democrat or republican?

[Transtic Nerve]

People should learn to pay attention to politics. I can honestly say I had no intrest is the subject till I took government in high school and then I was all into it and still am. Politics runs the way you live, it's probably best alot of you pay attention to it regardless of what party affiliation or non-party affiliation you are. The reason we have bad candidates and stupid people running our countries is because no one cares anymore. No offense to Bush, but he's not exactly the best person to have in office and if you think he is YOU know nothing of politics. Same goes for Gore if he would have been elected. My mother never voted for a long time, my father doesn't at all. Now myself and my mother do. I'm trying to get my brother to but it seems hopeless seeing as how he can't tell the difference between and elephant and a donkey (PUN intended). If more people payed attention, we'd have larger voter turn outs and thus have a better condidate for whichever office.

[Kent]

See, baby girl.

What you said kind of reflects the crap stereo types I was talking about.

Republicans want people to have their rights preserved.

Nobody wants people to be poor or trampled.

Its just bad publicity put out by third party types that dis-like republicans.

The whole idea of stereo types on both sides bothers me.

Whether its a democrate running on the race card or a republican on a firearms card.

Both parties are much more diverse than what the stereo types permit.

I honestly believe the people on the boards do want to stick up for people. Thats why they dont need to hide behind a party that puts itself up as the "party of the poor or minority." The people on the boards are good people and honest (for the most part).

Its just sad to see all the stereo types. I know I am guilty of them. But atleast I admit it. (but then again, stereo types allow me to think that anyone on the southern coast of calif. would think just like what you said.) (please dont hate me for this stuff, baby girl, I dont know you, but I dont want you to know me because you dis-like me. although after this, it may be too late.)

I sorta wanna put up some facts to fight stereo types. Like idea of republicans being the party of the rich.

did you know the richest politician in the country right now is a republican? but heres the anti-stereo type. know who he is, Micheal bloomberg. He switched his party 2 weeks before the election (to republican) so he could get the endorsment from guliani.

Or did you know that the head of the DNC, terrie mcaullife made 100,000 into over 2.8 million on a "shady" florida land deal.

Same fella did something even less publicized and even more shady just recently. Less than 3 months before the fall of world com Mcaullife turn a 1 million dollar investment into 18 million, all with world com.

Im gonna think of some republican stuff that fights stereo types. (like a gun control republican or something)

But think about terry mcaullife next time you think republicans are the party of the rich.

[PiroMunkie]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kinetic[/i]
[B][color=darkblue]Politics are necessary, but I'd rather stay out of them. Some day I will look in to it, but until then, I'd rather not worry about it.[/color][/B][/QUOTE][color=indigo]I am with you wholeheartedly on that perspective, because that is exactly the way I am. Not many people ask me whether or not I am a Democrat or a Republican, but if and when they do I just tell them I am "Independant". Just meaning that I do affiliate myself with either group. Of course, that is what I also say sometimes when people ask me my religion... if they ask both, they sometimes yell at me if they are hardcore in their religion. They think that I am trying to say that religion and politics are one in the same... honestly, I plead the fifth on that one, but that is a different subject. :p

Someday I shall have to choose one, I suppose. I shall look into it then.[/color]

[Sara]

[B][color=indigo]They think that I am trying to say that religion and politics are one in the same... honestly, I plead the fifth on that one.[/color] [/B]

[size=1]The irony in that is killing me. :whoops:[/size]

[B][color=indigo]Someday I shall have to choose one, I suppose. I shall look into it then.[/color] [/B]

[SIZE=1]Religion or political party? [/SIZE] :smirk:

[PiroMunkie]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sara[/i]
[B][color=indigo]They think that I am trying to say that religion and politics are one in the same... honestly, I plead the fifth on that one.[/color][/B]

[size=1]The irony in that is killing me. :whoops:[/size][/quote][color=indigo]Hehe, do you not love me more because of it? ^_^[/color][quote][B][color=indigo]Someday I shall have to choose one, I suppose. I shall look into it then.[/color]

[SIZE=1]Religion or political party?[/SIZE] :smirk:[/B][/QUOTE][color=indigo]Political, of course. ;)[/color]

[Anna]

lol...

I'm a conservative Republican. Of course I wouldn't ever vote straight-ticket or anyting like that, because I like some Democratic views. However mostly I fit in with Republicans; and I'm a conservative anyway, in more than just politics. I think probably the most contradicting issue I have is with the draft:
Being a Republican I typically would favor a strong natl. defense, which I do. But, I oppose the draft. I take on a more Democratic view, or perhaps just liberal, in that one ought to be able to choose whether or not to enlist. If there's a national crisis and it's obvious impending doom will occur lest the nation retaliates, then most will sign up voluntarily anyway. I don't think the govt. should [i]make[/i] a certain group of people do anything, let alone fight a war, if some of them just really wouldn't make good soldiers. Most young men without families and plenty of physical vigor are preferable, but the thing is: not every 18-25 or whatever year old man fits that desciption. Let the ones who do sign up themselves, but let those who don't stay at home. Well this is a rather interesting ramble, sooo I'll stop now.

[Sara]

[B][color=indigo]Hehe, do you not love me more because of it? ^_^[/color]
[/B]
[SIZE=1]How could I help, but?[/SIZE]

[B][color=indigo]Political, of course. ;)[/color] [/B]

[SIZE=1]Had to throw that out. You left it so open. :p[/SIZE]

[Kent]

Hey, anna, thats actually not a crazy ramble (kent melts away because he loves republican women)

But yea, infact on a side note, the last draft was enacted by democrates during vietnam. So dont get too hard on the right for defensive stuff. Which I read that you support.

Any way. Just thought I'd come and put that up for you, about the draft that is.

[Yu Yu Hakusho!]

Republician all the way. I'd like to live my life happily without the government controlling my life. I can take care of myself.

[Transtic Nerve]

I like how many of you think that with republicans, the government doesn't control your life.... This is an obviously false thought. The government controls your life in almost every aspect. Reagrdless democrat or republican. I mean lets look at the current administation....

Your rights are continually being abused by our government in the view of safety, but still, your rights are being abused. After 9/11, if you were of Middle Eastern decent or even looked Middle Eastern, you were automatically assumed to be a threat. Then if you said one thing bad or even mentioned 9/11 you were detained for days if not weeks or months.

And stillt he view of SOME (key word there) republicans is that strong notion of majority rules. In any case, race, gender, whatever. By not giving rights to some people, thats controling them beyond any way. Anti-abortion is controlling what women do.

I am not trying to flame republicans, I'm just saying that there is no way in hell you are gonna think that by electing or being a republican that the government will not control your life in this country. They will, they have, and they are right now. Republican, Democrat and everything in between.

[Kent]

Well, see my thing behind what your saying is simple.

Besides abortion and other murderous acts (its not like abortion isn't supported by MANY republicans in cases of rape and incest), democrates do the amount of controlling only more because of all the taxes implied.

Its also important to acknowledge the facts. Very few of us (especially on the boards) have our rights imposed on and trampled in any ways.

Its even more important to acknowledge the honest need for the government to look at everyone who is a possible supporter of terrorist. Whether its openly militant black muslims or saudi's here on an overstayed visa, right now every one needs to be checked.

Its even more important to notice that people complain about not being safe but get made when action is taken in the most practical manner (the above mentioned).

I think its a hard comprimise to deal with, but in any case, its always nessacary to take some action during a time of danger such as now.

Plus, when it comes to gov. getting involved with you, what way is more obvious than taxing. I mean, we get very little censorship in this country and their aren't many other ways for them to get involved besides a persons own illegal actions.

Fact is, taxing is not a good thing. Its completly needed to run a gov. so it will always be there. But over taxing so you can throw money at problems like education has no effect on the problem (as seen with the previous adm.) and it creates a greater need for more taxes to make up for increased spending.

Plus whats the point of doing stuff like raising min. wage when you increase taxes that end up knulling out the raise in the min. wage. Oh thats it... to create inflation.

Its simply this, both parties have problems, but one offers solutions and the other just bitches about how someone needs to fix them.

Oh yea, I meant to add that the draft before viet nam was inacted by another democrate named FDR. (applies to an earlier thread)

[Manic Webb]

It's a good thing nobody is bashing another person's respective party...

*coughyouallknowwhoyouarecough*

This is why I don't like politics. Someone always says something like "well, neither party is perfect, but [i]my[/i] party is still better and [i]your[/i] party did this wrong and [i]my[/i] party did this right." It's sickening. The simple truth is that everyone's prefered political party has done something wrong in the past, and I believe if political roles were reversed in some past situations, things would've turned out similar or possibly the same. When disaster strike, the people don't say "I'm [insert party] so I think we should do this."

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Yu Yu Hakusho! [/i]
[B]Republician all the way. I'd like to live my life happily without the government controlling my life. I can take care of myself. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I don't know if you'd feel the same way if the world was complete anarchy.

However, as TN mentioned, the two parties are not strictly about one running your life and the other giving you free rein of the country. There are tons of issues that draw the line between Republicans and Democrats; I believe your opinions on those issues are what help you decide your party of choice.[/color]

[Kent]

I just wanted to say that I know I get a little out of hand when it comes to comparing parties.

I dont really mean to, its just that my whole life it wasn't about politics for the democrates I met. (which was everyone except my brother and mother) It was about a grudge against the government for things like vietnam and the conditions for the less-fortunate in America.

I could never handle those people for obvious reasons. Well maybe its not obvious to every one here so I guess I should mention for everyone to check out what the "great society" was and to check out the political affiliations of the last presidents to get us involved with wars in south-east asia. (hint: its not the big R.)

But thats still beside the point, because even in an apoligy to say how bad I feel about bashing democrates, I come up with more bad stuff. (I would give some bad republican stuff I know but thats what they call "giving your enemy ammo", Im not gonna do that)

So anyway, Im sorry. I guess Im just a little to indepent for my generation. (that gen being the new age hippy/anti-government types)

Point is... (jeez it takes me forever to say what I mean)

Im sorry.

[Lyka]

I'm Democrat of course, and by the way, abortion isn't "murderous" the so called "baby" that is ejected it a fetus during the first three months and isn't really alive yet so how could you kill it?

No offense to anyone but I'm against the republicans that feel like preaching about God to people who are atheist or just plain have another religion without "God" is the right thing to do, you've gotta let people do things on their own.

I'm not saying that i like the whole "Big Government" thing, in fact I don't really appreciate people thinking that they can lead poorer or less "American" around by a rope

Republicans-don't go rep. because you don't want government in your lives, if that's what you want then become an anarchist

[Kent]

Ah, first off, during that first trimester, there is a heart beat, and to me that indincates a person, pre-mature yes, but a person.

Second, I dont think that is the only case of abortion, fact is that right now the head of the democrates in the house voted to allow women to do partial birth abortions, Nancy pelosi is her name. That is killing a baby no matter how you look at it.

Plus, republicans dont preach god, moral people preach god. Republicans preach moral government (in context to abortion). Such as only allowing abortion in cases of insest and rape.
Its also important to remember that there are more differences between the 2 parties than the simplified stereotipical crap you mentioned.

I personally think that the statment you made is another perfect example of the democratic party using stereotypes to make people think republicans are bad.

Of course, you can support abortion, its your right to, but if a women can do that because its her body, why arent you sticking up for my right to smoke pot using my body, or do cocaine with my body.

And how could you be so disgustingly rude (the party, not you the individual) to kill innocent babies (partial birth abortion) while not being willing to execute a man who has killed, raped and murder any number of people.

I dont like to stereotype, but Im giving up on that because there is no point for me to give the benifit of the doubt to someone who wouldnt do the same for me.

Of course I know this is all in vain because " you can tell a democrat, you just cant tell them much."

Oh yea, whats with the "lead the poor around by a rope" crap. I mean come on, if anyone does that its the democrates. For the last 40 years democrates have been the SELF-proclaimed party of the poor and minorities of America, but nothing has been done, nor has anything changed with the little effort put forth.

Plus if you want the sad truth, it seems by the number of people who make a career out of welfare that some people like the idea of being lead by a rope. Although that still doesnt happen because the democrates holding that rope havent led anyone anywhere.

Show me examples of what democrates have done for the poor of the country, tell me, what did LBJ's great society do for the country's poor. Ya know, if I was you, I would look into the history of the democrates before you act like republicans are the reason for the poor in america. Shoot, do you have any idea why social security is so messed up, its cause the original welfare system took money straight from social security. Just look up the action Johnson took. Its all true. Or look up how al gore's father voted when Eisenhower tried to integrate the public schools. (it wasnt in support of the integration, He was a democrate just like his son.)

Hey to make it easy on you, show me examples of what republicans have done to hold the poor back, and make it a real example not just some bogus statement with no backing, and then I will condem their actions. Republican or democrate, anyone holding down the poor is doing something that is bad. But to act like republicans are responsible for the poor of this country is making my slanderous statements about democrates seem all the more real and truthful.

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]And how could you be so disgustingly rude to kill innocent babies while not being willing to execute a man who has killed, raped and murder any number of people.[/b][/quote]

[color=deeppink]And when that baby is a result of a rape...?
[/color]

[Kent]

Did you ignore all of my above reply?

I did specifically say in the cases of rape and incest an exception must be made.

Go look, jeez!

Third paragraph, and take a look at when that was last edited, it will support that I didnt go back and add something in to make myself look reasonable.

I mean come on, who would make a women carry a child resulting from rape. Or not allow an abortion that would save a mothers life. Or make a women carry a baby from incest!

For real, give me a little credit, I mean, that thought has been in almost every one of the, what, atleast 5 post Ive made in this thread.

Oh yea, I forgot to mention that what you said doesnt even begin to touch on nancy pelosi, I mean come on, voting to allow partial birth abortion. I know we all know what that is, so tell me, is that being a good person.(allowing partial birth abortion)
-------------------------------------------------
Fact: half of America's population pays 96.5 percent of all the taxes collected.
Fact: its the top half.
Question: how do you give a tax break to people who dont pay taxes?

[Phantom]

I'm DeMOcRaT! :-D!

BWAH!

Wait!! no... I'm Liberal?...no wait Progressive conservative...lol..wait...oh welll...

Politics is just crazy....

[James]

[color=#507AAC]The question of abortion is one area where I can't agree with Republicans (for the most part). You can't have a "moral Government", in my opinion. Who within the Government decides the morals? How are they enforced? How do they choose what is moral and immoral?

This is why I have no time for people who try to strike down civil rights legislation based on their religious beliefs. We are always told that we can practice religion privately and we can use it in a personal way, as long as we don't interfere with public policy and such. Yet, the reverse happens. However, if someone tries to enact a civil rights law, the religious right weighs in and claims that they are shoving their beliefs down everyone's throat (even though the laws often have absolutely no affect on the people who try to strike them down -- they only do so because they think that everyone should live THEIR way).

Republicans tend to behave like this when it comes to issues of social policy.

I don't necessarily believe that abortion is moral or whatever...for me it's a case by case basis. But there is no way I would ever try to make it illegal. [i]That[/i] is truly when you have Government controlling your life.

[/color]

[Kent]

Well I would like to begin with a description of partial birth abortion.

The child is passed out of the birth canal only to the point of the head being exposed. Then a doctor proceeds to inject the child with a drug that slows the heart rate dramatically, then within one minute the child dies from what is basically a lack of oxegen due to a non-existant heart rate.

Nancy Pelosi (D-calif.) voted specifically to allow this practice, not just abortion, but specifically partial birth abortion.

Most important in this issue is the fact that right now and over the past ten years, an epidemic of women using abortion as a last ditch birth control has arose.

Incest, rape, birth defects, endangerment of the mothers life, all of these are cases in which most republicans support the practice of abortion, But not for women who use it as birth control.

It is also important to recognize the difference between the state force feeding you religion and implimenting ethical and moral rules to maitain a functional society.

Religion is the practice of worshiping a deity(s). Not the application of functional laws to run a country.

Plus it is important to realize (which I know you all do) that the laws of almost all western countries are based on religious principles that were created and practiced long before any of these western countries existed. With that in mind, it is hard to try and say that any government is going to apply absolutly no laws with "judao-christian" morals behind them. These morals of the "judao-christian" origin are what brought about the idea of eqaulity in society. Not the laws of other religions which believe in cast systems or gender inequality.

The stuff everyone (including james) wrote was untrue and stereotypical. It promotes false impressions of reasonable people.

I also wanna mention that its wrong to group republicans all together like we are all some sort of bible freaks that wanna rule your lives. I want nothing to do with your lives unless you want me there.

I like to party, I like to do "illegal" stuff. But I dont like allowing unions to have state legeslatures in their pockets. I dont like people placing no value on innocent human life, and then protecting the lives of criminals.

I just cant stand the stereotypes that are promoted here, all the while, no one is putting forth anything like a solid example, such as Nancy Pelosi's voting record or the protection of NAMBLA by the ACLU. How can these people live with themselves. Do people still value human life? Do people still wish to live in an ethical society?

These questions I often wonder about when partial birth abortion is accecpted. (I mean come on, you couldnt get that abortion before the baby was coming out, maybe atleast in the second trimester)

I wonder about these questions when the civil liberties union tries to protect pedophiles while ignoring the pleas of numerous people that do not fall into a minority group in terms of race, creed or color. (what, do people think there is no such thing as a poor white person)

I just cant stand the stereotypes that are based on nothing besides slander, class warfare rehtoric and out right lies.

We are all descent people, why act like just one group of us do things like allegedly shuve a religion down another persons throat.

If you wanna talk about religous figures in politics look at the democratic party that has tried to put up rev. Al Sharpton as a presidential candidate or the former Democratic presidential canidate Rev. Jesse Jackson.

You wanna talk about religion being in politics...

Republican stereotypes with no backing...

[James]

[color=#507AAC]Hey hey, you're getting WAY off the track of what I said, gokents.

I was talking about some Republicans (note that I said "for the most part). I did not mean to imply that all Republicans are the same, because of course they are not.

I am simply saying that regardless of what you think society is based upon, we cannot have Government handing down our morals. It's just not right.

My contention regarding civil rights legislation was unrelated to what you're talking about here.[/color]

[Kent]

Well actually you never mentioned civil rights legeslation.

And its also important to recognize I stayed on subject.

The thread before mine was about abortion, moral/religious dictation by state and republican stances on those issues.

My essay was on those 2 subjects alone.

Most important, it is not my opinion that the laws of modern western civ. are based on judao-christian ideology, it is fact. Im sure you've been to college or are in it, go back to your mod. west. civ. or socioligy class teachers and find out first hand. Theres no opinion on that one, its fact.

I dont have time for this right now because my final exam is in 2 hours and Ive gotta get to the bank first, but I will be back tonight. I like you james, but I wont let you slide this stuff by me. I was on topic and Im staying there.

[James]

[color=#507AAC]Wait a second...you're missing my point. I never said you were off topic. lol

Also, people seem to bring up the point about society being based on certain values as an excuse to trample on civil rights legislations. This is what I was talking about.

Are you implying that because our system of laws is based on these principles, that we must all adhere to a strictly Christian way of life? That our laws should adhere to these values to the letter?

If you are, then you're living in a dream world.

We live in a secular society. We seperate religion from the powers of state -- as we should always do. The religious right tends to believe that the Government should be enforcing divine laws and such. That's rubbish. It's merely an excuse to peddle one particular set of beliefs and to establish a very specific "one size fits all" moral code. In reality, that doesn't work.

When some people (one of them being a notable Republican) starts saying "I'm here to do God's work", it makes me sick.

Am I saying that all Republicans are like this? No. And I never once implied it.

What I am saying is that Government as a whole is not in a position where it should dictate our morals or family values. Morals and values are to be dictated by individuals and families -- just as with religious practice.

I have no problem with people having a viewpoint on abortion or any other issue. The problem I have is the moral soapbox that some in Government like to place themselves on. It does not work in a modern, secular society. It worked under the Taliban perhaps, but not in our Western world.

I think you'll find that you and I agree on many issues -- I consider myself conservative on a lot of key points (national defence, finances and such). But any suggestion that the Government can tell me what morals I should or should not have is bogus.[/color]

[Kent]

No, actually I am not saying we have to adhere to christian values or anything like that.

I was saying that our societies were founded on these priciples, so to expect them to be non-existant in our culture would be to be living in a dream land.

No one is dictating what morals to hold. The government is dictating what is acceptable in terms of behavior. That does follow the basic premise of juda-christian law, but it does not specifically call for any sort of religious law.

I do believe we agree on tons and tons of issues (in fact I very much like you and respect your opinions.) but I do believe that there is a dis-agreement between the two of us on this issue.

The morals our governments place as the base of our laws are based on religious thought, but they do not force anyone to hold their own morals to that standard. They do however, require that if you are to take part in society you follow the rules, even if those rules were based in religion. Although they do not dictate any religious practices.

The laws based on these priciples are not in practice because they are the religion of the government, they are in place because these "laws" or priciples are practical when trying to achieve a stable country.

None of the laws have a strict religous nature to them, and all are applicable to society without the context of religion. Each law has to do with the betterment of society.

Abortion is a loaded topic in this sense because religion is USUALLY what we base our morals on, so when we feel something is morally wrong, it is difficult to express that with out the element of religion being present.

However, I must admit that there is also another reason abortion is a loaded topic. Abortion represents a greater ill in our society that is a result of a loss of morals. Un wanted and un expected pregnancy, those are problems that can create strains on a culture and especially on the individual, so how do people put themselves into the situation to have these pregnancies. There is only one way to become pregnant, and we know what that is. The question is, should a person be allowed to live life with no regard to the repercussions of their actions and then have the society foot the bill of their needed operations. (planned parenthood)

Further more, how can we ever deal with the problem when we refuse to look at the problem head on. Abortions occur quite often and could simply be the result of certain groups being the only ones with the money to afford the operation. Adoption agencies are far too overloaded with children, unfortunatly these children are in completly dis-proportionate ratios in terms of race. So are we ever going to look at the fact that certain elements of society are more responsible than others for each of these problems... no, because of the very subject of another thread on the boards at the moment... political correctness. With middle class whites getting most of the abortions, no one in politics will ever put the blame where it belongs, since doing so would allienate a large portion of the voter base. Placing the blame would also show the morals of these allegedly moral people to be just the oppisite:immoral.

The above did get off subject some, but it leads back to something I was trying to explain.

There are "problem elements" in our society that are holding themselves to a lower moral standard than what would be expected in a prosperous society. (no society can thrive while under the strain of immoral behavior such as murder and over whelming numbers of illegimate children) It especially doesnt help that the leaders of certain minority groups suffering from these sorts of problems are infact contributing by having illegitimate children of there own. (talk about setting a moral standard)

So to eleviate these problems, we must impliment laws that will enforce some sort of moral behavior while still, as you said, keeping to our secular rules.

This means that we will have rules that seem religous in nature, but will in fact be practical in application when trying to achieve an optimal society.

I also wanna mention that you speak specifically of the religous RIGHT, as in extremist and fundamentalist. Those people are not the majority.

It is also important to recognize that no one is exscusing the trampling of civil rights. Civil rights do apply in this, in the sense that we are all entitled to our religions, but they do not directly apply when talking about actions which are illegal.

I also wanna get back to this idea of politicians, specifically republican ones, that come forth and say "this is dictated by god", are you reffering to an actual person or are you bringing up theoretical person for the sake of argument?