Proud to be a Democrat or Republican right now?

[slapass]

We seem to be at some sort of low in the political system. Everyone feels pretty free to throw hate at each other.

The Dems railroaded this bill and then just to make it ugly slammed tons of shit in there. Do it totally partisan and in your face so that it only widens any gap. No thought to the fact that in a few years, they will need to work with the Republicans to get some shit done. WTG guys!

The Republicans just hate anything and everything. No thought to the fact that small business which so happens to be the engine of our economy is hurt by the current health care system. Some big businesses have been driven into bankruptcy by the current system. So this is an issue that they would normally be all over but nope. Also a big high five on that.

I do not expect much from Washington but you would think once in a while they would want to do some nice clean initiatives that improve life for the average citizen.

[BestXXXPorn]

I think parties should just go away all together all they do is give people an excuse to blanket themselves under a party vote without paying attention to the actual issues...

IMO Drop the parties, make everyone independent, and force people to start paying attention to each individual issue...

I mean seriously, does anyone that aligns themselves with Republicrats really agree with 100% of what their party is doing / saying?

[LiveDose]

The American political system is a fucking joke. Fuck both parties.

[L-Pink]

"Reelect No One" Start campaigning now.


.

[CosmicTang]

Proud to be an Independent.

[The Demon]

Proud to be a fan of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. However, many of my views(those of the founding fathers), coincide with the Republicans, which makes me for the most part, Republican, and fiscal conservative.

[Daddy Big Nuts]

Originally Posted by LiveDose

The American political system is a fucking joke. Fuck both parties.

I agree

[kane]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Proud to be a fan of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. However, many of my views(those of the founding fathers), coincide with the Republicans, which makes me for the most part, Republican, and fiscal conservative.

I guess my question is this. How many of those views do the republicans actually follow though with?

[kane]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

"Reelect No One" Start campaigning now.


.

Same here. I am a registered independent and am probably more libertarian if anything. This November I will be voting for the opponent in all congressional elections. I know my state is super liberal so realistically they will all be re-elected, but I will still be voting for anyone who is not the incumbent.

[epitome]

Proud to officially have no party affiliation.

I've voted for Republicans, Democrats and third parties. All have let me down.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by kane

I guess my question is this. How many of those views do the republicans actually follow though with?

More than enough to line myself with that party, but I don't approve of a lot of what they do, nor did I approve of the majority of Bush's policies.

[Vendzilla]

staying an Independent
until a third party becomes viable
GOP has no leadership and has let outside influences change their path
the Dems are like a herd of stray cats
And no one is listening the the American People, so vote the bums out in Nov

[theking]

Originally Posted by kane

Same here. I am a registered independent and am probably more libertarian if anything. This November I will be voting for the opponent in all congressional elections. I know my state is super liberal so realistically they will all be re-elected, but I will still be voting for anyone who is not the incumbent.

I suspect that incumbents of both parties will take a hit.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

staying an Independent
until a third party becomes viable
GOP has no leadership and has let outside influences change their path
the Dems are like a herd of stray cats
And no one is listening the the American People, so vote the bums out in Nov

I do not expect a third party will become viable in your or my lifetime. If you check out the multitude of third parties...some of their platforms...and their nominees you can understand why.

[BestXXXPorn]

I'm a Libertarian and will always be a Libertarian.

The views are different. It's about defending the founding principals of this country. It's about understanding that just because you think something should be one way and your neighbor thinks things should be another way that you're both right and the really important part.... The government doesn't need to make a law one way or the other!


The original idea of the United States was to have individual states loosely coupled together with a very minimal federal government to provide protection of all states and regulate interstate and foreign trade (obviously I'm simplifying here). That's the way it was setup, that's the way it SHOULD be. If that were still the case then you would see a much different US. With the power residing in the states' hands, as originally envisioned, each state would be much more independent. The founding fathers had just escaped an oppressive system and they understood that different people had different values and you can not create law (other than very basic stuff, think infringement on rights [both personal and property]) that blankets every societal niche... these powers were given to the states so that each state could decide what is better for its people.

Place that in perspective of what has been going on for the last 80 - 100 years and you'll see the Federal Government has been WAY overstepping its authority... Shit there weren't even Federal income taxes until 1862 to support the Civil War and that was only temporary. We didn't get Federal Taxes until 1913 when the 16th amendment to the constitution came into play making the income tax a permanent fixture. Once the Federal Government hand was in the income pot they just couldn't stop. In the next 30 years we went from 0 income tax to $43 fucking billion...

With the kind of cash they started to run rampant. Federal government exploded with new positions; Czars of whatever the fuck and tens of thousands of new positions. That kind of cash turns anyone greedy so all of a sudden there were programs for this, programs for that, new regulation requires 16,000 new employees... IMO the idea here was to ramp up so big and so fast that it's irreversible.

Anyway I could go on for days about how the US government is an abomination and its core principals lost...

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

I'm a Libertarian and will always be a Libertarian.

The views are different. It's about defending the founding principals of this country. It's about understanding that just because you think something should be one way and your neighbor thinks things should be another way that you're both right and the really important part.... The government doesn't need to make a law one way or the other!


The original idea of the United States was to have individual states loosely coupled together with a very minimal federal government to provide protection of all states and regulate interstate and foreign trade (obviously I'm simplifying here). That's the way it was setup, that's the way it SHOULD be. If that were still the case then you would see a much different US. With the power residing in the states' hands, as originally envisioned, each state would be much more independent. The founding fathers had just escaped an oppressive system and they understood that different people had different values and you can not create law (other than very basic stuff, think infringement on rights [both personal and property]) that blankets every societal niche... these powers were given to the states so that each state could decide what is better for its people.

Place that in perspective of what has been going on for the last 80 - 100 years and you'll see the Federal Government has been WAY overstepping its authority... Shit there weren't even Federal income taxes until 1862 to support the Civil War and that was only temporary. We didn't get Federal Taxes until 1913 when the 16th amendment to the constitution came into play making the income tax a permanent fixture. Once the Federal Government hand was in the income pot they just couldn't stop. In the next 30 years we went from 0 income tax to $43 fucking billion...

With the kind of cash they started to run rampant. Federal government exploded with new positions; Czars of whatever the fuck and tens of thousands of new positions. That kind of cash turns anyone greedy so all of a sudden there were programs for this, programs for that, new regulation requires 16,000 new employees... IMO the idea here was to ramp up so big and so fast that it's irreversible.

Anyway I could go on for days about how the US government is an abomination and its core principals lost...

keeping in mind that's it universal medical that sets off this political firestorm? Not dead bodies laying in New Orleans or a massive civilian body count in Iraq

[Tom_PM]

Got to vote out incumbents and vote on the best PERSON (not party) to replace them.
Reagan should have never started that "czar" crap.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by theking

I do not expect a third party will become viable in your or my lifetime. If you check out the multitude of third parties...some of their platforms...and their nominees you can understand why.

I can hope

[kane]

Originally Posted by The Demon

More than enough to line myself with that party, but I don't approve of a lot of what they do, nor did I approve of the majority of Bush's policies.

If you don't approve of a lot of what they do then why align yourself with them?

Here are things they say they are for, but never actually do follow through with.

Less government. - they actually grow the government.
Balanced budget - they never do this.
Spend less - never happens.
More personal freedom - only if they approve of these so called freedoms.
bringing "morality" to Washington. - yeah, right.

Some things they actually do:
Pro life - they are pro life, gotta give them that.
Cut taxes - while most of their tax cuts go to the wealthy, they do tend to cut taxes and maybe you are wealthy and can take advantage of them.

off the top of my head that is all I can think of.

There are things both parties do or supposedly stand for that I agree with, but not nearly enough that I would ever consider myself aligned with either one. Wouldn't it be easier to be an independent? By changing your registration for republican to independent and not giving money to them (if you do) you send them a message that you are not happy with a lot of the things they are doing.

[marketsmart]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

"Reelect No One" Start campaigning now.


.

yep... thats what needs to happen....







.

[CaroMark]

Sorry but the government didn't need to be in the medical business.

I have also been let down by the actions of all the various parties, they all have their hands out and the votes are for sale.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by kane

If you don't approve of a lot of what they do then why align yourself with them?

Here are things they say they are for, but never actually do follow through with.

Less government. - they actually grow the government.
Balanced budget - they never do this.
Spend less - never happens.
More personal freedom - only if they approve of these so called freedoms.
bringing "morality" to Washington. - yeah, right.

What do you mean they actually grow government? Government grew under Reagan? Government grew under the first Bush? Lol
Personal freedoms? Yes, we get them. The only instance of the opposite would be the Patriot Act, which I fully support.
Spend less? They spend less than the Democrats, and when they spend, it's legitimate for the most part. Unless of course, you're telling me Reagan's spending wasn't legitimate. Bringing morality? I would say that the traditional values of this country have been shitted on since the creation of modern liberalism.

There are things both parties do or supposedly stand for that I agree with, but not nearly enough that I would ever consider myself aligned with either one. Wouldn't it be easier to be an independent? By changing your registration for republican to independent and not giving money to them (if you do) you send them a message that you are not happy with a lot of the things they are doing.

I'm not familiar with what an "independent" is in terms of his views and values, for me to switch over to that.

What I am familiar is classical liberalism doctrines which more closely resemble modern conservatism.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by slapass

I do not expect much from Washington but you would think once in a while they would want to do some nice clean initiatives that improve life for the average citizen.

Don't look to Republicans for that. They were against Social Security and Medicare, so it was a given that they would buck a reform bill that gives every American access to healthcare.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Don't look to Republicans for that. They were against Social Security and Medicare, so it was a given that they would buck a reform bill that gives every American access to healthcare.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...are-were-pass/

+1 for facts over stupidity.

[BestXXXPorn]

Originally Posted by The Demon

The only instance of the opposite would be the Patriot Act, which I fully support.

You lost me there, this is such an unconstitutional act it's not even fucking funny. It tramples on the rights of every US citizen...

Any time you have to preface saying you support something with, "If it was used correctly", it's fail right from the get go. You can't assume something will be used "as intended" when it comes to the US Government. You CAN assume it will be used as a means to whatever ends they want.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

You lost me there, this is such an unconstitutional act it's not even fucking funny. It tramples on the rights of every US citizen...

Any time you have to preface saying you support something with, "If it was used correctly", it's fail right from the get go. You can't assume something will be used "as intended" when it comes to the US Government. You CAN assume it will be used as a means to whatever ends they want.

I disagree. I think it was instituted at the right time with the threat of terror. I have nothing to hide so what do I give a shit if they listen on my phone calls. After 9/11 I agree they should have let up a bit, but I felt it was necessary.

[BestXXXPorn]

Originally Posted by The Demon

I disagree. I think it was instituted at the right time with the threat of terror. I have nothing to hide so what do I give a shit if they listen on my phone calls. After 9/11 I agree they should have let up a bit, but I felt it was necessary.

First, I respect your points of view... just like to preface by saying :P

I hate this argument it's completely bullshit... this assumes that there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity... in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remains private. You are effectively denouncing privacy laws...

It's a complete disregard and encroachment on civil liberties for a superficial sense of security... This is an undemocratic tendency that's anathema to the Founders' vision.

Moreover you're assuming that privacy is about hiding bad things and overlooking the problems associated with lack of oversight, accountability on secondary, even tertiary use of the captured data, and aggregation of that data to compile more sensitive information...

Let's also take into account that surveillance and monitoring of data, even massive amounts such as the carnivore project, also causes people NOT to talk about points which may raise red flags... It effectually stamps on free speech without having to pass any laws against free speech it's a byproduct...

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

First, I respect your points of view... just like to preface by saying :P

I hate this argument it's completely bullshit... this assumes that there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity... in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remains private. You are effectively denouncing privacy laws...

It's a complete disregard and encroachment on civil liberties for a superficial sense of security... This is an undemocratic tendency that's anathema to the Founders' vision.

I disagree. You're basically saying that freedom of privacy is absolute. That's like saying, "freedom of speech" is absolute. It's not. There are certain times where some kind of intervention is justified, and terrorism is one of those.

Let's also take into account that surveillance and monitoring of data, even massive amounts such as the carnivore project, also causes people NOT to talk about points which may raise red flags... It effectually stamps on free speech without having to pass any laws against free speech it's a byproduct...

The only legitimate argument you would have is a slippery slope argument. "Well the government will just increase it during peace time and ..." And I would agree with you, it's a catch 22.

[theking]

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

First, I respect your points of view... just like to preface by saying :P

I hate this argument it's completely bullshit... this assumes that there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity... in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remains private. You are effectively denouncing privacy laws...

It's a complete disregard and encroachment on civil liberties for a superficial sense of security... This is an undemocratic tendency that's anathema to the Founders' vision.

Moreover you're assuming that privacy is about hiding bad things and overlooking the problems associated with lack of oversight, accountability on secondary, even tertiary use of the captured data, and aggregation of that data to compile more sensitive information...

Let's also take into account that surveillance and monitoring of data, even massive amounts such as the carnivore project, also causes people NOT to talk about points which may raise red flags... It effectually stamps on free speech without having to pass any laws against free speech it's a byproduct...

Which Patriot Act are you speaking about. I assume that you are aware that over the years the Supreme Court has knocked down various aspects of the Patriot Act. The current Patriot Act does not contain all that the original Patriot Act contained.

[smutnut]

I wear red, white and blue underwear and jerk off to the American Flag at least once a day!

[Rico Shades]

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

I think parties should just go away all together all they do is give people an excuse to blanket themselves under a party vote without paying attention to the actual issues...

IMO Drop the parties, make everyone independent, and force people to start paying attention to each individual issue...

I mean seriously, does anyone that aligns themselves with Republicrats really agree with 100% of what their party is doing / saying?

That is the best rationale logic ever. The system is just completely fucked. For starters that "winning the electorate" shit is bullshit. Popular vote should win, period. Next, this whole lobbyist bullshit is an appetite for corruption and yet, these fuckers want even MORE business money to flow into campaigns? I hate how people on both sides just vote for anything because Obama said so or Fox News said so. Half of the time you get some dumb ass arguing something that they either a) truly know nothing about or b) when it boils down to it really doesn't effect their household at all (e.g. some third generation mountaineer living coal mine worker arguing about how "they are going to raise my taxes"...when they currently earn $20K for a family of 6). Yes it truly would be nice to force people to vote issues vs. party but I digress.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by theking

Which Patriot Act are you speaking about. I assume that you are aware that over the years the Supreme Court has knocked down various aspects of the Patriot Act. The current Patriot Act does not contain all that the original Patriot Act contained.

Yea, I'm aware of that, I'm just not familiar with the specifics.

[kane]

Originally Posted by The Demon

What do you mean they actually grow government? Government grew under Reagan? Government grew under the first Bush? Lol

We will start with the second Bush. He grew the government by adding an entire new branch of government called the Department of Homeland security.

Here is some info on Reagan and Bush (this comes from the census information). In 1980 the number of federal employees in this country were around 2.8 million. In 1988 the number of federal employees was about 3.1 million. Can you explain to me how you can hire 300,000 new employees while shrinking the government? Bush Sr. actually kept it about the same and didn't really add any new federal employees, he did, however increase the budget deficit by 64%. How you you spend that much more money than your predecessor if you are trying to shrink the roll of federal government?

Personal freedoms? Yes, we get them. The only instance of the opposite would be the Patriot Act, which I fully support.

I am strongly against the patriot act. We should not be passing laws that erode the freedoms of every day people.

Just ask the people who were trying to sell porn in the 80's under Reagan about having personal freedom and the government staying out of their lives.

Wasn't it the republicans that thought segregation was good. Didn't one of them (I think it was Strom Thurmand who was a segregationist and ran for president as such? Didn't Trent Lott once say, ""And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." in regards to Thurmands run for president meaning that the country would be better off if it were segregated?

What about my state which twice passed a law allowing for doctor assisted suicide and twice passed a separate law legalizing medical marijuana, but had to fight the Bush administration in court because the feds didn't want us having it? Our voters want it, we approved the measures, but the pro-personal freedom republicans thought otherwise.

There are states in this country where you can get arrested for having gay sex. There are states in this country where it is illegal to sell any kind of sex toy or any kind of sexual aid unless you make 100% sure that you are selling them for novelty purposes only. What do almost all of these states have in common? They are republican controlled. Apparently you can only have an orgasm in a red state if it is via an approved method.

Wasn't it these freedom loving republicans that wanted to alter the constitution to make it define marriage as between a man and a woman so they they could outlaw gay marriage at the federal level.

Yeah, these guys are a freedom party wagon chugging down the road.

Spend less? They spend less than the Democrats, and when they spend, it's legitimate for the most part. Unless of course, you're telling me Reagan's spending wasn't legitimate.

Not in the last 30 years they didn't Reagan and both Bushes grew the deficit and the national debt. They spent money like crazy. Clinton actually had a surplus and reduced the deficit (you will say this is because of Reagan's policies, I will say it is because of the dot com explosion)

But the deficit numbers don't really matter. Each president has spent more than the previous president regardless of party affiliation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms Check that page out From 1977 to current there has not been a single year that the president in office has cut spending.

As far as who's spending is legit or not, I'm not going to get into that. Both parties will claim their spending is legit. If you agree with the philosophy of a person then you tend to agree with their spending. Legit or not is still shows that they spend money and don't balance the budget. If Reagan really wanted to shouldn't he have just been able to cut spending on other things so he could increase it on the military?

Bringing morality? I would say that the traditional values of this country have been shitted on since the creation of modern liberalism.

And I would say our founding fathers were smart enough to devise a system for us to determine our own course and determine our own morality. Did they not set it up in a way that individual states should have the most power. This way if you wanted to live in a cesspool of city filled with hedonism and violence and whatever you were free too, but if other states wanted to be more sanitized, religious and strict, they were free to and those who wanted to live their life in a certain way were free to move to wherever those values were most prevalent. I made this point above with personal freedoms. If I want to live in a place where I risk arrest for using a pocket pussy and some lube I am free to do so. At the same time if I choose to live somewhere where laws like that don't exist I am free to do so. This doesn't mean that states morality should be forced upon me if if I live somewhere else or vice versa. Those in Utah should be allowed to live how they want and those in New York the same and if they are different, so be it.

I'm not familiar with what an "independent" is in terms of his views and values, for me to switch over to that.

An independent is someone who is free of any part affiliation and bias that comes with it. I hold no pre-disposed thoughts on a candidate just because of their party affiliation. Both parties are failures. Both parties are bloated, corrupt and morally bankrupt. So I choose to look at a candidate for who they are and what they claim to stand for. Until they are elected you can only take them at their word. Once they are elected you can see them in action and judge them by their actions.

I don't need a book or a focus group or a doctrine or a panel of any kind to tell me how to live a moral life. I treat people as I would want to be treated. I help people when I can. There is no need to "switch" values to be an independent. You know who you are and what you believe in. If you still think that most of what you believe in is shared with the republican party, great. But you said yourself you don't agree with much of what they say or do and I have argued that they rarely actually follow through on what they say they are going to do so I personally don't see how most people could have anything in common with either party.

Sorry for the long post

[Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life]

Democrat or Republican? Who cares? Can't you all just come together and be ashamed to be American?

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by kane

We will start with the second Bush. He grew the government by adding an entire new branch of government called the Department of Homeland security.

Here is some info on Reagan and Bush (this comes from the census information). In 1980 the number of federal employees in this country were around 2.8 million. In 1988 the number of federal employees was about 3.1 million. Can you explain to me how you can hire 300,000 new employees while shrinking the government? Bush Sr. actually kept it about the same and didn't really add any new federal employees, he did, however increase the budget deficit by 64%. How you you spend that much more money than your predecessor if you are trying to shrink the roll of federal government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I am strongly against the patriot act. We should not be passing laws that erode the freedoms of every day people.

That's because I think you see it as a black and white freedom, or as an absolute, which it isn't. Neither is freedom of speech and it shouldn't be.

Just ask the people who were trying to sell porn in the 80's under Reagan about having personal freedom and the government staying out of their lives.

Ok...Go on

Wasn't it the republicans that thought segregation was good. Didn't one of them (I think it was Strom Thurmand who was a segregationist and ran for president as such? Didn't Trent Lott once say, ""And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." in regards to Thurmands run for president meaning that the country would be better off if it were segregated?

Thurmond later represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 to April 1956 and November 1956 to January 2003, at first as a Democrat and after 1964 as a Republican, switching parties as the conservative base shifted.

Read the bold. What you have to realize is that starting in the 50s, the political shift from the right went slowly towards the center, while the left went far left and became modern liberalism. Not to mention he was generally a racist and a dick.

What about my state which twice passed a law allowing for doctor assisted suicide and twice passed a separate law legalizing medical marijuana, but had to fight the Bush administration in court because the feds didn't want us having it? Our voters want it, we approved the measures, but the pro-personal freedom republicans thought otherwise.

What about it? What state are you in? I don't really know what you're saying. Both parties sometimes move away from their original intentions. That's not going to make me switch over to an "independent", just because the party I support isn't following my values 100%. I can criticize them but that's about it.

There are states in this country where you can get arrested for having gay sex. There are states in this country where it is illegal to sell any kind of sex toy or any kind of sexual aid unless you make 100% sure that you are selling them for novelty purposes only. What do almost all of these states have in common? They are republican controlled. Apparently you can only have an orgasm in a red state if it is via an approved method.

Not really sure how truthful this is, can you provide proof.

Wasn't it these freedom loving republicans that wanted to alter the constitution to make it define marriage as between a man and a woman so they they could outlaw gay marriage at the federal level.

I'm not sure about that because I've always defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Yeah, these guys are a freedom party wagon chugging down the road.

Could be worse, you could be a democrat.

Not in the last 30 years they didn't Reagan and both Bushes grew the deficit and the national debt. They spent money like crazy. Clinton actually had a surplus and reduced the deficit (you will say this is because of Reagan's policies, I will say it is because of the dot com explosion)

Ironic, because the Democrats controlled the house during most of Reagan's presidency, and the Republicans controlled the house and the senate for the majority of Clinton's presidency. You also forget the Cold War and needed defense spending.

As far as who's spending is legit or not, I'm not going to get into that. Both parties will claim their spending is legit. If you agree with the philosophy of a person then you tend to agree with their spending. Legit or not is still shows that they spend money and don't balance the budget. If Reagan really wanted to shouldn't he have just been able to cut spending on other things so he could increase it on the military?

Nobody said Reagan was perfect, just that he was a good president.

And I would say our founding fathers were smart enough to devise a system for us to determine our own course and determine our own morality. Did they not set it up in a way that individual states should have the most power. This way if you wanted to live in a cesspool of city filled with hedonism and violence and whatever you were free too, but if other states wanted to be more sanitized, religious and strict, they were free to and those who wanted to live their life in a certain way were free to move to wherever those values were most prevalent. I made this point above with personal freedoms. If I want to live in a place where I risk arrest for using a pocket pussy and some lube I am free to do so. At the same time if I choose to live somewhere where laws like that don't exist I am free to do so. This doesn't mean that states morality should be forced upon me if if I live somewhere else or vice versa. Those in Utah should be allowed to live how they want and those in New York the same and if they are different, so be it.

Determine our own morality? As in relativism? I don't think so. Let me ask you something, being as you're in the porn industry. Would you allow porn to be played in normal theaters, or on normal channels, seeing as it is a freedom of speech?

An independent is someone who is free of any part affiliation and bias that comes with it. I hold no pre-disposed thoughts on a candidate just because of their party affiliation. Both parties are failures. Both parties are bloated, corrupt and morally bankrupt. So I choose to look at a candidate for who they are and what they claim to stand for. Until they are elected you can only take them at their word. Once they are elected you can see them in action and judge them by their actions.

I think you and I have the exact same views, except for me refusing to become an independent just because things aren't going my way. I understand the true Conservative/Republican principles and I hold to that. Now if the Republicans start really turning into shit like the Democrats, and it's possible they will, then I'll call myself an Independent.

I don't need a book or a focus group or a doctrine or a panel of any kind to tell me how to live a moral life. I treat people as I would want to be treated. I help people when I can. There is no need to "switch" values to be an independent. You know who you are and what you believe in. If you still think that most of what you believe in is shared with the republican party, great. But you said yourself you don't agree with much of what they say or do and I have argued that they rarely actually follow through on what they say they are going to do so I personally don't see how most people could have anything in common with either party.

Sorry for the long post

I don't agree with much of what they do. I do agree with them more times than not, which is why I'm still a Republican and not an independent.

[ninavain]

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

I think parties should just go away all together all they do is give people an excuse to blanket themselves under a party vote without paying attention to the actual issues...

IMO Drop the parties, make everyone independent, and force people to start paying attention to each individual issue...

I mean seriously, does anyone that aligns themselves with Republicrats really agree with 100% of what their party is doing / saying?

the powers that be, need division of the people. United we stand, divided we fall. Keep things divided and guessing then you can conquer the entire population. Everyone believes what the TV or web says..that's why you all buy bottled water..you do know it's free, right

[StrokeKing]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

"Reelect No One" Start campaigning now.


.

LOL!! funny i have thinking the same way!

[digitaldivas]

I am an Independent. And I was intrigued by the Tea Party... until they started spitting on people, calling people faggots and shouting racial slurs. Fuck the Tea Party, what a bunch of bitches... No respect at all.

[kane]

Originally Posted by The Demon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I'm not sure what this is about. There are many, myself included, that believe trickle down economics doesn't really trickle and doesn't really work.

That's because I think you see it as a black and white freedom, or as an absolute, which it isn't. Neither is freedom of speech and it shouldn't be.

I understand a lot of issues are not black and white, but passing a law like the Patriot Act, is a pretty shitty thing to do to the American people. There is a reason much of it has been struck down by the supreme court.

Ok...Go on

Check out the Meese Commission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meese_Report Watch a movie called Inside Deep Throat. The freedom loving republicans waged war against porn.

What about it? What state are you in? I don't really know what you're saying. Both parties sometimes move away from their original intentions. That's not going to make me switch over to an "independent", just because the party I support isn't following my values 100%. I can criticize them but that's about it.

I live in Oregon. Basically, here is how it went. On a ballot there were two measures. One for assisted suicide and one for medical pot. Both passed. Bush sent Ashcroft here and he challenged them both. The court cases basically held the laws over and hung them so they couldn't be enacted, but were not yet found illegal. So on the next election the laws were put back on the ballot and worded a little differently. They passed again. Again Bush and Ashcroft went to court. In both cases they lost. Bush via Ashcroft then issued statements saying that since assisted suicide is illegal on the federal level they will go after doctors that prescribe the drugs for this purpose. They also said they will reserve the right to go after growers and sellers of medical pot and there have actually been a few raids. So the freedom loving republicans have decided that the people of Oregon can't think for themselves and they know what is best for us.

Not really sure how truthful this is, can you provide proof.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/obscenity.trial.reut/ They actually carried out a sting operation to get this hardened criminal who was flooding the streets with horrible sex toys.

There are several bible belt states where you can't sell any kind of sex toy unless you make 100% clear that it is for novelty use only.

I'm not sure about that because I've always defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

You define it as such, as do other people. But should that mean that they should change the Constitution to define it as such?

Could be worse, you could be a democrat.

You have a point here

Ironic, because the Democrats controlled the house during most of Reagan's presidency, and the Republicans controlled the house and the senate for the majority of Clinton's presidency. You also forget the Cold War and needed defense spending.

Again, I am just pointing out that they all increase their spending. They always find a reason. They don't cut spending, they just increase it.

Nobody said Reagan was perfect, just that he was a good president.

Some will agree, some will disagree with this. I think he was like a lot of presidents. He did some good stuff, he did some bad stuff.

Determine our own morality? As in relativism? I don't think so. Let me ask you something, being as you're in the porn industry. Would you allow porn to be played in normal theaters, or on normal channels, seeing as it is a freedom of speech?

No I feel that it should be available to those who wish to consume it. For example. I shouldn't be allowed to stand on a street corner holding a huge sign of a naked chick with her pussy spread open and deepthroating a dildo. Some people won't care. Some people will like it and others will be disgusted and offended. My exercising of the freedom of speech should not inhibit other people's freedom to move around freely or go without seeing that kind of stuff if the choose to. The same can be said with regular broadcast TV. There is plenty of ways to make it readily available to anyone who wants it without it being broadcast to anyone who just walks down a street or flips a channel on the TV.

Here is a case in point. There was a guy in Provo Utah who ran a small video store. He also had 13 adult movies for rent, but the boxes were put away in a closet and you had to show ID just to see them. He was arrested and put on trial under obscenity charges. He eventually won his case. How? Because they did a study and found out that the city of Provo buys pay per view porn via cable and satellite at a rate of four times the national average. Clearly there are a lot of people that want to watch porn, but they do so in a way that those who don't want to see it don't have to.

And yes, a person can determine their own morality. I can decide for myself what I feel is moral and just. It doesn't mean others have to believe that. It also doesn't mean that my beliefs will not be without consequence.

I think you and I have the exact same views, except for me refusing to become an independent just because things aren't going my way. I understand the true Conservative/Republican principles and I hold to that. Now if the Republicans start really turning into shit like the Democrats, and it's possible they will, then I'll call myself an Independent.


I don't agree with much of what they do. I do agree with them more times than not, which is why I'm still a Republican and not an independent.

But you won't say what these principle are. I'm not trying to force you to switch. I'm just curious why you would align yourself with one party or another. You seem to not like a lot of what they do, but like just enough to be a part of their party. Those things you like must be pretty meaningful to you because it seems to me you could still hold onto those values and be independent.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by kane

I'm not sure what this is about. There are many, myself included, that believe trickle down economics doesn't really trickle and doesn't really work.

I disagree. Look at the goals of Reaganomics, one of which is reducing government regulation. I'm a fan of the Austrian School of economics, and I love Reagan because his ideas coincided with mine. Unfortunately he wasn't as successful in implementing them.

I understand a lot of issues are not black and white, but passing a law like the Patriot Act, is a pretty shitty thing to do to the American people. There is a reason much of it has been struck down by the supreme court.

Yes, and that reason is that as we slowly moved away from 9/11, the threat became less and less grave, which makes the decision logical.

Check out the Meese Commission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meese_Report Watch a movie called Inside Deep Throat. The freedom loving republicans waged war against porn.

Well, that's one thing I wouldn't agree with them on. Not because I like porn (I don't), but because I think it's free speech as long as it's kept private.

I live in Oregon. Basically, here is how it went. On a ballot there were two measures. One for assisted suicide and one for medical pot. Both passed. Bush sent Ashcroft here and he challenged them both. The court cases basically held the laws over and hung them so they couldn't be enacted, but were not yet found illegal. So on the next election the laws were put back on the ballot and worded a little differently. They passed again. Again Bush and Ashcroft went to court. In both cases they lost. Bush via Ashcroft then issued statements saying that since assisted suicide is illegal on the federal level they will go after doctors that prescribe the drugs for this purpose. They also said they will reserve the right to go after growers and sellers of medical pot and there have actually been a few raids. So the freedom loving republicans have decided that the people of Oregon can't think for themselves and they know what is best for us.

While not condemning or condoning assisted suicide, I wouldn't agree with Bush and Ashcroft on this issue, not entirely at least. I see why they would do what they did but it doesn't make it right.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/obscenity.trial.reut/ They actually carried out a sting operation to get this hardened criminal who was flooding the streets with horrible sex toys.

From skimming over the article, she was selling sex toys at parties, correct? I would agree with what they did if she was out on the front lawn advertising sex toys, because that would be disturbing. Free speech is NOT absolute and that's where I would draw the line.

You define it as such, as do other people. But should that mean that they should change the Constitution to define it as such?

Not necessarily, but I can say with reasonable certainty that that's what the founding fathers had in mind also. We don't need to go into a discussion on whether or not they would have ever approved same sex marriages, we know where that will end.

Again, I am just pointing out that they all increase their spending. They always find a reason. They don't cut spending, they just increase it.

Historically though, what party was mostly responsible?

Some will agree, some will disagree with this. I think he was like a lot of presidents. He did some good stuff, he did some bad stuff.

Possibly, I'd personally put him in the top 5, easily.

No I feel that it should be available to those who wish to consume it. For example. I shouldn't be allowed to stand on a street corner holding a huge sign of a naked chick with her pussy spread open and deepthroating a dildo. Some people won't care. Some people will like it and others will be disgusted and offended. My exercising of the freedom of speech should not inhibit other people's freedom to move around freely or go without seeing that kind of stuff if the choose to. The same can be said with regular broadcast TV. There is plenty of ways to make it readily available to anyone who wants it without it being broadcast to anyone who just walks down a street or flips a channel on the TV.

So we're in agreement that free speech isn't absolute Why would freedom of privacy be?

Here is a case in point. There was a guy in Provo Utah who ran a small video store. He also had 13 adult movies for rent, but the boxes were put away in a closet and you had to show ID just to see them. He was arrested and put on trial under obscenity charges. He eventually won his case. How? Because they did a study and found out that the city of Provo buys pay per view porn via cable and satellite at a rate of four times the national average. Clearly there are a lot of people that want to watch porn, but they do so in a way that those who don't want to see it don't have to.

Utah is psychotic.

And yes, a person can determine their own morality. I can decide for myself what I feel is moral and just. It doesn't mean others have to believe that. It also doesn't mean that my beliefs will not be without consequence.

I disagree with the whole concept of relativism. It's something that one can easily debunk, and something that I find more ludicrous than people pointing out the insanity of religion.

But you won't say what these principle are. I'm not trying to force you to switch. I'm just curious why you would align yourself with one party or another. You seem to not like a lot of what they do, but like just enough to be a part of their party. Those things you like must be pretty meaningful to you because it seems to me you could still hold onto those values and be independent.

I've mentioned many of them. Limited goverment, especially in economic affairs, while an expansion of the private sector. I'm a fiscal conservative as well. I was perfectly happy that Reagan really popularized supply side economics in this country, before the moronic Keynesians took over. Rich companies will breed corruption so they should be allowed to fail, and not be bailed out. I support the separation of church and state, while I'm a religious person. I hate unions and blame them largely for the United States increasing their outsourcing over the decades. Any more you'd like to hear?

[NiteRain]

Originally Posted by CaroMark

Sorry but the government didn't need to be in the medical business.

I have also been let down by the actions of all the various parties, they all have their hands out and the votes are for sale.

They have always been in the medical business. If your state has public hospitals. What do you think happens when a person can't pay their bill?

[DaddyHalbucks]

Every Republican voted against the government healthcare takeover disaster. I'd say that is reason to be very proud.

[The Demon]

Yup. We are united while democrats aren't.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Every Republican voted against the government healthcare takeover disaster. I'd say that is reason to be very proud.

[psili]

Political discussions, like Religion = troll bait.
"The Demon" = hook, line and sinker without sustenance posts. Kind of like fatfoo.
What political party you vote for = worthless.

The Internet being a place for a bunch of people to complain about shit ++

[kane]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Yes, and that reason is that as we slowly moved away from 9/11, the threat became less and less grave, which makes the decision logical.

I disagree. There were court challenges to the patriot act from the day it was signed into law. It just took years to get through the court system before they were finally struck down. It had nothing to do with moving away from 9/11 and everything to do with a conservative court finding them to be illegal and/or unconstitutional.

From skimming over the article, she was selling sex toys at parties, correct? I would agree with what they did if she was out on the front lawn advertising sex toys, because that would be disturbing. Free speech is NOT absolute and that's where I would draw the line.

Correct she was holding parties in her home or other's homes. It is kind of like Tupperware and Avon parties, only they sell dildos and sex gel

Not necessarily, but I can say with reasonable certainty that that's what the founding fathers had in mind also. We don't need to go into a discussion on whether or not they would have ever approved same sex marriages, we know where that will end.

Correct, there is no reasonable way to discuss what the founding fathers would or would not have wanted or how they would react to today's world. We can only guess. I am almost always for not changing the constitution especially if it is to deny a certain group access to something.

Historically though, what party was mostly responsible?

Both. Both parties increase spending pretty equally. If you look at that link I showed you earlier you can see that they all increase spending. It looks to me like no party is worse than the other. You can make the argument that Obama has trumped them all, but up until he took office, both parties spent money like a drunk Kennedy at a strip club.

So we're in agreement that free speech isn't absolute Why would freedom of privacy be?

There is a difference. My freedom of speech can have an adverse effect on other people. My freedom of privacy doesn't.

Utah is psychotic.

Should they not be allowed to be psychotic if that is how the people that live there want it?

I've mentioned many of them. Limited goverment, especially in economic affairs, while an expansion of the private sector. I'm a fiscal conservative as well. I was perfectly happy that Reagan really popularized supply side economics in this country, before the moronic Keynesians took over. Rich companies will breed corruption so they should be allowed to fail, and not be bailed out. I support the separation of church and state, while I'm a religious person. I hate unions and blame them largely for the United States increasing their outsourcing over the decades. Any more you'd like to hear?

Yet some of these things, as I have pointed out, are only ideals of the republican party. Their actions show that they are not really carrying out these ideals. If I was part of a group that said they were going to do something and they did just the opposite or they didn't do anything, I would most likely stop being a member of that group.

I guess you feel that you have enough in common with them that you want to affiliate yourself with them. I have the words of Johnny Rotten echoing in my head, " Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? Good night! "

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by The Demon

Proud to be a fan of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. However, many of my views(those of the founding fathers), coincide with the Republicans, which makes me for the most part, Republican, and fiscal conservative.

I'm also a big fan of Ron Paul & Schiff, but I don't find myself being very aligned with many Republicans.. founding fathers? yes.. especially Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson. All of the social conservatism on both sides drives me absolutely insane.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by kane

I disagree. There were court challenges to the patriot act from the day it was signed into law. It just took years to get through the court system before they were finally struck down. It had nothing to do with moving away from 9/11 and everything to do with a conservative court finding them to be illegal and/or unconstitutional.

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree, as I don't think there is much evidence in that theory, nor in mine.

Correct she was holding parties in her home or other's homes. It is kind of like Tupperware and Avon parties, only they sell dildos and sex gel

So as long as she didn't take her nasty habit outside, it should have been ok.

Correct, there is no reasonable way to discuss what the founding fathers would or would not have wanted or how they would react to today's world. We can only guess. I am almost always for not changing the constitution especially if it is to deny a certain group access to something.

I'd really calling it "amending", rather than changing. And no, my point is, I can almost guarantee that the founding fathers meant one man and one woman, as opposed to anything same sex related.

Both. Both parties increase spending pretty equally. If you look at that link I showed you earlier you can see that they all increase spending. It looks to me like no party is worse than the other. You can make the argument that Obama has trumped them all, but up until he took office, both parties spent money like a drunk Kennedy at a strip club.

I suppose, but we'd have to look at their contexts. For instance, I'm fully behind Reagan's defense spending as it was necessary. I'm against FDR's spending as I thought it prolonged the depression.

There is a difference. My freedom of speech can have an adverse effect on other people. My freedom of privacy doesn't.

That's one way to look at it. The other way is, if our country does catch people plotting within our borders. I'm not willing to take the chance of one fuck up from those radical fundamentalists.

Should they not be allowed to be psychotic if that is how the people that live there want it?

I think there are limits. Then again, I really dislike the idea of "Oh I don't care what they do as long as it doesn't affect me." It's a protectionist attitude.

Yet some of these things, as I have pointed out, are only ideals of the republican party. Their actions show that they are not really carrying out these ideals. If I was part of a group that said they were going to do something and they did just the opposite or they didn't do anything, I would most likely stop being a member of that group.

On the other hand, they ARE those party ideals and at some point in time they had followed some of those ideals, which are my ideals. Therefore, I'm comfortable labeling myself as a Republican, but not as comfortable as I was during Bush's first years and I'm waiting to see how the November elections turn out. If something good comes out of them and the Republicans do something, great. If not, I might switch to Independent.

I guess you feel that you have enough in common with them that you want to affiliate yourself with them. I have the words of Johnny Rotten echoing in my head, " Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? Good night! "

It's like having a friend who sometimes is very flaky. If our similarities are such that his friendship is worth more than not having it, then I'd have to excuse his behavior and hope he betters himself.

[slapass]

Republicans have not proved fiscally responsible in there last several terms in office. Simple reason is wars are expensive. Reagan, Bush and Bush fought wars and Clinton did not. It even goes back several more presidents then that if you look at the stats.

Reagan tried to bankrupt America. He increased spending and decreased taxes. The late 80's were a mess with an entire banking arm driven out of business (S and L's). Top 5? Try bottom 5.

[The Demon]

Originally Posted by slapass

Republicans have not proved fiscally responsible in there last several terms in office. Simple reason is wars are expensive. Reagan, Bush and Bush fought wars and Clinton did not. It even goes back several more presidents then that if you look at the stats.

Reagan tried to bankrupt America. He increased spending and decreased taxes. The late 80's were a mess with an entire banking arm driven out of business (S and L's). Top 5? Try bottom 5.

This is retarded. Reagan fought off and ended the Cold War. Bush helped in the Iran-Iraq War. Both were necessarily. Your left wing bullshit doesn't fly, sorry.

"Reagan tried to bankrupt America ROFLROFL". I guess Obama is doing the same thing only ten times more successful.