Republican/Democrat/Other...

[MichiganMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Willmore said:
MichiganMan,

So, if we agree with one parth 75% of the time, we're just supposed to close our eyes and bear it for the other 25% of the time?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, where exactly did you see such an obviously ridiculous assertion in my posting?

What I was attempting to address was the obtuse straw man arguements that ...sigh, ahh never mind... Yeah Willmore, that was my point: You should vote exactly how a party tells you to in every election, whether you believe it or not.

[ QUOTE ]

Why do we still have political parties? These things have been around in one form or another for hundreds of years (not only in the US, obviously). Why do we have them? What purpose do they serve?



[/ QUOTE ]

See, this was in my posting.

Parties exist because it gives people who tend to agree with each other collective power. Simple concept really, but too easily mischaracterized apparently.

 

[Willmore]

[ QUOTE ]
MichiganMan said:
[ QUOTE ]
Willmore said:
So, if we agree with one parth 75% of the time, we're just supposed to close our eyes and bear it for the other 25% of the time?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, where exactly did you see such an obviously ridiculous assertion in my posting?


[/ QUOTE ]
You said:
[ QUOTE ]

I would argue that people who call themselves Independents merely haven't sat down and examined on which side of the spectrum their beliefs fall, chances are that they would find that 75% of their beliefs, if they can be identified, would fall in line with one party or another. Obviously a few critical issues can throw you into flavors of the right or left, such as the Libertarians or the Socialists.

So as appealing as it may be to rebelliously declare that you can't be pinned down with a boring political label, if you're almost always voting the same as a certain party I'm sorry to tell you that you are in fact, if not in name one of those people.


[/ QUOTE ]
Which implies that even though someone may only fully agree with 75% of the issues of a party at first look, they should 'look deeper' and see that they truly agree with the rest. I think that's the same as saying 'suck it up' for the other 25%.

[ QUOTE ]

What I was attempting to address was the obtuse straw man arguements that ...sigh, ahh never mind... Yeah Willmore, that was my point: You should vote exactly how a party tells you to in every election, whether you believe it or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seemed to be saying that people may only think that they had some agreement with one party, but they they would truly find out that they believed it all if they only looked hard enough? As if each party has a completely coherent position that is in no way contradictory? And which is completely diametrically opposed to the other party? Spit it out.

Don't blame your inability and unwillingness to clearly articulate your meaning on me. Say your piece.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do we still have political parties? These things have been around in one form or another for hundreds of years (not only in the US, obviously). Why do we have them? What purpose do they serve?



[/ QUOTE ]

See, this was in my posting.

Parties exist because it gives people who tend to agree with each other collective power. Simple concept really, but too easily mischaracterized apparently.


[/ QUOTE ]

You also made the assertion that people who claimed not to be fully defined by *one* party title and who were self declared independents were just popularity seeking poseurs. That is what with which I take issue.

 

[Willmore]

I'm thinking that Empath has been reading too much Karl Marx recently. That stuff is *not* good for bedtime reading.

 

[NCBirdHunter]

[ QUOTE ]
PlayboyJoeShmoe said:
BUT! I do not think a direct up and down vote by each individual would be good for the USA. Because just as soon as people find that they can vote themselves 'goodies' it is ALL OVER!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of a memorable quote from Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). A Scottish jurist and historian, he was widely known in his time and was professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University in the late 18th century.

The quotation is from the 1801 collection of his lectures:

<ul type="square">"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage."[/list]
I would venture that we, as a nation, are somewhere between complacency and apathy, with many marginal groups/constituencies closer to dependency (and even a few already back to bondage).

OzMan

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

That is why for at least a few minutes longer this country is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

And I don't think lock-step with any of our reps, but I still agree more of the time with Republicans, and disagree MOST of the time with Democrats.

And any sort of one person one vote democracy is doomed before it is ever tried!

 

[Darell]

Deep breath everybody (this is one step before "group hug" so be careful!).

Small reminder to freely attack the post, but not the poster. Presenting and refuting ideas allows us all to learn. Attacking individual members for their ideas or comments doesn't allow us to learn much of anything. Nobody has really stepped over that elusive line yet, but I just have this little tick in my eye that warns me that the big step may be coming...

Thanks guys. Have at it.

 

[MichiganMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Willmore said:
You said:
Which implies that even though someone may only fully agree with 75% of the issues of a party at first look, they should 'look deeper' and see that they truly agree with the rest. I think that's the same as saying 'suck it up' for the other 25%.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, my point was that if you vote the same as a republican or a democrat 75 percent of the time then regardless of what you tell yourself there is no functional difference between you and the republican or democrat. My sub point was that the mischaracterization that party members vote the same as their party every time is a disingenuous impossible standard that noone in reality follows but is put forth by self described independants who need a cartoonish standard against which to define themselves.

And then you took my statements and did exactly that.

[ QUOTE ]

Don't blame your inability and unwillingness to clearly articulate your meaning on me. Say your piece.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did, three times now. It doesn't appear to be my ability that's in question at this point, except perhaps in your eyes, which again is not reflection on my ability.

[ QUOTE ]

You also made the assertion that people who claimed not to be fully defined by *one* party title and who were self declared independents were just popularity seeking poseurs. That is what with which I take issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats close, my actual assertion is that they're lying to themselves regarding how conservative or liberal they are.

 

[I_rv_too]

Republican all the way.

Why?

Easy.

Republicans have all the money.

How else can I afford an RV and a Flashlight collection?

I mean if I were one of those touchy-feelie, share the wealth ... well, next thing you know, the flaming liberals would want me to share my flashlight collection with the poor.

Yeah, right ... like that's ever gonna happen!

However, if one of you liberal types would like to "share" your lights ... I'd like one of those hard anodized E thingies.

Email me for my address!

PS --- Urge your congressman to vote for the tax relief package. Means more money in your pockets to spend on flashlights!

Seriously!

 

[Willmore]

MichiganMan,

I think both of our points are well stated at this point and, though I disagree with you, I see no point in further discussion as there seems little chance in either of us convincing the other and we're just going to bore everyone else if we continue.

Seem fair?

 

[ikendu]

Hmmm. Well, I'v pretty consistently voted with one party, but...

I would call myself a "centrist".
I'm not really interested in too many ideas that are too far right or too far left.

1. Fiscally conservative

The idea of borrowing money for a tax cut is not one that I'd support.

If we've collected a surplus...it should be given back to the people that paid it in...in the same proportion we collected it in the first place.

If we DON'T have a surplus...NO tax cut.

2. The constitution

It has meaning. It isn't just some "old document" in a glass case. Examples:

I think Clinton should have resigned for having sexual relations with an intern in the oval office and then lying about it to the American public.

But...I don't think he should have been impeached. Impeachment should be reserved for bribery, treason, violating the constitution, etc...not, lying about a sexual affair. He wasn't removed from office anyway...it was just a political maneuver that accomplished nothing and cost of lot of money and time that should be been spent elsewhere.


Violations of law by presidents that should have led to impeachment:

a. Reagan for sending support to the Contras after Congress passed a law specifically prohibiting that.

b. George W. Bush for invading Iraq with no declaration of war (required by the constitution he swore to uphold).

3. Defense

We need a STRONG defense. Weak countries attract trouble.

4. Veteran's benefits

We should NOT be cutting veteran's benefits! People that are willing to put their lives on the line for America should NOT get short changed later when everyone has forgotten about the war!

After having furnished these examples, I should also point out that many of the policies I think make sense...most Americans don't share. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif So...although I think of myself as a centrist...maybe it's a pretty narrow center! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Willmore]

Clinton lied to congress. It does not matter what it was about. If he did it on one thing, he can do it on another (at least that's the logic we apply to other crimes and offenses).

 

[NightStorm]

Willmore, its all a matter of scope. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

Dan

 

[ikendu]

Willmore said: Clinton lied to congress. It does not matter what it was about.

So...that's a pretty pure standard. Purity is appealing to me as well. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I assume that if G.W. Bush were caught in any lie to Congress ("It does not matter what it was about")...that you'd be for impeaching him then? And...does it need to be a "lie to Congress", or just any public lie?

 

[MichiganMan]

Actually where Bill really hit the deep legal mud was when he lied under oath in a lawsuit. And of course the lie was about sex, it was a sexual harassment lawsuit after all. Paula Jones said that while he was Governor and she was a state worker he exposed himself to her and asked for oral sex. He subsequently lied in his testimony about oral sex with subordinates.

Before Bill Clinton, sexual harassment was a big deal and men that lied while testifying in such matters were viewed by women every where as vile oppressive predators. ie. contrast the portrayal of Clarence Thomas for just joking with Anita Hill about porn with the credible allegations against the former president. But so important was Clinton's political survival no matter what the collateral damage, that feminists across the nation swallowed (that's right, that's right, I said it) their principles and pretended that it was no longer a big deal if you lied about sexual harassment.

As for the perjury itself, people not directly associated with the legal system don't realize how serious of an offense it is. Without the expectation, and enforcement, of truthful sworn testimony our court system cannot function. Perjury is second only to capital crimes in its seriousness. I once saw a circuit judge sentence a man to prison for perjury to grand jury in a voter fraud case because the man (a tiny fish in the operation) simply lied about taking an absentee ballot from the voter to the mailbox (an absentee ballot law no-no)

 

[Willmore]

PercaDan,

Uggg, that rag. I'd rather read 'Sally Forth' or 'Family Circle' or something with some depth, like 'Garfield'...

yech, yech, must go clean out browser cache to get bad taste out of mouth.....

Idendu,

Well, when it's in a deposition, you need to be pretty clear. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm not refering to *casual* comments, but swarn testimony, come on.

Something better than "Hey, congress, I got your testimony right here *grabs crotch*, Ba-by!" might have come off as a bit more presedential, as well. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

MichiganMan,

We're going to start freaking people out if we disagree and then agree. People aren't going to be able to understand people being *rational* about politics... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[MichiganMan]

I don't ration my politics at all, I take it in big heaping gobs.


/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[NightStorm]

[ QUOTE ]
Willmore said:
PercaDan,

Uggg, that rag. I'd rather read 'Sally Forth' or 'Family Circle' or something with some depth, like 'Garfield'...

yech, yech, must go clean out browser cache to get bad taste out of mouth.....



[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha'...don't forget to rinse your eyes with Listerine. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Dan

 

[GJW]

[ QUOTE ]
ikendu said:
I assume that if G.W. Bush were caught in any lie to Congress ("It does not matter what it was about")...that you'd be for impeaching him then?

[/ QUOTE ]

What happened to your fondness for Purity?
Up above you said that Bush should have been impeached for Iraq.
Then shouldn't Clinton have been impeached for Somalia?
For Haiti?
For Sudan?
For Afghanistan?
For Bosnia?

For Clinton the answer is "maybe" but there is no argument yet for impeaching Bush.

The Constitution states that only Congress may declare war.
Since the President does not have that power to begin with and since we were never officially "in a state of war", I (and a ton of Constitutional scholars) would say that Bush did not violate the Constitution.

Are you familiar with what a declaration of war really means?

War Powers At Home:
U.S. Constitution: Allows habeas corpus to be suspended, letting the president arrest and detain U.S. citizens without due process.

Alien Enemy Act of 1798: Lets the president summarily arrest, intern and deport suspect aliens.

Defense Production Act of 1950: Authorizes comprehensive controls over the economy.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977: Permits limits on financial transactions with foreign countries during a "national emergency" declared by the president.

Trading With The Enemy Act of 1941: Allows additional limits on financial dealings with foreign countries during declared wars.

War Time Passport Act of 1952: Prohibits use of U.S. passports for persons wishing to travel to countries at war with the U.S.

Logan Act of 1798: Prohibits U.S. citizens from acting as unofficial diplomats with foreign counties.

Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938: Requires U.S. residents acting on behalf of foreign governments to register as foreign agents.

Except for those in the semi-redundant Patriot Act (which does not require a state of war), none of these powers were invoked.

Bush did exactly what was required.
He took his case before Congress and asked for permission for, and endorsement of his actions (twice).
Congress backed him (twice).
You can claim that that was the same as Bush declaring war but history and the Constitution disagree with you.

Now if you want to argue that it was Congress that shirked its duties then that's another matter.
But you can't pin that on Bush.

 

[ikendu]

GJW said: The Constitution states that only Congress may declare war.
Since the President does not have that power to begin with and since we were never officially "in a state of war", I (and a ton of Constitutional scholars) would say that Bush did not violate the Constitution.

So...massing 200,000 troops on a country's border and giving them a 48 hr. ultimatum, then crossing the border destroying all of their tanks, planes and units is not "in a state of war"?

GJW said: Are you familiar with what a declaration of war really means?

Perhaps not... I know that we declared war on Japan and Germany in WWII. Please help me understand what it really means. I'll be very interested in how your form your description of this.

GJW said:Bush did exactly what was required.
He took his case before Congress and asked for permission for, and endorsement of his actions (twice).
Congress backed him (twice).
You can claim that that was the same as Bush declaring war but history and the Constitution disagree with you.

Now if you want to argue that it was Congress that shirked its duties then that's another matter.
But you can't pin that on Bush.

Hmmm. I'm very interested in your discussion/description about declaring war to help me understand your last remarks here. Somehow it seems to me that if only Congress has the power to Declare War, then it really does turn on what Declare War means.

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
I_rv_too said:
PS --- Urge your congressman to vote for the tax relief package. Means more money in your pockets to spend on flashlights!

Seriously!

[/ QUOTE ]
Much the same effect can be achieved by simply locating your child's piggy bank - break it open and take their money directly. No reason to use the government as the middle-man that way.