best, but we let so many bleeding heart's get their way. Example: Pro-lifer's will kill people at abortion clinic's. That doesn't make sense, not that I'm pro-abortion, but I'm a man so I have no say so in the matter.

Sorry big guy - don't ban me:D

BTW: I never wanted to post that I have gulf war syn but I guess it's too late now. It suck's but I fight it every day.



chris just admit it you wanna burn a fatty ,hehe:D :D;) ;)

Chris: Just admit it - you wanna burn a fatty. hehe :D

LOL :D

Hehe...
Yea Silver, I guess I'm a bit biased also. Between the Carter years (ugh...shiver...) and let's-close-every-miltary-base-we-can Clinton, the democratic party has left a distinct smell of rancid leadership in my nostrils.... good economy or not.

I'd be well on my way to military retirement by now if democrat sponsored "Force Reductions" hadn't hit. I'd spent every waking moment of 4 years of my life training and protecting my country in a job I actually loved. Making things work in the cockpit of a Tomcat was a natural extension of being a gearhead as a kid.
Heck, I learned everything from advanced electronic theory to radar guidance and high frequency encoded communication for years just for the chance to jump in that beast and make her perform for those lucky college boys. It was of course MY aircraft, they just flew her for a few hours each day during Desert Storm.... ;)

Then one day after over 4 years of study and work, as I was poised to re-enlist, I came to find out that "force reduction" had made my rate\job description over 150% manned. My Master Chief told me I could re-enlist as ANYTHING else except the rate I was already in.... What a waste. I was extremely disollusioned and opted to get out. What was the point?

While I have a great life now flying Cessnas for fun and driving Yellow Jacket in my off time, I can't help but miss standing on the cat-walk watching a Tomcat go to burner on the cat. I can still feel the rumble go through me as the flames reached the Jet Blast Deflector..... What a rush....

I guess my whole point is that while ol' Dubya may not be too quick on the draw, he seems to have a good heart, no hidden agenda, a GREAT cabinet of highly competant individuals, and most importantly knows the difference between right and wrong. He may not be the best President, but in my opinion he's a much better "man" for the job than ol' slick Willy or Gore could ever be...

Just my opinion...

Right on, Hammer! The F-14 rules, in my book.
As I said before; I had 12 years in, but got out due to Clintonism. Thank God BORE didn't win. We hate him here in TN. :mad: :rolleyes:

I gotcha Hammer. :) Like I said, I don't agree with lots of stuff in gov't. And I don't have all the answers. And I totally see your side of the opinion and completely agree about the military standpoint.

I love aviation in general, my dad and grandfather were in the Navy, my uncle in the AF, my stepuncle had a purple heart from Korea. I also had a cousin in 'Storm. So there isn't a lack of patriotism here, that's for sure.

Hey, and if ANYONE in this world thinks that the SR (a plane we've had since Vietnam) is the most advanced plane we got...hum...they fail the intellegence test. ;)

Politics. Part III
 

crazy horse:

Please stop apologizing, guy.

I'm actually flattered that you feel comfortable enough with those on this forum to post your real thoughts and convictions as well as your complaints. It's cool.

Let me respond your comment regarding pro-lifers who kill pro-choicers at abortion clinics. Obviously, that's totally indefensible regardless of motivation and those who commit such premeditated murders should be punished with life or possibly the death penalty - I don't care which.

That having been said - over one million babies are aborted - killed in the womb - every year in this country and if you accept the premise that the 'fetus' is a live person in the womb, then the knowledge that over a million of these helpless little human beings-in-the-making, with heartbeats and brainwaves and movement at only a few weeks old - then what is done at abortion clinics is outright legalized murder, often for profit and this, for obvious reasons, drives some people over the edge.

Abortion is a deeply divisive subject fraught with all kinds of moral and social implications and I would rather not try to debate it here as most people already have a position (pro or con) and won't change it no matter what argument is raised.
I simply wished to mention that your example of pro-life people killing pro-choice people was apt in a sense; if abortion is murder - how can you justify murdering an adult ? Illogical, as Mister Spock might say.

Of course, pro-abortion people often vigorously oppose the death penalty which is also a bit odd. A baby in the womb - as innocent as a human being will ever be - is O.K. to murder ('abort') but it's cruel and barbaric to execute some 35-year-old mass murderer who probably raped or tortured his victims? Makes no sense, I agree.
I also agree that PC and the liberal leftists have taken over a large part of our American culture, to our great loss. College classrooms have often become indoctrination centers for leftist political revisionism, turning out young minds full of mush for the most part, devoid of any real historical perspective and believing that America is somehow racist, evil and the cause of most of the worlds problems. Tragic.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts Marty and keep 'em coming. You're among friends here.


SilverPoet:

Thanks for your input on the thread...also appreciated.

A comment regarding the Electoral College system, established by the founding fathers and altered somewhat by the 12th Amendment.
I see it this way; if we had the direct popular vote you wish for our elections they would resemble the way they are in Europe; specifically Italy, France and Germany - just to name the worst examples.

What happens is this: You have dozens of different special interests competing for the vote - enviromentalists, anti-abortion and pro-abortion groups, racial minorities, women's groups, big business, farmers, etc. It's an endless list. These groups then form individual political parties and run candidates for President, much as the fringe parties do now (with no success). The difference is - that in order for a responsible candidate to have a chance to win in this system, he has to accomodate a majority of these groups to win a plurality of the votes cast, as is done in Europe. He/she is forced to form a coalition government with all the minor parties having a seat in his administration and competing for attention. It doesn't work well at all. In fact, it stinks.

The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they modified the original Electoral College concept following the election of 1800.

If we really wanted direct representation, why not abolish the House and Senate? Why should Alaska have two Senators, same as California, with a fraction of the population? Why? Balance and stability.

The Electoral College assures a stable federal government, not a mish-mash of competing parties all attempting to change whatever they don't like and causing endless elections due to the fact that no candidate can ever draw together enough votes to sustain a majority and coalition governments can't govern when there are 50 different competing voices attempting to get their 'issue' attended to - all at the same time.

Our system of government and elections (a representative democracy) has worked very well for over two-hundred years and the fact that we have one of the most stable governments on the planet for this long - with a diverse population and free elections - is a positive testament to the effectivness of the EC.

I look at the 2000 Presidential election as an anomaly in our long history of elections and one that only came about due to the very small percentage of votes split between the candidates.
It probably won't happen again for a very long time - if ever.
I believe Bush actually won and I wish the entire state of Florida could have been recounted to 'prove' it but I fear that no amount of recounts would have satisifed everyone.
The only 'magic' the Republicans 'worked' was that the matter of recounts went to the Supreme Court - with more liberals than conservatives on it - and they ruled that if the recounts were not complete (Gore's people wanted to count some counties and not others) then the vote counting was over and what was already counted and recounted - in selected counties - stood as the final vote. In that counting, Bush won by a tiny margin.
Later, a syndicate of liberal newspapers (including USA TODAY) got together and basically paid to have all the votes recounted...and Bush still won. This was without even counting the military ballots thrown out, probably illegally. Of course, this was buried on page 106 of most papers, because they had hoped the paid-for recount would show Gore won and they could trumpet that Bush was an 'illegimate' President. He isn't. He won fairly. Close, but a fair win.

I'm more than glad to have George W. Bush as our President, as is most of the nation (his approval rating is in the mid 80's - unbelieveably high). He's a whole lot smarter than the liberal media and his political enemies want you to believe he is and he proves it every week, although liberals will never admit it.

President Bush's actions since September 11th have demonstrated extraordinary leadership. You may not like all of his political positions or even be a Republican but anyone who judges fairly can see that the man is honest, caring and sincere with a top-notch team behind him and is doing the best he can - on many fronts - for America, not just the Republican party.

Reports of his ignorance were, indeed, greatly exaggerated.

Some very enlightening and refreshing discussions occuring in this thread. I've enjoyed reading it.

As for me...I am also a conservative Republican. I've got beliefs on which I build the foundation of my life and I will stand strong to uphold those beliefs. That would be what classifies me as conservative (as opposed to liberals with the "sure...that sounds like it'll be neat...what the heck" philosopy :D).

I've had the great privalege to meet George W. Bush on two occassions when he was governor of Texas, and I was very impressed by his down-to-earth attitude...refreshing in politicians. I followed his career in my own state and was truly impressed by the job he did. He worked closely with both Republicans and Democrats to conduct the business of the state for the good of the state.

I've known Pete Laney (TX Speaker of the House) all my life, and I know personally that Pete, who is a Democrat, and Bush had a very successful political relationship which allowed a great deal of work to be done in a bi-partisan manner. In fact, they grew to be very close friends, and Pete still visits Bush in D.C. on occassion.

All that being said, I will likely NOT vote for Governor Rick Perry in the next election, Republican or not. From information I've received, and things I have observed, we could do a lot better for Governor in Texas. I was also disturbed by the OBVIOUS gerrymandering which Texas Republicans engaged in in the recent re-districting. I've got some real soul-serching and researching to do before the next day at the polls.


--nathan

Geez Mr. 5.0, you sure know a lot about government.
Everytime I try to respond and say something that I've leanred in my government class I can't put the words to it but when I read your posts I know about everything you're talking about. :) Excellent job.

Woohoo! I started a long thread - that got rated! :D

Later,

Nick

Mr. 50: Hey, I never said I had ALL the answers. :) I do agree that just going to a direct vote is not the answer, but, I do want my say. I'm American that way. *winks*

The whole Senate and House thing is pretty simple. Give each state an equal say because they're a state, give each state an equal say based on population. For me, that doesn't factor into the Presidential position or vote or reason he gets elected. JMO.

btw: nice to meet cha. :)

Politics, Part IV
 

Originally posted by SilverPoet

Mr. 50: Hey, I never said I had ALL the answers.

Neither did I, just observations.

The whole Senate and House thing is pretty simple. Give each state an equal say because they're a state, give each state an equal say based on population.

That's pretty much how the Electoral College works now.
Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote.

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State.

On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.

Not a bad system as it avoids the problem of having fifty different candidates and no one candidate ever getting a majority.

Yes, it's a 'winner-take-all' system but that only becomes a point of contention in very close elections and that only happens about twice per century, if that.

You still have the option of writing in the name of someone - including yourself - on the Presidential ballot and we have 'fringe' parties that run presidential candidates every election so on one is really denied a voice.

Obviously, the U.S. runs on a two-party system - which is how the Founders planned it. You always have the best shot at being heard by joining a party, becoming active and working within that party to advance your political goals and promote the candidate of your choice.

nice to meet cha.

Nice to meet you, too.

Mr. 5.0:

I agree the poor child isn't given a choice, it's not their fault - they didn't ask to be here, that is the adult's choice.

It is sad, murdered before they ever had a chance.
I just don't see killing someone who works there as a just cause, but you're right, taking a baby's life is not right.

I guess i just don't understand today's society & the way of thinking that has overcome our country.
I guess I'm of the old day's way of thinking; I was taught to say 'yes sir' & 'yes ma'am' to people older than me.
I just think everything is going crazy right now, there is no respect for anything right anymore.

I guess that's my point; Yes, I am a conservitive Republican. :)

Thanks - and welcome
 

Originally posted by crazy horse gt

I guess that's my point; Yes, I am a conservative Republican. :)

Marty:

Welcome to the 'club' and thanks for your input, guy; I appreciate it.

Jim-

I am so proud of these members for allowing such a potentially flame-ridden thread to actually be so civil! It's amazing what a difference a few years makes!

To briefly touch on the abortion debate, a friend of mine and I had a knock-down, drag-out 10 minute arguement about it the other day, and I was right; abortion is spelled with t-i-o-n. ;)

I don't agree with the killing of babies, and I think that a woman who repeatedly uses abortion as a form of birth control should have her tubes cut. That being said, I don't think abortion should be illegal. It's a heavy topic, and I really don't want to get deeply into it, because I don't feel like either answer is right. I will say that I would be much quicker to agree with your argument if the world population wasn't exploding the way it is. Still though, that's no justification, on it's own.

As far as the drug issue, yes, it is quite complicated. There have been several who have come up with workable methods of legalization, but ever since Reefer Madness, the propaganda against "illegal" drugs has left unshakable visions in most peoples minds. I know that both extremes exist when it comes to users. I think you would be really surprised how many "users" never reach either one. I know several people who choose to get high occasionally, and lead perfect, "normal" lives. People who are well respected, and who hold high level, responsible jobs. It's been my experience that the percentage of people who I've met that drink, and have become alcoholics, is about the same as the percentage of those I've met that get high, and have become drug addicts. Maybe a little higher for alcoholics. Regardless, the laws need to change. While Jane Doe is filling her prescription for one of thousands of legal, mind altering, addictive drugs, her son gets arrested for buying a dime bag of pot. While she will go through withdrawls when she finally has to "kick" her habit, her son won't.

As I'm sure I've mentioned to you in the past, Jim, I have a personal reason why this is so disturbing to me. I can't vote because I am a convicted felon. My felony wasn't bank robbery, or rape, or murder. My felony conviction was for cultivation. I had 3 pot plants growing inside my condo. I wasn't a "dealer", and had never been accused of selling pot. I wasn't a trafficer, and had never been accused of transporting pot across state lines. In fact, I had never been accused of doing anything more than growing 3 plants inside my condo, for my personal use. Because someone else that I didn't really know knew I had 3 plants, he lied to officers when he was busted for something totally unrelated, and told them I was a "major operation" in order to get his own sentence reduced. Local law enforcement had me under surveillance for several weeks. They even spent the money to hire a thermal sensing helicopter to do night time fly-overs over my condo, reading the temp of the air leaving my attic vents, and comparing it to my neighbors. They served a search warrant at the local power company so that they could access my utillity bills, and my neighbors, for the past year. The utillity bills and the word of their informant was all they had to go on. All of their other attempts at gaining incriminating evidence failed. Still, it was enough. So, nearly ten years ago, 14 officers, wearing bullet-proof vests, and armed with fully automatic assault rifles, kicked in my front door, and spent 4 hours turning my place inside out. They were extremely disappointed to only find 3 plants, but wrote in their reports that I probably had gotten word of their raid, and had cleared out the rest. My attorney noted that their own surveillance didn't report any unusual activities, such as that, but it didn't matter. The bottom line was that they had spent a small fortune trying bust me, and I turned out to be nothing. They did what they could, to "make an example" of me, and I ended up serving a year in jail, and 5 years of formal, felony probation. Although that is behind me now, I am still a convicted felon. That means I still can not legally own or posses a firearm, and I can't vote. All because I had 3 pot plants in my home. I have been "clean" since then, and currently have no desire at all to get high, but I firmly believe the laws that got me here are wrong. Very wrong. My "crime" was a truly victimless crime, yet my punishment was harsher than punishments I've seen given to those who's crimes had victims. A few years after my conviction, California voters passed a proposition that made possession with a doctors prescription legal. The federal govt. has overrulled that law, but nonetheless, sentences for "crimes" such as mine have been reduced to little more than a ticket.

So yes, I do have a personal interest in the concept of decriminalizing drugs, and have done alot of research on the subject. I just find it amazing that some of the same people who feel that pot is so dangerous are crusing along just fine, as long as their Prozac prescription is filled. I wish there was a way to reach more people with the truth rather than the hype.

Take care,
-Chris

And the beat goes on
 

Chris:

Interesting points and your personal experience obviously will have a bearing on your POV regarding drug laws, as it would mine had I suffered the same consequences for cultivating three plants.

Chris, I readily conceded the obvious; The so-called 'War on Drugs' isn't working and that drug laws are often misused while prescription drugs are a big problem with the general population.

I cannot as readily concede that legalizing drugs is a solution, although decriminalizing some drugs might be feasible.
It's a tough problem because no good comes from ingesting mind-altering substances, be it beer, whiskey, pot, crack or glue fumes. These are potentially dangerous substances and must be handled with some caution, as witnessed by the drunk drivers who kill others every year or the crimes that crack addicts commit to get the cash for the drug they must have.

There are some things everyone believes about themselves; that they have a good sense of humor, that they are better-than-average drivers and that they can easily handle their drug of choice.

The fact that none of these are true makes my point.
For society to open the floodgates of drug use by making them legal and obtainable with no social stigmna attached is inviting bad consequences that won't be realized until it's way too late to change things.

I can go along with the lessening of criminal charges against marijuana, as has been done in various jurisdictions and I know that your state, California, has made medical use of the drug legal, but that action was overthrown by the feds and is now in hot dispute.
I cannot understand why the active ingredient the plant contains cannot be distilled into a pill, instead of setting a leaf on fire and inhaling the smoke, which seems like the hard way to obtain whatever medical benefit cannabis supplies but as I'm not a doctor, I'll let that one slide and agree that if smoking marijuana is shown to have medical benefits - as it has - than it should be legalized for that purpose.

I'm not against people using drugs in a sane, responsible manner, as millions do with alcohol, but while you mention the many people who safely enjoy recreational drug us and lead normal, productive lives (and I accept that as true) I must again mention that drugs such as marijuana can be gateway drugs for some; especially the young and those with addictive personalities and the use of these drugs can wreck havoc on families as well as take the lives of people who might not ever had tried them had they not be legal and readily available. Alcohol users generally take a few years to become truly addictive but drugs like cocaine or heroin can produce an addict in no time at all and getting off hard drugs is a lot harder than getting addicted, as we all know. These and other social ramifications make me very wary of shrugging my shoulders and saying 'Whatever' when it comes to legalizing drugs.
I've seen the damage they do to otherwise decent and productive people and they are not something to play with and treat lightly, as too many do and a lot more would if they were legal, readily available and with no social stigma.

As for the 'Reefer Madness' mentality, that's an old canard thrown out by NORML and other drug legalization groups and I'm surprised you brought it into the discussion. I doubt some 65-year-old campy anti-marijuana movie short is what's motivativng anti-drug sentiment these days, Chris.
Instead, I believe it's the trail of wrecked lives and crime drug use has left behind and the parents of children who don't wish to see their loved ones dead at 20 or turned into a human wreck or end up in prison due to drugs.
I can understand that. I'm sure you can too and while I know you had a life-changing experience due to minor drug use - and you were legally abused, no doubt - I still find that any sort of real across-the-board legaization of drugs to be a bad idea.


On abortion; I cannot and will not concede that legalized killing of living babies in the mother's womb is O.K. It isn't and no Supreme Court, politician or doctor will convince me otherwise. It's murder and all the comfortable rationalizations and justifications advocates put forth don't change that reality for me.

What I would like to see is Roe v Wade overthrown and the issue put before each state's voters to decide. Some states will vote for abortion to be legal and some won't but that will be the will of the people, not the will of nine men. This is how it was until 1973. Abortion law - pro or con - was decided by the individual states (10th amendment in action), enacted by legistators who were elected by the citizens of that state. Representative democracy in action, all nullified by one probably unconstitutional Supreme Court decision.

Don't get me started on that!


I agree that the thread has maintained a rather calm dignity while dealing with weighty issues like abortion and drug legalization. I'm pleased with that and yes, I think it does shows maturity on the part of our members who participated.

These issues can be 'safely' discussed if folks are rational, don't resort to character attacks and/or using slogans instead of engaging in actual thought before posting, as all have who've added to the thread.

I'm hoping that the discussion was enlightening for some of the folks who viewed but didn't choose to add to the thread and although I believe we've exhausted most of our personal arguments on the subjects at hand, I'm always willing to consider opinions and talk about them as time permits.

Thanks again for your meaningful contributions to these important subjects.

Great observation, Mr. 5 0. I had the unfortunate experience to be in some leftist writing course (that's not how it was described in the class catalog :D ) during my time at The Ohio State University. While my overall experience at OSU was great, it always bothered me that this one professor would not allow (my opinion, of course) any rational, supportable argument for another persepctive (i.e. conservative). I think the prof used the classroom as her own little cult teaching studio. It made me sick.

I think we may have too many educated idiots out there - scary.

Anyways, just wanted to comment on your keen observation.

E

Re: And the beat goes on
 

That's how I feel about drug laws. You would be amazed by the history of how and when pot became illegal. Completely criminal. My reference to Reefer Madness wasn't to say that most people believe such propaganda, but there are some who do. Pot was very acceptable until Nancy Reagan opted for Just Say No as her crusade. By the end of the 1980's, there were mandatory minimum laws in effect that made the sentences for minor drug offenses harsher than those for rape.

I agree that one more mind altering substance is not a good thing, but new ones are introduced, legally, all the time. Many are currently available, and are legal, with no restictions at all, including caffene, and with minor restrictions, including tobacco and alcohol.

Marijuana is non-toxic. There hasn't been a single reported death due to an overdose of pot, ever. Caffene kills between 1000 and 10,000 in this country every year. I won't dig out the numbers, but they go on and on. I just don't understand why pot has such a bad rap. I understand your gateway drug philosophy, but I feel alcohol is much more of a gateway drug than pot is. Most people relax when they're high. Most people that I've met, anyway, become more adventurous and daring when drinking. It's like a bottle of courage. A person is more apt to try anything when drinking as opposed to when high. Again, that's been my experience.

The last subject I disagree with you about is whether or not being legal would increase usage. Would you get high if it became legal? Do you know very many people who would? I don't believe there are very many people who would actually decide that they wanted to get stoned just because it was no longer a crime. Everyone I have ever met that wanted to get high, got high. It's easier for high school kids to buy pot than beer. I don't believe that legalization/decriminalization would really make an honest, measurable difference in the amount of users. I know that alot of the kids I grew up with were drawn to it in part because of it's "outlaw" image. Take that away, and you remove some of the appeal. In other countries that have decriminalized drug use, the number of users and the number of crimes that were "drug related" both went down.

Just a little more food for thought.

Take care,
-Chris

GOP. dyed in the wool, GOP


KG88GT

Marijuana meditations
 

Chris:

Your defense of marijuana as a benign substance is somewhat debatable, especially when compared to caffeine (which is toxic only in massive amounts or when mixed with other substances/drugs) but lets's face it; everything is toxic in large enough doses or when ingested with some other drug. Playing 'my drug is safer than your drug' loses the point, which is that mind-altering substances are not good for us and need some sort of control, just as we have speed limits on our highways and we license bars and liquor stores, etc.

Yes, I do believe that fully legalized marijuana could be a gateway drug, as it's been in the past. We can trade personal observations back and forth - and I have mine; teenaged friends who started with 'just doing a little pot on weekends' and ended up hopelessly addicted to crack two years later, as well as some friends who lived on pot but are now married, parents and productive citizens who never touch drugs. Anecdotes are interesting but not conclusive.

Beer is legal, sometimes leads to stronger stuff, and eventually alcoholism for some. Although the fact that drugs are illegal may be an attraction (the 'forbidden fruit' sydrome) the claim that making them legal and easily accessible by government fiat will deter anyone is not credible and I firmly believe it would lead to greater use.

All these arguments and claims would be rendered moot if we went back to a constitutional government and permitted the states to vote on the legalization of drugs or even just marijuana with no interference from the federal government (that pesky Tenth Amendment again). By the way, although marijuana may have been 'more acceptable' in the '60's and '70's, I think you give Nancy Reagan way too much credit for making it a felony in some cases. Those laws were proposed by Congressmen and Senators who ursurped the states rights to make their own laws regarding drug use and layered on federal statutes that often override the state laws. State politicians were reacting to the spread of drugs and made the laws tougher to look like they were 'doing something' about drugs and by linkage, crime. Typical political posturing that often makes for bad law.

Frankly, if the vast majority of citizens really, truly wanted easy, legal access to marijuana I believe we would have it. NORML and a host of other pro-drug legalization groups spend millions and never stop promoting this cause and yet we still don't see a groundswell of public opinion that demands legal drugs. It isn't there because many people simply don't see the need for more legal drugs. Parents - especially - are generally scared to death of little Susie or Johnny 'getting into' drug use and wrecking their lives. Ask a parent if we need easy access to drugs. Ask a drug treatment director. Ask a cop who patrols around the crack houses every night and see's the human misery drugs bring. Yeah, gimme more of that. Sorry for the sarcasm but the pro-drug arguments pale when you see the devestation they can cause, as does alcohol and prescription drugs, granted, but why make access even easier? I just cannot accept the argument when balanced with the sometimes tragic results.

That said, as you suggest, I'm quite willing to see the marijuana legalization issue go to a public referendum on a state-by-state basis. Democracy in action. I love it!
I know a lot of states would say 'no' but some, like California would probably say 'yes'. Works for me. At least it's a decision made by citizens, not judges or some special-interest group buying votes from Congressmen with campaign contributions. I accept the fact that everyone does not agree on this issue (like us) but I respect democracy enough that I'm willing to see a law that I may possibly disapprove of put into effect when the majority of voters agree to it. That's democracy. We may disagree, but I respect our mutual right and duty to vote our conscience on sensitive issues. I just wish we each had that right on both abortion and drug legalization. We should.

Jim-

Have I told you recently what a great guy I think you are? It occurred to me this afternoon, while I was reviewing some ALLDATA flowcharts, that throughout this thread, you were being extremely cordial, and were in fact taking what I was saying into consideration. Repeatedly. I think we know each other pretty well, and I can't say that you would have lent as much respect to just anyone. Especially regarding such a subject (I did pretty much beat that horse to death, didn't I). I appreciate that, Jim. It brings back memories of a few years ago, and a certain Lick Bush thread ;) . You're a good Man. You and I are alot more alike politically than you may realize. Thanks for being patient and opinionated.

Take care,
-Chris

P.S. You're right, Nancy didn't do it all by herself, but she definately got the ball rolling.

Aw shucks
 

Chris:

Thanks for the compliments. Of course civil discussion takes two people who are willing to listen (read) and post a cognitive response instead of name-calling, character assassination and slogans they picked up somewhere. That's not a discussion - that's a pointless flame war - and goes nowhere. I hate that.

You've posted intelligently and with valid points of contention giving us the opportunity to bring out the various arguments - pro and con - on two sensitive and important issues. I appreciate that and return the thanks for your thoughtful participation on the thread, as you do on the other threads you participate in.

As the Messageboard Administrator I feel that I have a duty to our members to set the tone for the boards as well as to try and generate some useful discussions; whether that's in Tech or here, on the 'open' Blue Oval Lounge forum. I value all of our members and appreciate the contributions they make.

I also noted that in the week this thread has been up, it's had over 350 views - 50 per day. Not bad, and exactly what I seek on these non-auto/political-social issue threads; some interesting discussion and some food for thought that people can read, maybe learn something from and enjoy the debate. It's all good but it takes people like you who are willing to organize their thoughts, take the time to write them out and not be offended when someone disagrees or sees an issue differently. No one is 100% right all the time; not even me. :)

Again Chris, I appreciate your passion for the issues and your willingness to discuss them in a public forum, even when it may be difficult.

Now, lay off Nancy Reagan or she'll have her astrologer predict a cracked block for you. :D