[Nikon]

ok. So I have never been really into politics but I have always considered myself to be fairly liberal. I always took a liberal stance because I considered it to be an open-minded stance. Lately I have been reading about things in the news and I don't think that I like the idea of being associated as a liberal anymore. The shit that they pull is not up my alley.

What's my point? I know we have democrates and republicans here - why are you what you are? What makes you align yourself with either? What are the main points that makes you call yourself either or?

Without bashing the other side...convince me "your" side of things is "better".

Please try to keep this educational and not a bull/donkey bashing session. You can bash the liberals though .

[TheIglu]

I find myself on the liberal side of things when referring to using religious or "ethical"(codeword for religious undertones) rules that everyone has to obey, no matter what their religious background. I'm one of those people who DOESN'T get his panties in a bundle when someone questions why "Under God" was ADDED to the pledge of allegiance. It's a fair question.

Marriage, abortion, etc: If you don't like how some people live their life, fine. But just think if those people were the majority and forced you through law to live their way.

It's not black and white, but for the most part, I'm fairly liberal on those types of issues. On everything else, I'm conservative (fiscially). I don't want the government to spend money on much of anything. Fewer laws, fewer rules, fewer programs, etc. LESS international involvement, military (doesn't sound to conservative to me to spend billions on a war we didn't need to be in), etc.

Gun control?

Kinda devided on this. If you are an upstanding citizen, you should be allowed to buy, own, modify and shove up your ass any gun you want (within reason, explosives, etc). I mean guns that can be safely controlled by one person. Machine guns are included in this subset. I also have no problem with a waiting period or background check. If you are in a rush to buy a gun, perhaps you shouldn't be buying this gun.

Also, NO favoritism, funding, helping, etc for ANY religious organization. No tax breaks either. No non-profit status. It IS for profit, just not in a monetary way (for most part). We have more churches in my town that have larger buildings and take up more space than any other business catagory/school system/public benefit entity. If people can drive half an hour to go to a mall, they sure as hell can close down some of these churches and consolidate. It IS a business. They just deal in people, not money. If there is an organization that is a faith based entity that does good and wishes to remain non-profit, all they have to do is loose the "official" affiliation with a church. So all the members are one faith, who cares? As long as they welcome other faith and non-faith members, they can keep their non-profit status.

And that's all i have to say about that for now.

[Nikon]

Well put. I am very much a do-what-you-want kind of guy when it comes to personal issues; i.e. abortion. To me, that's your choice. I may not agree with it but who am I to tell you what to do with your life. I would never encourage anyone to get one but it's a persons option and not mine, or the governments.

The whole church and state thing. Pledge of Alligence and being sworn in court both talk about "under god". Quite frankly - I don't care. I'm not religous. I question why it's there but don't care that it is there.

Gun control. I think it's a fundamental righ that we have as put forth by the constitution. That's part of the reason I carry - because I can. I don't like the restrictions put out there in many instances - you can regulate all you want but the Bad Guys will always have whatever they want. The regulations and restrictions don't hurt the BGs - only the law abiding citizens. I like that I can go into the shop and walk out with whatever I want. Would I complain all that much if I had to wait 7 days - not really. I'm still buying the gun, it's just a minor inconveinence. I will say that I hate the laws in MA and they are some of the worst in the country and I think that it's a disgrace how MA destroys your rights. I like guns, a want guns and I don't want the government telling me what guns are ok for me to own as a law-abiding citizen.

In terms of the war. I'm not happy that we are there. I do think that it was W but I'm for destroying the motherfuckers that flew planes into our towers. Fuck them - bring back naplam and roast the fuckers.

I don't like W but that is not because he's repub - I just don't like him.

[WildBill]

As a Conservative Republican my thinking is pretty basic,

1. Smaller Goverment, let the people rule the states not the Feds. gay marriage, abortion,schools( how the children are taught ) God,smoking, ect. should be left to the local goverment and its people to vote on and I mean the people vote on it, not the local goverment to pass laws without local input.Majority rules

2. Tax cuts, the more money I have to spend the better the economy.

3. Less goverment programs, taking money from one person to give to another is wrong.Thats what family, your church and charities are for. If I have money to give I give, it shouldn't be taken from me. That is theft by anyone else other than the Goverment.

thats the basics from a Conservatives point of view

[Nikon]

Originally posted by WildBill
As a Conservative Republican my thinking is pretty basic,

1. Smaller Goverment, let the people rule the states not the Feds. gay marriage, abortion,schools( how the children are taught ) God,smoking, ect. should be left to the local goverment and its people to vote on and I mean the people vote on it, not the local goverment to pass laws without local input.Majority rules

2. Tax cuts, the more money I have to spend the better the economy.

3. Less goverment programs, taking money from one person to give to another is wrong.Thats what family, your church and charities are for. If I have money to give I give, it shouldn't be taken from me. That is theft by anyone else other than the Goverment.

thats the basics from a Conservatives point of view

I would never have thought that I would agree with a "conservative" POV but that makes sense to me....

[bigred875]

it is like deciding between horse shit and pig shit.....figure out what side stinks the least and run with it....


i am more of a libertarian

liberal on social issues and conservative when it comes to the economy and national security....

[RandyO]

Originally posted by bigred875
it is like deciding between horse shit and pig shit.....figure out what side stinks the least and run with it....


i am more of a libertarian

liberal on social issues and conservative when it comes to the economy and national security....

I am a libertarian (leaning a bit towards anarchism) also, and from the posts I've read so far, most people here are, they just don't know it yet


I don't believe in "safety nets" and I believe in personal responsibility

[RandyO]

Originally posted by bigred875
conservative when it comes to the economy and national security....

just so that I understand, what do you mean by a conservative view of national security ?

[bigred875]

Originally posted by RandyO
just so that I understand, what do you mean by a conservative view of national security ?

i beleive that there is a war on terror going on and that steps need to be taken in order to protect american citizens....

[zombie]

After thinking about this
stick me down as libertarian as it makes the most sense to me
and a pox on both current parties
I would love to see a viable third party to really shake things up.
Pity Ross Perot was such a disappointment

[chr|s sedition]

Without applying this theory to every political issue, for me, the question is always one of a justified means to remedy a certain end, and hence should thus govern the form of interference. When the State takes something from you, or forces you to do something, that excercise of power should be, and needs to be, just. Within that framework, the means of interference should be as minimally intrusive as possible. Where does this philosophy fall within the context of the political spectrum? I dont know. The biggest problem with U.S. politics is the either / or mindset. One is either a repubican or a democrate. This is like saying one may either ride a 250cc bike, or a 750cc bike. In fact, these are only parts of a larger spectrum of possible choices. Moreover, a 250cc my serve one purpose much better on any given day than a 750cc. This should not then forever bar alignmentd with 750cc bikes. I view government as forcing us to all live in a cage. The goal of justice is expand the size of the cage, to the point where it is so large we are no longer aware we are therein contained. It will never be fully defeated, but we should seldom brush up against its walls. Elements of many political ideals can aid in that expansion. Parced of anaology, my point is leave the crutches of political affiliation aside. Aim and follow for something higher...your own sense of personal justice, and then align yourself with what ever best mirrors that in the real world, if only for a fleeting moment.

[chr|s sedition]

Originally posted by RandyO
I am a libertarian (leaning a bit towards anarchism) also, and from the posts I've read so far, most people here are, they just don't know it yet


I don't believe in "safety nets" and I believe in personal responsibility

as for libertarian / anarchism...I would go as far to say that the basic tenats of each are hardwired into human existence.

as for "saftey nets"...what do you mean and how do you define a 'saftey net'?

[Nikon]

Originally posted by chr|s sedition
I view government as forcing us to all live in a cage. The goal of justice is expand the size of the cage, to the point where it is so large we are no longer aware we are therein contained. It will never be fully defeated, but we should seldom brush up against its walls.

very interesting and enlightening way of putting it.

[Nikon]

Originally posted by zombie
After thinking about this
stick me down as libertarian as it makes the most sense to me
and a pox on both current parties
I would love to see a viable third party to really shake things up.
Pity Ross Perot was such a disappointment

+1

I'm liking the points they make - especially the gun laws aspect of things.

I have to agree with sedition about the right bike for the right purpose too. I hate to put myself into any 1 catergory and say that I am THIS, whatever this happens to be. I believe 7s made a point around the time of the last election to post pics of the billboards he had on his lawn about the people he was voting for - he made a point to show people of different parties to say that it is the person and not always teh party. I may not be a republican but I may agree with him on certain issues, moreso than the party I may tend to align myself with.

Good points so far and thanks for keeping the bashing out of it.

[chr|s sedition]

Originally posted by Nikon
thanks for keeping the bashing out of it.

*nods* so far, this is a great thread.

[bigred875]

check out this guy http://www.wtkk.com/FMTALKPersonalit...9/Default.aspx

he is pretty good...he calls himself a radical independent or something....i tend to agree with him about a lot of things....not everything though

[chr|s sedition]

Originally posted by bigred875
check out this guy http://www.wtkk.com/FMTALKPersonalit...9/Default.aspx

he is pretty good...he calls himself a radical independent or something....i tend to agree with him about a lot of things....not everything though

I've heard his talk show a few times. I usually have to turn it off.

[RandyO]

Originally posted by chr|s sedition
as for libertarian / anarchism...I would go as far to say that the basic tenats of each are hardwired into human existence.

as for "saftey nets"...what do you mean and how do you define a 'saftey net'?

I believe that our constitution makes people equal politicly, not socially , in other words, I do not believe in welfare

social welfare
corporate welfare
conservation welfare

I believe that I should be able to choose my friends, my employees and my customers without any interference from government

[RandyO]

Originally posted by bigred875
i beleive that there is a war on terror going on and that steps need to be taken in order to protect american citizens....

the question is still the same, what is a convervative view of national security. there are conservative steps that can be taken to protect american citizens, and liberal steps

I don't think there is anything "conservative" about the Homeland security laws that have recently put into affect

[chr|s sedition]

Originally posted by RandyO
I believe that our constitution makes people equal politicly, not socially , in other words, I do not believe in welfare

social welfare
corporate welfare
conservation welfare

I believe that I should be able to choose my friends, my employees and my customers without any interference from government

ok, w/o going too far off topic from Will's first post...in terms of social welfare...how do you view things like government funding (i.e. welfare) for people who are perminatlly disabled? the elderly? kids in state custody becuase of abusive parents? a woman who raised kids for 18 years and then had her husband walk out on her, the mentally insane, an at-home mom who had her husband die in 9/11 etc? All of these are people who normally get some form of social welfare. Under your view, how should society and government deal with these situations?

[bentbryan]

Originally posted by zombie
After thinking about this
stick me down as libertarian as it makes the most sense to me
and a pox on both current parties
I would love to see a viable third party to really shake things up.
Pity Ross Perot was such a disappointment

"Now what you have here....is chickens!"


I thought he had a solid chance at winning until he pulled out the eisal with the chicken diagrams on it.

[bigred875]

Originally posted by chr|s sedition
I've heard his talk show a few times. I usually have to turn it off.

I'm not surpised...because of his veiw on homosexual marriage? that is one of the thing i do not agree with him on....i have turned him off when he's gone off on his rants on this...

[RandyO]

Originally posted by chr|s sedition
ok, w/o going too far off topic from Will's first post...in terms of social welfare...how do you view things like government funding (i.e. welfare) for people who are perminatlly disabled? the elderly? kids in state custody becuase of abusive parents? a woman who raised kids for 18 years and then had her husband walk out on her, the mentally insane, an at-home mom who had her husband die in 9/11 etc? All of these are people who normally get some form of social welfare. Under your view, how should society and government deal with these situations?

too bad, shit happens, no garantees in life except death & taxes


Like I said I don't believe in welfare ... of any kind .... for anybody


I don't have a problem with churches or private do-gooders organizations helping people out, I do have a problem with public tax $ for that purpose

I don't profess to be an altruistic person

[bigred875]

Originally posted by chr|s sedition
ok, w/o going too far off topic from Will's first post...in terms of social welfare...how do you view things like government funding (i.e. welfare) for people who are perminatlly disabled? the elderly? kids in state custody becuase of abusive parents? a woman who raised kids for 18 years and then had her husband walk out on her, the mentally insane, an at-home mom who had her husband die in 9/11 etc? All of these are people who normally get some form of social welfare. Under your view, how should society and government deal with these situations?

i dont have a problem with any of those situations...I have a problem with welfare generations....except maybe the last one...the man's companies insurance should be responsible or he should have had life insurance...but if neither do and she meets the qualifications she should receive benefits so she can get back on her feet..... welfare should be used as a tool to lift people out of their hardship so they can a be productive member of society not a drain. If you are on welfare there should be more checks and balances then there are today..if you are not actively looking for a job you should be in school or learning a trade.... And it should be less all or nothing...the way it is today people collect welfare then get a job paying minimun wage they lose their benefits...it should be some sort of a scale....

[beet]

Originally posted by zombie
After thinking about this
stick me down as libertarian as it makes the most sense to me
and a pox on both current parties
I would love to see a viable third party to really shake things up.
Pity Ross Perot was such a disappointment

your so right..