Proud to be a Democrat or Republican right now?
 

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.

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

"Reelect No One" Start campaigning now.


.

Proud to be an Independent.

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 agree :thumbsup

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

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.

Proud to officially have no party affiliation.

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

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.

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 suspect that incumbents of both parties will take a hit.

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'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

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

I can hope

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.

yep... thats what needs to happen.... :thumbsup







.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.



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 :)

Democrat or Republican? Who cares? Can't you all just come together and be ashamed to be American? :1orglaugh

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



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.

Ok...Go on

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 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.

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

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

Could be worse, you could be a democrat.

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.

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


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?



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.

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

LOL!! funny i have thinking the same way!

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.

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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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

You have a point here :)

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.

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.



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.




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 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.


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.


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.

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.



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.
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.


Historically though, what party was mostly responsible?


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

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

Utah is psychotic.

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.


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?