General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2179026

    What makes a Republican/Democrat?

    Locked

    by cp7212 ·

    I have read many posts and political “slurs” on TR about the Republican/Democrat debate. I HAD to register as Democrat because my father worked for the city government.

    Religiously, I call myself a Christian, even though I believe in some parts of many religions. I find myself agreeing with both Republican issues and Democratic issues. I don’t know whether to change my registration or leave it.

    So, I ask you, what do YOU think makes a Republican or a Democrat? (Personally, I don’t see why we have to register as one or the other.)

    Thanks for your input.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3119153

      A question for you

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      What is the significance of “registering” as one or the other? I’m not sure if we have the equivalent over here.

      • #3131692

        I’m surprised they don’t do it here

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to A question for you

        I figure the best thing for TR is to have a political registry also. This way, Americans would know who to believe and who to flame before they type a single keystroke.

        They have TAGGING on TR, but the political tagging would be an asset to those who may find themselves agreeing with someone only to find out they are of a different political preference.

        I guess if Repubs stay in power for another term, we will see them trying to crate a rule that two democrats can’t get married due to thier unfavourable choice of a life partner. 😀

      • #3131801

        Some places of employment

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to A question for you

        especially government employment, give favorable job opportunities to those who are of the same political party as those in power. It’s not as prevalent as it used to be, having mostly given way to the “good-old-boys” method.

        In some states, you are required to declare your party before being allowed to vote in a primary election, at which time you will only be allowed to vote for that party’s candidates. This declaration is public record. If you didn’t declare a party, you were given a ballot with only non-partisan issues and offices on it.

        In theory, this is supposed to prevent you from falsely declaring the opposite party in order to try to defeat that party’s likely contender for the general election. Not very many states do this, however, so maybe practice has been determined to be out-of-step with theory.

        • #3132420

          Exactly

          by cp7212 ·

          In reply to Some places of employment

          When I turned 18 and I could vote, I remember my dad telling me when I go register to vote, register Democrat. I had no idea why he told me this (he worked for the city government – city garage), only that he made it very clear that I could only register as a Democrat.

          Back then, I didn’t know much about why I had to register as such, but hey, it was my dad. Years later, when I found out, I was a little upset. But the whole time my dad was working, that’s the way it was. Period.

          Frankly, I find it very disturbing.

        • #3132232

          I know what you mean.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Exactly

          Things have changed a lot. I can actually remember when a new (different party) governor took office, the state employees who were not of the right party simply knew that their days were numbered.

          Disturbing indeed, but at least it was out in the open and you knew where you stood. It’s been replaced over the years with a secretive, I’ll wash your back if you’ll wash mine, appproach which I personally find even more frightening. There is no loyalty at all any more.

    • #3119130

      Registering with a political party

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      .
      You don’t have to register as a member of any political party, instead opting to register as independent or unaffiliated. However, this would allow you to vote in the general elections only, not in the primary elections.

      The primary elections, where candidates from the same party campaign against each other for the privilege of representing their party in the general elections, can only be decided by members of that particular party. Republicans cannot vote in the Democrat primary, for example, and Democrats can’t select their preferred Republican in the Republican primaries. In the general election, however, once those primaries are decided, you can vote for either one, regardless of you party affiliation, of lack thereof.

      In the 2004 presidential elections, for example, among the choices in the Democrat Party primary elections were:

      John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Al Sharpton, Wesley Clark, Carol Moseley Braun, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, and Dick Gephardt.

      Only registered Democrats could cast a vote for one of those choices. The registered Democrat voters, obviously, selected John Kerry.

      Primary elections, not to be confused with a state caucus, are state elections, not national elections; and all of the candidates may or may not appear on all of the state primary ballots.

      • #3119122

        Follow up

        by cactus pete ·

        In reply to Registering with a political party

        Max, perhaps you know, or maybe someone else.

        I think some states, or some districts, whatever, don’t force you to be the party for which you vote in primaries. In Illinois, that is the case, Like Colorado, I suppose must be. But I keep thinking that some mid-Atlantic state(s) (among possibly others) do(es)n’t require that.

        Anyone know for sure?

        • #3119117

          You’re right – each state has its own rules

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Follow up

          .
          But I don’t know the rules for all 50 states.

          I do know that my state, Colorado, will not allow a registered “Whatever” to vote in the other party’s primary.

        • #3119108

          I don’t like that idea. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Follow up

          .
          ….of Democrats voting in Republican primaries, and vice-versa.

          What a great way for a party loyalist to help select a weaker opponent for the opposing party.

        • #3119077

          Dems voting in Repub primaries and vice versa

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I don’t like that idea. . . .

          So can one person vote in the BOTH parties’ primary?

        • #3119058

          I don’t think so

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Dems voting in Repub primaries and vice versa

          I think you still only get to vote in one primary… But I also don’t know all 50 states.

        • #3119031

          Seems like one party could sway the other’s primary outcome

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I don’t think so

          Consider this scenario: Republican party candidate Ramos is the only Republican presidential candidate. Democratic candidates Alfred and Bruce are in a dead-heat across the nation. Dem Alfred would likely trounce Ramos in the general election. But Ramos would likely trounce Dem Bruce. In a critical state like California or Texas with thousands of electoral votes, what would prevent the Republicans from telling their party members to vote in the [b]Democratic[/b] primary, and to vote for Bruce, the guy that Republican Ramos would trounce in the general election? This sways the Democratic candidacy from Alfred to Bruce. Bruce goes against Ramos in the general election and gets trounced and we have a Repub prez instead of a Dem prez.

        • #3118977

          Yes

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Seems like one party could sway the other’s primary outcome

          That is one of the concerns.

        • #3117725

          In Chicago….

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to I don’t think so

          You can vote in both primaries, as often as you like. All it takes are the addresses of abandoned houses and names of deceased.

          You’ve all heard of the Teflon Don…well, Daley is the NO SCARE MAYOR…feds won’t ever be able to pin anything on him…he’s the orginal pimp gangsta in the city!

        • #3131323

          Daley Machine

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to In Chicago….

          Sounds like what I had heard before. I understand the rule in Chicago is “Vote early and vote often” if you are part of the Daley Machine. 🙂

          I had heard that it was the dead vote in Chicago that made the difference for Kennedy vs Nixon in 1960. It seems that the Dead vote is one constituency the Democrats have locked up, and the Republicans just can’t appeal to them.

        • #3118957

          No – Never in Both – Open or Closed

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Dems voting in Repub primaries and vice versa

          .
          Most states have what’s called closed primaries, where only registered party members may vote in that party’s primary election.

          Some states, on the other hand, have open primaries, in which a voter may cast a vote in the primary of his/her choice, but not both.

          So if there’s a “shoe-in” Republican candidate, for example, who will face any one of a number of potential Democrat candidates, the Republican voter could take a pass on the Republican primary that year, and vote for the lesser of all evils, so to speak, in the Democrat primary; or he might want to case a vote for the Democrat candidate most likely to get beat by the Republican, or whatever other logic a voter might want to apply (or vice-versa, of course).

          It’s always one or the other, but never both.

          And I don’t like open primaries. I think a party’s candidate should be selected by that party’s members. If a person doesn’t want to belong to a party, why should he/she have any say in who that party nominates for office, especially if it could be a measure to work against that very party?

        • #3118920

          One thing I’ve never understood; why have primaries and who foots the bill?

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to No – Never in Both – Open or Closed

          We don’t have primaries in Canada and I do not understand the necessity of them in American politics. Who gets stuck paying for them??? I won’t deny finding the process interesting but why have them at all. Why not go straight to conventions and have the various candidates slug it out on national TV. I would think the end results would be pretty much the same; the guy with the biggest bankroll, making the most TV attractive package, would win and nobody would have to listen to all the political drivel spread out over a couple of years. I am not criticizing but I am curious. BTW I’m posing this question to you Max because you can be counted upon for a balanced reply. A grasp of the necessity of the primary process is something which I think eludes most non-Americans, even those of us who work and have spent so much time there.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3118901

          Why Primaries?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to One thing I’ve never understood; why have primaries and who foots the bill?

          .
          In a simplistic kind of way, the task of choosing the party’s nominee was once decided by the party elite and party bosses in the preverbal smoke-filled back-room, where mutual back-scratching and political pay-back was the rule of the day. The primary election system today shows the shifting of that process to the electorate itself.

          I can’t tell you the exact history behind it, without doing a little research, but the shift probably started in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Some states today still have the political caucus system, but the local political leaders and a wide selection of the electorate makes the selection instead of the heavy-weight political bosses.

          In short, the primary system, for better or worse, puts more of the decision making power into the hands of the voters, and out of the hands of political insiders.

          Who pays for them? Each state pays for its own election system with tax money collected from its citizens. Colorado pays for its elections; Texas pays for its elections; and so on. We have a federal election commission to oversee the states’ elections to ensure their compliance with election laws.

        • #3118320

          Thanks Max

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to One thing I’ve never understood; why have primaries and who foots the bill?

          That makes it a bit clearer but I’m still not convinced of the necessity. They seem to drag the process out over too long a period of time which possibly leads to the increased polarization of views both between the parties and within the parties.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3118189

          How would they know if you vote in both primaries?

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to No – Never in Both – Open or Closed

          In the places I’ve voted, you don’t even need to show your voter registration card. They just look your name up on a computer-generated list of registered voters when you get to the polling place. They check your name and I think you sign your name but I don’t know if this (the fact that you voted) is then given to the state election commission and/or the other party. So how will anyone know if you vote in both party primaries?

        • #3132431

          Reply To: What makes a Republican/Democrat?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No – Never in Both – Open or Closed

          I still want to know why people who have and will never enter a bar are allowed to decide whether or not smoking is allowed in one.

        • #3132418

          I’m not going to touch that one….

          by cp7212 ·

          In reply to Reply To: What makes a Republican/Democrat?

          You should just make a post solely on that sentence. lol

        • #3130947

          Land of the free, Home of the hypocrits.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Reply To: What makes a Republican/Democrat?

          Where else but in America can we complain that we are not free enough, but that our neighbor needs more restrictions 🙂

        • #3118952

          Nope

          by beads ·

          In reply to Dems voting in Repub primaries and vice versa

          In Ill you can vote in ONE primary or another – not both.

          – beads

        • #3132434

          Reply To: What makes a Republican/Democrat?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I don’t like that idea. . . .

          Of course if everybody did this, the underdogs would be running against each other 🙂

          Also your declaration is public record. And since you never know who’s going to look, n theory not many people would want to suffer the embarrasment of being thought to be the wrong party.

        • #3118263

          Really?

          by cp7212 ·

          In reply to Follow up

          I guess I was naive in thinking that since it was one way in PA, it was uniform for the whole country. That’s interesting.

      • #3118915

        Addendum to my previous question.

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to Registering with a political party

        State caucus??? What’s the difference from a Primary???

        [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3118872

          Caucus versus Primary

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Addendum to my previous question.

          .
          A primary, as you know, is where all the voters go to the polls and cast their vote for the party candidate of their choice.

          A caucus is a meeting of local members of a political party to nominate their candidate. The polls are not open for state-wide voting for a “primary” candidate. I’m not sure how those members are selected or how many there are, nor have I ever been one.

        • #3118374

          Caucus vs Primary

          by mickster269 ·

          In reply to Addendum to my previous question.

          Basically, the difference is in a Primary, it lasts 12 hours, and individuals line up and vote one at a time. Voting can be done by many different devices – cards, ballots, machines, etc.
          It is done by precinct. The votes are counted at the close of the polls. The representative to the State Convention has already selected by the candidate’s team. (ie- if Joe wins, he sends his man. if Steve wins, he sends his man)

          Caucuses are like town meetings – everyone gathers at one time, in one location , by precinct also. The different sides present the arguements for thier candidates, at at the end everyone votes at one time. The votes are counted after the last person votes. Often, the representative to the State Convention is selected at this time, too.

        • #3118224

          Mickster269 – On the caucus

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Caucus vs Primary

          .
          Have you ever been involved in the caucus process? If so, what was your experience? Do you live in a caucus state?

          Personally, I think I might like to be involved in such a process…..but I don’t want to move to Iowa.

        • #3118171

          Well, not really.

          by mickster269 ·

          In reply to Mickster269 – On the caucus

          I was a Political Science Major in College (University of Colorado). While there, I worked on the re-election campaigns for our US Representative (Tim Worth), our Senator (Gary Hart) and on the campaign for Ted Kennedy (ok, it was Boulder, the 1980 election, whaddya expect?)

          Colorado has the Primary system. I was a precinct captain for all 3 campaigns , Wirth and Hart won the Primaries , so I got to go to the State Convention as a delgate. I coulda gone to the National Convention, if I could have figured out how to pay for it.

          I have never participated in a real-life Caucus- but did have a few goes at it in classes.

          Oh, and you can call me Mick.

        • #3117777

          No Monkey Business with you, I’m sure

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Well, not really.

          .
          Sorry, couldn’t resist.

        • #3117766

          Fair enough –

          by mickster269 ·

          In reply to No Monkey Business with you, I’m sure

          (chuckles)

          At least Tim Worth didn’t commit a major blunder.

          And, before anyone asks …yes, I was a very “Liberal Democrat” while in college.

          Then, I recieved my first paycheck.

          And I’ve been moving slowly to the “Right” ever since.

        • #3117746

          I wonder how many people. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No Monkey Business with you, I’m sure

          .
          ….got the joke! (I guess it’s an age thing.)

        • #3131327

          Boat

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to No Monkey Business with you, I’m sure

          If I remember correctly, “Monkey Business” was the name of a boat that ended Gary Hartpence’s (his real name) political career. Or, actually, what happened on the boat, which was appropriately named.

        • #2586126

          The girl I left behind

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Well, not really.

          mick attended UC Boulder.

          I graduated from CU in 1975. I loved the beauty of Boulder, Colorado. I have very fond memories. My life’s true love lived in Colorado Springs. I spent many hours traveling up and down the Interstate to visit her on the weekends. I was commissioned into the Army and began my twenty year world-traveling tour. She broke my heart and stayed in Colorado. Even though I have been married now for nearly thirty years I still think fondly of the girl I left in Colorado.

      • #3118265

        Thank you

        by cp7212 ·

        In reply to Registering with a political party

        That was very well put, Max. I was wondering how I was going to post for the previous question. That is also one of my peeves about registering. If I truly had my way, I’d register green. I’m a tree hugger, but once again, I don’t believe in everything that they do….

      • #3117786

        Also varies from state to state

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Registering with a political party

        When I turned 18 in Florida in 1982, I had to register in a party if I wanted to vote in a primary, just like Max described. I registered Republican, since I admired President Reagan and his principles.

        However, in Alabama where I now live, we do not register as party members. We choose which party’s primary to vote in when we go to the voting place. You can vote in only one party’s primary (Republican or Democrap, not both). The Libertarians don’t have primaries in Alabama, they do their state candidates by nominating convention. I have voted in the Republican primary every time. The Democraps in Alabama have very few candidates voting for, and, for the most part, when they do have a good candidate, the Republican is usually better.

      • #3131691

        How is that democracy?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Registering with a political party

        You can vote but only if you belong to the correct party?

        Is this just so dems or repubs don’t landslide vote against each other?

        • #3131689

          You apparently failed to read the message

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How is that democracy?

          .
          Or you failed to comprehend.

          Or you failed to understand.

          Or both.

          Or you’re just so used to spouting stupid comments, that it just flows out of your finger tips without even trying and, whoops, it just happened again.

        • #3131674

          Your ignorance is showing

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How is that democracy?

          .
          Our system is actually MORE democratic than your very own Canadian system, or your very own British system, whichever you prefer to claim in this case.

          Canada doesn’t even have a primary election before the general election.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=184250&messageID=1880930

          Voters in the USA get MORE of a voice in not only who gets elected, but even who represents the parties in the first place.

          Of course, you’ll undoubtedly reply with something equally (or even more) ignorant.

      • #3132436

        All elections are state elections…

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Registering with a political party

        All elections are state elections…

        • #3132428

          Yes, I know

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to All elections are state elections…

          .
          I should rewrite that last sentence. It doesn’t read the way I intended.

          How’s this:

          State primary elections may be held at different times (different dates), not necessarily all at the same time, as is the case with the general election.

          You’re right. A poor choice of wording. My excuse: I had a brain-fart.

    • #3119126

      Old standards

      by beads ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      Not taking anything from the present day politics but as a rule:

      Republicans:

      Strong support of Business
      Smaller government
      Less taxation

      Democrats

      Stronger support of minorities
      Bigger government
      More likely to tax and tarriff

      These are just over generalizations. Much of this has changed. Republicans fought for the end of slavery, Clear Air and Water acts, etc. While the Democrats brought more in the way of Social programs like: Medicare/Medicade and Social Security. Blah, blah.

      Today the lines are much more blurred and have little to do with the past as religion has been injected into the debate. Now wearing any lable is objectionable: Liberal, Moderate or Conservative. We’re all nuts to someone in another group which is really too bad as it means we all loose in the end.

      – beads

      • #3119044

        well generalizations dont hold water

        by surflover ·

        In reply to Old standards

        The largest increase in government spending in a single term is the current one (but we are fighting a war on terro, and recovering from several natural disasters at the same time)

        • #3118953

          I didn’t say it was STILL valid

          by beads ·

          In reply to well generalizations dont hold water

          But at one time those were the criteria for which party was which.

          I’d love to see a member of the Republican party iniate a new bill for environmental protection! Right after I pick myself up from the floor.

          No, I really don’t know what either party stands for one election year to another.

          See? I’m as confused as the thread starter!

          – beads

        • #3118939

          An interesting exercise

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I didn’t say it was STILL valid

          .
          1. Read the official Democrat Party platform they wrote for 2004. See if you can determine their specific positions on specific issues.

          2. Read the official Republican Party platform they wrote for 2004. See if you can determine their specific positions on specific issues.

          3. Create a comparison matrix, and list the different positions for each issue as described by each party.

          4. List what the party is FOR, not what the party is AGAINST.

          5. Answer the question(s):

          Which party’s agenda is most in-line with my agenda and/or my principles?

          or

          Which party is more specific in outlining their agenda? (This could be fun trying to figure out exactly what’s being said and why.)

          or

          Which party will advance the agenda most palatable to me?

          or

          Whatever question you might want to ask yourself for determining who gets your vote…….

          In my opinion, you’ll find:

          …..that some of the “answers” you seek will be very evasive.

          …..that some of the important issues (important to you) aren’t even on the agenda.

          …..that the parties might actually create the issue, and then offer a solution (maybe offer a solution).

          …..that the solution is really no solution at all.

          …..that the Democrat Party agenda is more vague and less specific, and it is more “against” something and less “for” something.

        • #3118245

          You’ve hit on an interesting point

          by cp7212 ·

          In reply to An interesting exercise

          That is one of my main points of voting…who is tooting their own horn and who is mudslinging? I do not vote for mudslingers. No matter how much I agree with their stance, if they mudsling, I feel that reflects on their personality.

          Who wants someone in office that blames other people? Well, I guess a lot of voters….

      • #3118250

        Thanks for answering the post

        by cp7212 ·

        In reply to Old standards

        I’ve been reading the replies and you’re the first one who told me your personal reply about it. I have to admit though, the tangents that the discussion has taken, is teaching me a lot.

    • #3119123

      You HAVE to register

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      because if your not a registered Democrat, you are not ALLOWED to vote in the primaries.

      The Republican primaries on the other hand are open to any valid US voter, as this country was intended.

      The Dems are worried about getting a “spoiler” vote, of Republicans all voting in the Democratic primary for the least electable of the choices to keep it from being a close contest so the discriminate against anyone NOT registered to their party.

      Also, there are examples like why YOU were forced to register Dem.

      No view on what makes dems/reps will follow later.

      • #3119027

        Not in Kentucky, though

        by mickster269 ·

        In reply to You HAVE to register

        Like others here, you have to declare party affliation when you register, and you can only vote in that primary.

        Also, in Kentucky, you must declare 30 days before the primary elections if you intend to switch parties.

      • #3119026

        Is that in Michigan, jdclyde?

        by jck ·

        In reply to You HAVE to register

        or was that a typo or a wrong word?

        It’s not how it is in Florida:

        “101.021 Elector to vote the primary ballot of the
        political party in which he or she is registered.?In a primary election a qualified elector is entitled to vote the official primary election ballot of the political party designated in the elector?s registration, and no other. It is unlawful for any elector to vote in a primary for any candidate running for nomination from a party other than that in which such elector is registered.”

        http://election.dos.state.fl.us/publications/pdf/electionLaws.pdf

        You must be registered under a party to vote a candidate of that party in primary elections in the State of Florida.

        • #3119022

          The way I heard it the last time around

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Is that in Michigan, jdclyde?

          can check into it tomorrow for supporting documentation. only getting a few seconds at a time today….

        • #3119019

          I found your answer

          by jck ·

          In reply to The way I heard it the last time around

          “MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW (EXCERPT)
          Act 116 of 1954

          168.531 Primary elections; nomination of candidates by direct vote.

          Sec. 531.

          Whenever any primary election shall be held in this state or in any city, county or district in this state, the nomination of candidates shall be made by direct vote of the qualified and registered electors of each political party participating therein as hereinafter prescribed.”

          http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-116-1954-XXIV&highlight=

          ADDENDUM:
          Didn’t get to search for amendments…about to leave. I’ll look more tomorrow too.

      • #3118947

        jd – you confused me. I had to look it up

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to You HAVE to register

        .
        You said, “…because if your not a registered Democrat, you are not ALLOWED to vote in the primaries……The Republican primaries on the other hand are open to any valid US voter, as this country was intended.”

        I was scratching my head over that one, because it’s something I’ve never heard before. I was about to question you on that comment, but I decided to do a little research first.

        See my message on open versus closed primaries, and you’ll see that a voter can vote in either primary, but never both, if that state is an open primary state, of course. And it applies equally to either party, Democrats or Republicans.

        But what you said made me look a little bit to find out what you were talking about, and I think I found it. It has to do with the selection of delegates, not the ability to vote (or not) in a party’s primary.

        Here’s what I found (cut and pasted):

        States also vary as to who is allowed to vote in their primaries. The most common method is the closed primary, where only registered party members can vote, as in Pennsylvania. But twenty-four states, mostly in the south and west, don’t bar any voters from their open primaries, so a Democrat could vote in a Republican primary, and vise versa. Ten different states do this by allowing voters to register to vote on Election Day, so if you wanted to vote in the Republican primary, you simply registered as a Republican beforehand. But some states don’t even keep records of party registration.

        Nonetheless, the Democratic Party counts a vote towards delegate selection only if it can verify it was cast by a registered Democrat. In contrast, the Republican Party allows each state to decide if it prefers an open or closed primary, and this year sixteen states have chosen an open primary. Some party members argue that open primaries allow outsiders interfere with party business. But others point out that in a bipartisan system, the primary is often the deciding election, and that an open primary is a good indicator of whether a candidate can draw support outside the party.

        http://www.seventy.org/nycu/2000/primary.html

        So there ya’ go.

        • #3118885

          Thanks max

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to jd – you confused me. I had to look it up

          you saved me from having to do the leg work myself.

          And this is exactly how Michgan is run.

          Closed Dem, open Rep.

          Draw your own conclusions as to why the party of understanding and compasion discriminates against people in this manner.

        • #3118225

          you guys have lost me…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Thanks max

          are you talking about election primaries, or delegate selection through caucus/convention?

          I found more in Michigan election law, which states:

          “MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW (EXCERPT)
          Act 116 of 1954

          168.534 General primary; time; party candidates to be voted for; condition to nomination.

          Sec. 534.

          A general primary of all political parties except as provided in sections 532 and 685 shall be held in every election precinct in this state on the Tuesday after the first Monday in August before every general November election, at which time the qualified and registered voters of each political party may vote for party candidates for the office of governor, United States senator, representative in congress, state senator, representative in the legislature, county executive, prosecuting attorney, sheriff, county clerk, county treasurer, register of deeds, county auditor, drain commissioner, public works commissioner, county road commissioner, county mine inspector, surveyor, and candidates for office in townships. A nomination for an office shall be made only if the official is to be elected at the next succeeding general November election.”

          That quite clearly states Michigan holds closed primaries for their US congressional, state, county and township elections.

          Maybe I’m just not seeing something here.

        • #3118221

          It’s not exactly clear to me either. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to you guys have lost me…

          .
          ….but I don’t think it has anything to do with allowing or disallowing voting in the primaries. But rather it has something to do with assigning delegates to the convention based on those votes, where some might be applied to a total count while others are not.

          My head started to hurt, so I stopped thinking about it.

        • #3117782

          Just the way it is

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to you guys have lost me…

          I don’t know about the lower elections, as I personally was refering to the big one. President of the United States of America.

          And currently, when Michigan votes for the republican that will be the candidate, it is open to the general public.

          This was more trouble some to many, as we already saw the lack of ethics in the way the union thugs trashed Republican headquarters, how picketters (more union thugs) attacked Republicans that were just standing there with their signs. You may remember the article I had pointed out of the little girl crying because the thugs in the painters union ripped her sign out of her hand and ripped it up. Tough guys! Glad they believe in freedom of speech for everyone but Republicans. Attack a little girl for holding a Bush sign, yet defend a scumbag terrorist. (did I mention that as another difference between R and D?)

        • #3119623

          equivalancies

          by jck ·

          In reply to you guys have lost me…

          So since union ruffians make all Democrats thugs and bearers of a double-standard with regards to freedom of speech, I guess Mr. Libby makes all Republicans liars and treasonous??

          Your comparison is extreme.

          BTW…I believe in the 2000 election recount in Miami-Date, it was reported by the Wall Street Journal that 150 Republican protesters who were financed and organized by the Bush-Cheney campaign rioted at the offices of the election canvassing board. In their efforts, they kicked and banged on the doors and windows of the 19th floor office as well as physically assaulted several Democratic Party representatives who were on the scene.

          So…who are the thugs again?

        • #3117244

          you “believe”?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to equivalancies

          You “believe” that the wall street journal reported this? Isn’t the wall street journal a business paper? This is a “business” story?

          And how is it the “main stream” media missed out on this? They would have GLEEFULLY covered this! Yet because you “believe” this was reported in a business journal it makes the republicans as bad as the democrats? Too bad your only feeble attempt to defend the democrats is only done by trying to say the republicans are as bad?

          For the record, I “believe” that you “wish” it to be true rather than “believe” it to be true.

        • #3117191

          I “believe”

          by jck ·

          In reply to you “believe”?

          meant that I don’t have a article name or author for you. I have read excerpts that were quoted from it, but have not seen the article in the Wall Street Journal for myself since I don’t subscribe.

          Therefore, “I know…” would have been inappropriate venacular.

          However, the article was published by The Wall Street Journal on November 24, 2000 according to I have seen and I BELIEVE you can find it in that issue. I welcome you to investigate this.

          See…I knew you’d nit-pick.

          And you guys thrash me for starting fights over nothing.

        • #3117175

          a couple of others…

          by jck ·

          In reply to you “believe”?

          I BELIEVE you can find these as well.

          28 Nov 2000, Washington Post reported protesters chased one Democratic leader and shouted “thief, thief,” because they believed that he was stealing a ballot. It turned out to be a sample.

          A subsequently published Time Magazine article reported that Democratic leader Joe Geller told them he was “pushed by two dozen protesters screaming, ‘I’m gonna take you down!’ ”

          and also reported that a Democratic party observer Luis Rosero said he was punched and kicked.

          So…anyways…enjoy the reading, if you even care to examine the possibility there are Republican hooligans and thugs too.

        • #3122478

          Was probably

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to you “believe”?

          democrats getting the same pay as they got to illegally register voters. (crak cocain). 🙂

          While I would LOVE to research this story that was never made it out in the open from some reaon, after taking the last few days off to go dear hunting I just won’t have the time for a few daze.

          For the sake of arguement, I will give you this as I don’t have the time to prove it right or wrong at this time. Still doesn’t make the Dems look ANY better though, does it?

      • #3118242

        What?

        by cp7212 ·

        In reply to You HAVE to register

        So, if I’m not with a registered party, my party affiliation, (in theory) defaults to Republican?

        • #3117755

          Pretty ironic isn’t it?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to What?

          In Michigan, it is the Democrats with the “Either you are with us or against us” policy!

          I do so love it.

    • #3119120

      What should you do?

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      .
      If you want to vote in the Democrat primaries, and help select the Democrat that will run in the general election, then register as a Democrat.

      If you want to vote in the Republican primaries, and help select the Republican that will run in the general election, then register as a Republican.

      If you want to have no say whatsoever as to whom the party (whichever party) selects as their candidate, then register as an independent or unaffiliated.

      Each state has its own rules as to how often a person can change party affiliation. For example, you can’t register as a Democrat to vote in their primaries, and then change your registration that same year to also vote in the Republican primaries. You have to pick one or the other (or neither) for the primary elections. But you could probably change party registration for the next election, if you so desired, depending on that particular state’s rules.

      In the general election, however, a registered Democrat or Republican may vote for any person of any party. A lot of registered Democrats, for example, cast a vote for the Republican Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential general election, which helped result in his landslide victory that year.

    • #3119111

      What’s the difference?

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      .
      A registered voter (regardless of how he’s registered) might help select a person. But a registered party voter might have a little more say in selecting the agenda.

      What’s the difference between the Democrats’ and Republicans’ agenda?

      Let me go get a can of worms to open before I answer that one.

    • #3119102

      One of the best explanations of the differences

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      can be seen by reading [b]”The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech”[/b].

      http://boortz.com/more/commencement.html

      If you are a very far left thinking person, you will hate this and end up throwing your monitor across the room.

      If you are a very far right thinking person, you will say, “well, YA!”

      If you have even a partially open mind to hearing new ideas, you will sit back and say “hmmmmmmmm”.

      A good read. hmmmmmmm.

      • #3119040

        boortz said today on the radio

        by surflover ·

        In reply to One of the best explanations of the differences

        the only solution to our current dem/rep mess would be that the two major parties merge (as if you can really tell the difference between them now)… and that the libritarian party become the balance…

        He’s one of the most difficult people in the world to listen to… but he does have some solid ideas… Have you read his book “the fair tax plan”?

        • #3119020

          boortz

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to boortz said today on the radio

          no, haven’t read his book, nor do I get to hear him on the radio. (don’t get radio or cell signals in my office).

          I have read his papers on his site and he makes a lot of sense.

          Just got to get past the ego? 😀

        • #3119006

          you can listen on your PC

          by surflover ·

          In reply to boortz

          go to ;

          http://wsbradio.com/

          and choose “on air broadcast”…

          He’s on every weekday from 8:30 – 1:00

          Although I think he’s right on with his views… He’s REALLY hard to listen to :^O

        • #3118216

          not difficult

          by master3bs ·

          In reply to boortz said today on the radio

          He’s not difficult to listen to. I enjoy him probably more than any other talk show host (although I don’t agree with him as much as others.)

          I love the book by the way.

      • #3118944

        No problems here.

        by beads ·

        In reply to One of the best explanations of the differences

        I read it. I couldn’t agree more but I’m hardly a right wing conservative. Most of it seems more like common sense. Then again… I also drive home after dark most of the year and started four businesses. Two failed. Two succeeded. The third of which I sold 10 years ago.

        – beads

      • #3118419

        Neal Adolph Boortz

        by bfilmfan ·

        In reply to One of the best explanations of the differences

        Being a member of the High Church of the Painful Truth, let’s set the record straight on Mr. Neal Adolph Boortz. The Freedom of Information Act is such a lovely thing…

        Mr. Boortz opposes public eduction, yet he barely graduated high school. He flunked out of Texas A&M.

        He dodged the draft by claiming a deferment for being in ROTC (note this was AFTER he flunked out and would have AUTOMATICALLY been placed in the draft pool), yet he claims on air that he had a medical deferment and calls Bill Clinton a draft dodger. He also claims he was given a deferment dur to his poor vision, but he has a private pilot’s license (maybe someone should tell the FAA that a nearly-blind man is flying airplanes!). I won’t refer to kettles and pots and fires here.

        He got accepted to law school in Georgia under an old WWII law which allowed vets whose education was interrupted to attend law school. This law is no more and you cannot be accepted into law school in Georgia without a college diploma.

        As a lawyer, he was not known for brilliant legal advice and was even sued by Evander Holyfield for his poor legal advice.

        Boortz often states his comments on being a Libertarian; however, the Georgia and National Libertarian parties have both done their best to distance themselves from this man.

        Borotz used to write for Creative Loafing, a weekly alternative newspaper in Atlanta till John Sugg and others at the paper became suspicious of his claims and invetigated them. Now Boortz always has something bad to say about the paper.

        Just some points of information about Mr. Boortz when you are reading and listening to his commentary.

        And just for the record, I do know Mr. Boortz from having a good friend Mike Rose who was his board operator at WGST for years.

        • #3118416

          about Boortz

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Neal Adolph Boortz

          As I said, I am not a big follower of his. I have never heard him nor have I been an advocate of his.

          I had a friend point me at the “commencement speech” and no matter what this man is like or what his background is, I feel that this paper is right on the money.

          This does shine a different light on him as a person though, doesn’t it?

    • #3119011

      Okay, I’ll give it a shot – The difference between D and R

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      A look at a difference between the big D and the big R

      There’s a lot of difference between the two major parties, but some similarities as well. Some distinctions are, or so it seems, much harder to see. For example, at one time, the Republican Party presented a greater contrast to the “transfer-of-wealth” Democrats; but now the Republicans seem to advance “transfer-of-wealth” programs as well, just defined and funded differently, and maybe to a lesser degree. So maybe it is a matter of degree, or perspective, or which way you might want to “lean”, not entirely going all the way.

      Maybe we can look at it this way, by asking this question on a variety of issues.

      Which is the trump card? Would you err on the side of…..

      D: Collectivism
      R: Individualism

      D: The United Nations
      R: The United States

      D: Regulation
      R: Free Market

      D: Regulation
      R: Competition

      D: Regulation
      R: Supply and Demand

      D: “The Children”
      R: MY Children

      D: More taxes
      R: Less taxes

      D: Government controlled public schools
      R: Parent controlled public schools

      D: The environment
      R: Progress (with balance)

      D: Abortion – no questions asked
      R: Abortion – no or not absolute

      D: People aren’t responsible
      R: People are responsible

      D: People can’t be responsible
      R: People must be responsible

      D: Pessimism (and/or what’s wrong)
      R: Optimism (and/or what’s right)

      D: Cut the military budget (relates to the UN versus USA point)
      R: Increase the military budget

      D: Stronger federal government – Weaker state governments
      R: Weaker federal government – Stronger state governments

      D: Labor
      R: Business

      D: Government should solve personal problems.
      R: People should solve personal problems.

      I could go on ….. but that should be enough to get me blasted.

      • #3119008

        One more

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Okay, I’ll give it a shot – The difference between D and R

        .
        D: Emotion
        R: Reason

        (That should really get me blasted!)

        • #3118879

          To re-phrase that

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to One more

          Democrates Feel

          Republicans Think

          A Republican will remember “cause and effect” and the law of unintended conciquences.

          Democrats what to increase the Tax on gas, to inflate the price like it is in Europe to influince the consumption of it. High prices, you will use less and look for alternatives.

          These SAME Democrats are NOW complaining that the price is too high, and it isn’t “fair” to the poor poor. (life isn’t fair, get over it)

          They will jump from one side to the other, depending on which side is popular that day.

          Democrats have no convictions (a generalization). If you do, your “pushing your religious values on other people”.

          They will yell and get all worked up.

          HATE is a comon tool of the Democratic party. There was already rabid foaming at the mouth HATE of GWB before he be Gore, and has nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq is just one of many things they use to justify being so hateful.

          Democrats are the party of the minority, yet it is the Republican party that freed the slaves, gave them the right to vote, gave women the right to vote. Democrats talk about a hand up, yet it is the Republican party that has repeatedly placed minorities in the highest positions in this country.

          It is the Republicans that KNOW there is nothing offensive or wrong with saying “God bless America”.

          Democrats won’t be happy until the CHRISTIAN religion is driven underground conpletely. Of course they are also the two-faces a$$’s that are right there if some terrorist tells them that his religions rights were infringed on, and will believe this terrorist captued on the field of battle OVER our own people because they think that we are bad.

          Republicans also know the truth in this saying.

          A fine is a tax for doing bad.
          A tax is a fine for doing good.

          I even read the other day where JCK said that the rich were being given a GIFT with big tax breaks. Hmmm, letting someone keep something that is theirs already is a friggen gift? This mentality shows just how out of touch with reality the Democrats really are.

        • #3118228

          Hmmmm JD…

          by cp7212 ·

          In reply to To re-phrase that

          …I guess it’s safe to say you’re a devout Republican? 😉

        • #3117759

          Yes and no

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Hmmmm JD…

          I am a registered Republican, and have been my entire voting life.

          I consider myself more of an independant these days, as I realize just because someone puts on a Republican hat doesn’t make them a good person to do a job, anymore than just because someone has that Democrat hat doesn’t mean they are automatically a wingnut. (just usally).

          I would BET I have voted for more democrats in the last 10 years than most of the registered Democrats have voted for Republicans.

          I go by the idea, not the party. If just most often works out that the people that will aproach problems in a maner I feel comfortable with are independants and republicans most oftem.

          I am anti-socialist.
          I am anti-liberal.
          I am conservative.
          I am consistant.

          I don’t hold other people to different standards than I do myself.

          Perfect example of the hypocrocy of the Democratic party.
          They are against outsourcing because it takes away jobs and only makes money for “evil corporations”.
          They are FOR outsourcing perscriptions, by purchasing them from Canada to save THEM money, while putting local pharmacies out of business if it were to take on strongly.

          Corporation makes money by doing it = evil and corrupt.
          THEM doing it to save THEM money = good and just.

          I am against outsourcing because it sends jobs over seas.
          I am against outsourcing perscriptions because it sends jobs up to Canada.

          Both hurt the US, but they directly are the ones to benifit, so that makes it alright.

          Democrats FEEL
          Republicans THING
          Democrats talk about groups, the poor, the blacks, the rich.
          Republicans talk about individuals.
          Democrats talk about you being oppressed and “dis-infranchised”.
          Republicans talk about making opportunities for EVERYONE and removing obsticals from your path so YOU can go out and be a success through YOUR hard work.

          Democrats get the poor poor to vote for them because they say it isn’t their fault and hand them a check.

          This party for the poor poor has not helped “win” the war on poverty, especially in the states that THEY run. Their policies of trying to steal from the rich and give to the poor does not lift anyone up, but instead locks them in this utter poverty.

          As a party, there are very few ideas they push that I can stomach listening to, as I have always been a big believer of personal responsiblity.

          I went from raising a family of four on $7 dollars and hour WHILE putting myself through college at night and of course I made too much to get anything but “wic” (Women and Infant Children) notice nothing about MEN in that? They helped with milk, formula, cheese and cerial.

          I am now upper middle class because of MY efforts.

          I have no sympathy for people that don’t bother to try and just leach off of the system.

          I don’t believe people are born to lose, they CHOSE to lose. Let them live or die by their own choices. You can’t save everybody and it is a mistake to try. Setup a triage, and the ones that you can save you do.

          I give no money to “Sally Strothers”, as she has been doing this for so long and it doesn’t look like anything is getting FIXED after decades of aid.

          I DO give money and time to the Cancer Society, and the Womans Breast Cancer Society, as well as Toys for Tots and Coats for Kids and even the local womans shelter (toys and kids cloths and such).

          Not without a heart, just don’t let it overule logical thought.

      • #3119003

        Well put Max

        by surflover ·

        In reply to Okay, I’ll give it a shot – The difference between D and R

        good first shot…

        BTW, what’s up with TR, pages have been timing out for the last 30 minutes or so… ?:|

        • #3118917

          I think you’re still having browser problems.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to Well put Max

          That sucks, doesn’t it.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

      • #3118418

        Challenge

        by bfilmfan ·

        In reply to Okay, I’ll give it a shot – The difference between D and R

        I would challenge your statement that Democrats and Republicans want a smaller federal government. Neither party is interested in the size of the federal government decreasing.

        And there are conservatives that believe you can cut the waste out of the military budges and easily save 5-10 billion dollars of the 40 billion we spend each year.

        You can mark me down as a conservative that believes both of those statements are true.

        • #3118397

          A challenge back. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Challenge

          .
          You said, “I would challenge your statement that Democrats and Republicans want a smaller federal government. Neither party is interested in the size of the federal government decreasing.”

          Where did I suggest that either wanted a smaller federal government? That’s a normal point of comparison, where Ds are labeled as wanting bigger government, while Rs are labeled as wanting smaller government, but I didn’t specifically say that.

          And I also said, “There’s a lot of difference between the two major parties, but some similarities as well. Some distinctions are harder to see……..For example, at one time, the Republican Party presented a greater contrast to the “transfer-of-wealth” Democrats; but now the Republicans seem to advance “transfer-of-wealth” programs as well, just defined and funded differently, and maybe to a lesser degree.”

          As far as cutting some waste out of military spending, I won’t necessarily disagree. (I won’t necessarily agree either.) But the Republican party, in general, has never advanced cutting military spending, while the Democrat Party has suggested it as a matter of policy, or so it seems. (The least couple of years seem to be the exception). Moreover, whenever there are massive spending increases in one area, Democrats have often suggested taking it from the military budget instead of the swelling ranks of transfer-of-wealth programs.

          And I’d make a bet with you. Most Democrats on the street (as opposed to Democrat office holders), without the luxury of looking it up, would answer this question incorrectly. What percentage of the federal budget is sent on the military; and what percentages are spent on other things? I find it amazing that some of the people who call into Air America radio shows (yes, I do listen from time to time) claim that 50 percent or more of our budget is spent on the military, and they are never corrected by the host. Do you, as a conservative, know the answer? (Your numbers seem to be missing a zero, by the way.)

          If you want to challenge something I said, that’s great. Let’s discuss it. But at least challenge something that I specifically said. And keep it in context of my stated qualifiers, “Which is the trump card? Would you err on the side of…..”, which was intended to show some general distinction. And keep it in the context of trying to show some differences between the two parties, not what I would necessarily advance as a matter of personal policy. (Personally, I’d cut the federal budget by 50 percent spread out over 5 to 10 years…a little longer to phase out social security.)

        • #3118226

          Budget Number Percentages

          by bfilmfan ·

          In reply to A challenge back. . . .

          The Federal Budget for fiscal year 2006:

          Current Military, $558B:Military Personnel $109B, Operation and Maintenance $154B, Procurement $81B, Research and Development $68B, Construction $7B, Family Housing $4B, Retired Pay $46B, DoE Nuclear Weapons $17B, NASA (50%) $8B, International Security $8B, Homeland Sec. (50%) $16B, Ex. Off. Pres. $78, Misc. $4B, ?Allowance for Anticipated Supplemental? (Iraq) $25B

          UNBUDGETTED: $85B (est.):Most of the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not included in the President?s Budget but the Administration has announced it will seek this money as supplemental appropriations later in year as it has in the past two years

          Past Military, $384B: Veterans? Benefits $70B; Interest on National Debt (80% estimated to be created by military spending) $314B

          Human Resources, $722B: Education, Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor Department, Soc. Sec. Admin.

          General Government, $261B: Legislative, Justice, State Dept., International Affairs, Treasury, Gov?t. Personnel, 20% interest on national debt, NASA (50%), Homeland Security (25%)

          Physical Resources, $120B: Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Transportation, Environmental Protection, Army Corps Engineers, NSF, FCC, Homeland Security (25%)

          These figures are from a line-by-line analysis of detailed tables in the ?Analytical Perspectives? book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/index.html. The percentages are federal funds, which do not include trust funds ? such as Social Security ? that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don?t pay) by April 15, 2005, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began in the 1960s during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

          ?Current military? includes Dept. of Defense ($427 billion), the military portion from other departments ($106 billion), anticipated ?supplemental allowance? ($25 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($85 billion). ?Past military? represents veterans? benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt. Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military, other groups estimate 50% to 80% generally.

          So the real answer is about 48% of the federal budget goes to defense, veterans benefits and servicing the national debt on those two items.

          I wasn’t challenging you in the sense of an incorrect statement, but along the lines of “Have you noticed this trend also?”

          Perhaps calling it an appendum to your statements would have been more correct?

        • #3117779

          I don’t buy into your conclusions

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Budget Number Percentages

          .
          To apply non-military departments under the heading of military related spending is, in my opinion, playing loose with the numbers — very loose — especially when you include a huge percentage of servicing the debt (which is 15 percent alone). Moreover, to eliminate social security spending as it applies to the total budget is grossly inaccurate.

          I’ve spent hours looking at the documents at the site you provided, I have it bookmarked and visit it often, and have followed federal spending trends for years. And according to those numbers, the total spending budget for FY 2004 was 2400 billion (2.4 trillion), out of which, 532 billion was applied ONLY to Social Security. So when you said, “The percentages are federal funds, which do not include trust funds ? such as Social Security ….”, and then draw your conclusion, that’s not at all accurate. Social Security spending IS counted as part of the overall budget. There IS NO TRUST FUND. There is NO LOCK-BOX. All money collected goes into, and all money spent comes out of the general fund; and it’s all counted in budget planning.

          Social Security alone accounts for 532 billion of federal spending (some off-budget, some on-budget, but so are the offsetting receipts, all of which are factored into the total), Health and Human Services, under which no legitimate military expenditures can be found, accounts for another 557 billion. Total those two alone, and you have a whopping 1089 billion dollars, or almost 1.1 trillion dollars – nearly half of the federal budget.

          Even if you added veterans affairs to the military budget, the total spending for that department is 532 billion, which is less than 25 percent of the total budget. Remove veterans affairs from the military budget, as it should be, and which all reputable studies will do, the total military spending will take up only 19 percent of the budget, an increase from 17 percent last year.

          So the correct answer to the question, how much of our federal spending goes towards military spending, is 20 percent. If you want to add a few percentage points to include discretionary spending, knock yourself out. But it’s nowhere near 48 percent, as you suggested, or 50 percent, as many Democrats are currently suggesting.

          And before you can accurately claim that a certain percentage of the debt servicing should be applied towards military spending, which is a notion I’ve never seen anyone suggest before, you need to factor in the exponential increase in domestic social spending over the past 4 decades, and compare it to collected revenues. It’s no coincidence, in my opinion, that our national debt has reached almost 10 trillion dollars in just the past 40 years; and in that same 40 year period, our ever increasing (almost exponentially increasing) “social spending” on transfer-of-wealth programs has cost us……….that’s right, 10 trillion dollars.

          FY 2440 spending by department:

          Legislative Branch ……………………………………………..3.9

          Judicial Branch ………………………………………………….5.4

          Agriculture ……………………………………………………….93.1

          Commerce ……………………………………………………….5.9

          Defense?Military ……………………………………………..471.9

          Education …………………………………………………………67.2

          Energy …………………………………………………………….22.1

          Health and Human Services …………………………………556.7

          Homeland Security …………………………………………….32.5

          Housing and Urban Development …………………………35.1

          Interior ……………………………………………………………10.5

          Justice …………………………………………………………….27.4

          Labor ……………………………………………………………..56.9

          State ………………………………………………………………12.0

          Transportation ………………………………………………….60.5

          Treasury ………………………………………………………….375.9

          Veterans Affairs ………………………………………………..60.3

          Corps of Engineers?Civil Works ………………………..4.7

          Other Defense Civil Programs ……………………………..41.8

          Environmental Protection Agency …………………………8.4

          Executive Office of the President ………………………….18.8

          General Services Administration …………………………..0.1

          International Assistance Programs ………………………..15.7

          National Aeronautics and Space Administration …….. 15.4

          National Science Foundation ……………………………….5.6

          Office of Personnel Management ………………………….59.9

          Small Business Administration ………………………………4.2

          Social Security Administration ………………………………531.6

          On-Budget ………………………………………………………(49.9)

          Off-Budget ………………………………………………………(481.7)

          Other Independent Agencies ………………………………17.2

          On-Budget ……………………………………………………..(15.2)

          Off-Budget …………………………………………………….(2.1)

          Undistributed Offsetting Receipts ……………………….?212.5

          On-Budget …………………………………………………….(?115.0)

          Off-Budget …………………………………………………….(?97.6)

          Total …………………………………………………………….2,408.3

          On-Budget ……………………………………………………..(2,022.1)

          Off-Budget ……………………………………………………..(386.2)

        • #3117711

          Arguing the numbers

          by bfilmfan ·

          In reply to I don’t buy into your conclusions

          I will agree that Social Security isn’t a lockbox. But I derived those numbers from the use of “federal funds” rather than the “unified budget” figures that the government prefers. Federal funds exclude trust fund money (e.g., social security), which is raised separately (e.g., the FICA and Medicare deductions in paychecks) and is specifically ear-marked for particular programs. By combining trust funds with federal funds, the percentage of spending on the military appears smaller, a deceptive practice first used by the government in the late 1960s as the Vietnam War became more and more unpopular.

          I also used “outlays” rather than “budget authority,” which is often preferred by the government, news media, and other groups. Outlays refer to spending done in a particular fiscal year, whereas budget authority refers to new spending authorized over a period of several future years. Consequently that would result in outlays of $513 billion, plus $85 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan wars, plus $381 billion in past military spending ? totaling $979 billion ? just for FY2006.

          I would point out that not all military spending shows under the DOD. A great example would be nuclear weapons research, development and production shows up in the Energy department’s budget.

          Also, it should be noted that at least 25% of Homeland Security’s budget is military-spending related.

          I think my point and your point is that a HUGE amount of money is sent to Washington every year and neither of us feel it is well spent or serving the needs of the citizens.

          I am positive that we can both agree on that point.

        • #3117700

          We can agree. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Arguing the numbers

          .
          ….that the numbers are absolutely mind-boggling; and yes, too much is sent to Washington. I will further agree that our fearless (federal) leaders ALL play loosely with the numbers, probably starting from a desired conclusion, working backwards to find ways to justify and/or confirm that desired conclusion. I suppose that’s called “spin”. And I don’t think it’s by accident, but rather by design. What’s the old saying about baffling with b*** s***?

          And I think this exchange between you and me illustrates how people get diverted from the real issue, and that’s the enormity of our federal government. Do people realize just how much 2.4 trillion dollars really is? Or 10 trillion (our debt)? That’s an absolutely incredible amount of money. And consider this. Half of it, give or take, is money that’s taken from the citizen who earned it, and given to a citizen who did not earn it. (Or best case scenario, back to the person who earned it, but only less of it.)

          And do people realize just how much power over themselves they’ve relinquished to the federal government? They have absolutely no escape from some rule or law or regulation. EVERYTHING in a person’s life, absolutely everything, in some way, is controlled or regulated by the federal government. And what baffles my mind is how people, on one hand, complain about it, but on the other hand, demand more of it. Call me stupid, but I just don’t get it.

          And because of all this, if you don’t know by now, I’m in favor of:

          1. Eliminating Social Security, phasing it out (equitably) over a 25-50 year span.

          2. Transferring ALL social programs to the states.

          3. Transferring ALL education programs to the states. (Let the states do it.)

          4. Passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting the federal government from paying for “social programs”. (Let the states do it — easier to get a handle on.)

          5. Eliminating the federal tax on income, in favor of a national sales tax, exempting the first $27,000 (or more) of spending.

          6. Passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting the federal government from taxing income.

          And that’s just to start.

          Give me a cup of coffee and 30 minutes, and I’ll design a whole new government. Strangely enough, however, it wouldn’t even take that long because I would only have to copy what we had 200 years ago (plus a couple of additional constitutional amendments).

      • #3118234

        Not me…

        by cp7212 ·

        In reply to Okay, I’ll give it a shot – The difference between D and R

        I won’t blast you for that. I thought it was a strong post. After all, I put in the original post that I wanted to know what YOU thought. Thanks again for your input.

      • #3117783

        With each of those dichotomies

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Okay, I’ll give it a shot – The difference between D and R

        I have to go with the “R” choice. However, I have been disastisfied with what the Republican Congress has been doing recently with all the spending and pork barrel, getting away from their ideals, and Bush is not showing enough guts to veto deficit spending. I love the Republican Party in theory, but in practice they need spending discipline. I have to remind myself that the Democraps would be even worse in this regard, and would ruin our economy by raising taxes.

        Yes cut taxes, but cut spending even more (including, and especially the “entitlements”) to reduce government power and size, and balance the budget.

        • #3118689

          Yep, definition of budget

          by cp7212 ·

          In reply to With each of those dichotomies

          I always thought that a budget was spending less than you made, but the govt. seems to think it is spend way more than you make and raise taxes to cover our pork-eating butts.

          Personally, I thought it was kind of funny when Clinton was in office and his administration sent out those tax rebate checks. Then, Bush stepped in and asked everyone to send them back. Sure GW, I’m sure everyone will run right to the post office.

        • #3118535

          But they get rewarded

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Yep, definition of budget

          for being pork-eating butts by getting voted back in because they “do something for our state” by bringing in tax dollars to be wasted on their state.

          So many people are so F$#@ked up, that they feel the Feds should pay for everything they want or need.

          And then those same people complain when they hear about it in another state.

          If we don’t watch it, we will be turned into the same mess that France is in. For all their cultural “enlightenment” and grand stand on believing in nothing (secularism), yet when the romance of Paris wears off we find they have rampant racism and devistating unemployement.

          Create a welfare nation, and their isn’t as much of a need to get a job, now is there? No jobs, yet people still go there because welfare IS the new land of opportunity.

        • #3131596

          “believing in nothing (secularism)” ???

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to But they get rewarded

          Secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

          religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural

          in other words, fairy tales and children’s games of make-believe. Secularism allows for believing in things that are real. Religion requires believing in things that are not. Religion is the belief in nothing.

        • #3131572

          With all due respect

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “believing in nothing (secularism)” ???

          .
          Your obsession with “anti-religion” makes you look absolutely silly. you should do yourself a favor and never give it another thought as long as you live. After all, you say it’s a belief in “nothing”, yet you seem absolutely obsessed with convincing people it’s “nothing”. (Or are you really trying to convince yourself?)

          A bit of very friendly and well-meaning advice. Let it go. Just let it go. How can you possibly erase the scars it’s obviously left on you, if you continually remind yourself of it? Stop reminding yourself. Just let it go and move on.

        • #3132122

          Thanks for the good intentions

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to With all due respect

          I won’t help pave your road by applying your advice or your intentions, however.

          The primary function of religion in morality is to place the standard of value beyond Earth, in a place or on a personality asserted only by faith. Since I live on Earth, not beyond it, that is unacceptable, and until legislation and taxation are no longer based on the irrelevant faith of my fellow voters, I will remind them that the nothingness they worship is a figment of the nothingness in their minds.

          Good day.

        • #3132111

          Absolutely – A question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to With all due respect

          .
          What exactly do you mean by “paving my road”? What do you think “my road” is?

        • #3131922

          the proverbial road

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to With all due respect

          that is “paved with good intentions”.

        • #3131863

          That would be the one to hell?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to With all due respect

          .
          Okay, but I still don’t get the connection.

        • #3131500

          Some thoughts on atheists

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to “believing in nothing (secularism)” ???

          Here are some thoughts from a friend who is following some of the discussions but who did not want to post this as she is afraid of offending someone.

          Please note: These are NOT my opinions but I think it relevant to post them here.

          Actually it is exactly it, the atheists are not really atheists for truly I do not think it has been one person who has not at some time in their life hope to find a little belief somewhere, a little ray of hope to bring some meaning to their life and an answer to just being.

          Hence they will argue trying to find that ray of hope they are looking for, but they will fight you in the process because they cannot admit to themselves that deep down they are holding some kind of questioning belief or simply entertaining the possibility that it could be something.

          Well I do not know if I make much sense in trying to explain what I think, but even those who claim 100% to believe in nothing will in their inner self hold that “if or may be” question, and not knowing what they are looking for they will try to challenge everyone. They are ferocious fighters and you will notice that they will be reluctant to let go, they will be dedicated to the argument going even after it has run its course.

        • #3131925

          no thoughts from jardinier to date

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Some thoughts on atheists

          “Please note: These are NOT my opinions but I think it relevant to post them here.”

          I’ll defend my ideas. My personality is non-negotiable.

        • #3132414

          Soooooo…….

          by cp7212 ·

          In reply to Some thoughts on atheists

          ….are Democrats, atheists? 😉

      • #3131774

        I ask you

        by jck ·

        In reply to Okay, I’ll give it a shot – The difference between D and R

        Please cite specific references that show Republicans do and have always backed, in recent history, the concepts and ideals that you have alleged.

        Thank you.

        • #3131757

          Did you even read and understand my preface?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I ask you

          .
          Somehow, I doubt it.

          However, this should adequately answer your question:

          http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/the_speech.cfm

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm

          http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganConvention1980.html

          “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
          — Barry Goldwater

        • #3131705

          And I ask you

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I ask you

          .
          Why not provide such a comparison yourself?

        • #3131685

          um

          by jck ·

          In reply to And I ask you

          I didn’t give the comparison, therefore I should not be held to give credibility or analysis of the difference. That is your charge.

          BTW, I read your comparative and specifically stated I wanted things applicable to what *you* wrote presented in the comparative…not your narrative.

          I will give you one example of how the Republican party does *not* promote individualism.

          The Republican party closely ties and allies itself with the religious right. Part of the religious right’s agenda and part which has been adopted by the Republican party “faithful” is to attempt to place into law things that are driven by the religious interest and concerns of the religious right. However, the religious right sees nothing wrong with this even though the Bill of Rights guarantees you Freedom of Religion, which includes respecting no religious establishment (or…freedom *from* religion).

          How can you say that erring on the side of the Republican party is being for individualism, when the party ethic they promote is driven by a religious-driven singular philosphy of the Christian establishment that disregards the legal right of Atheists who may not agree to make their own decisions about these things, e.g.- not seeing abortion as “taking an innocent life”, but see it as a viable medical procedure for use in certain purposes?

          Can you tell me how this establishes the individual right of the Atheist, when the religious right’s agenda which they are trying to make the status quo under law clearly infringes upon the individual right to choose by making all abortions illegal??

          I see this as a clear contradiction to your first supposition, and that the current Republican agenda, as driven by their vast constituency in the religious right, is a basis which groups people would be coerced to think under one religiously-aligned personal philosophy, rather than to allow adults to make conscious decisioons of their own.

          Would like to hear how you validate your original assessment in light of my presentation.

          Thanks.

        • #3131649

          My “charge” is whatever I choose for it to be

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to um

          .
          I don’t cater to you or your stupid assertions. And I’m growing tired of your stupid games. You have absolutely no credibility in my eyes or in the eyes of many others who’ve also called you on your stupid games. The person to whom I initially replied was satisfied with my comparison. If you want to answer his initial question, knock yourself out. But if you don’t feel up to it, I’m not surprised. You’ve never posted anything of substance in the past, there’s no reason we should expect you to now.

          Go try to bother someone else. Or, put another way, go away kid, you bother me. (Credit to W.C.) Play your childish games elsewhere.

        • #3131505

          stupid games?

          by jck ·

          In reply to My “charge” is whatever I choose for it to be

          I put up a plausible predicate.

          The Republican party has a large following whose agenda they are politically held to further, which is that of the organizations of the religious right(Christian Coalition, etc).

          For the Republican party to do this and further this agenda through law, they are socially engineering our country to fall under the moral concepts of a collective…that of the religious right.

          That, in itself, is asking the American people to bend to the will of a single group’s ideology and smells of collectivism (thinking as one), rather than to make personal judgements which is individualism (individual thought).

          Can you not counter this?

          I’m trying to talk rationally to you, but you seem to think point/counterpoint discussion is a “childish game”.

          As for going away…I am exercising my freedom of speech, thank you.

          Have a nice day. 🙂

        • #3131501

          Your silly “freedom of speech” comment and more

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to stupid games?

          .
          What is it with people like you who always cite “freedom of speech” when told to STFU? The “freedom of speech” clause has absolutely nothing to do with dialogue between you and me. It doesn’t apply. And to spout it in such a way is stupid.

          Moreover, my “go away you bother me” comment was to illustrate that when one acts like a child (as you do) he’s addressed as a child, as in W.C. Fields telling the little boy to, “Go away kid, you bother me”, with a slight wave of his hand.

          Again, WHOOSH! Right over your childish head.

          For me to attempt discussion with you is tantamount to discussing “grown up” things with a little boy. You are not a rational thinker, yet you think you are. You are not genuine, but you try to maintain such a front. You understand little of what I say, perhaps by choice, perhaps because you don’t have the capacity, perhaps to be “cute”.

          You’re a waste of my time. To continue further dialogue is pointless. I do not deem you worthy of serious consideration. I see you as the mother of all jokes. Do you get it?

          Now go away, kid, you bother me.

        • #3132109

          again…

          by jck ·

          In reply to stupid games?

          You’re calling my right to freedom of speech silly? My exercising it is silly? This coming from a self-proclaimed Libertarian?

          Dude, are you for real or what? You better read the Libertarian platform tonight and say 4 “Hail Harrys” before bed or something.

          As for W.C. Fields, he was an ACTOR…playing a PART. I suppose you’re gonna tell me you’re the King of the World next too and stand up with your arms spread?

          Simply put, I think you are not the one who does not understand things. It seems that *twice* now I have brought up points…ones factual to Robertson’s activities…ones factual to the content of the Christian Bible and how he’s violated its edicts.

          You’ve addressed neither of them.

          With leadership, there comes a responsibility to motivate individuals through actions which are in accordance with your philosophies. Both Bin Laden and Robertson preach concepts which do not fall in line with their faiths they claim to defend and uphold.

          Neither of them motivates their people to love and cherish. Neither of them teaches compassion and understanding in the true sense. They say they love, but their words do not express it…unless love is judging others and telling them how bad they are and preaching that they need to suffer.

          They both teach coercion and division and aggression.

          I don’t think you understand one simple concept:

          If you steal, it’s stealing. Whether you steal a piece of gum or $1,000,000. You’re still a thief.

          If you break the speed law, it is breaking the speed law whether you’re doing 5 or 50 over the limit.

          If you inflame people and your words drive radical portions of those listening to committing acts of terrorism…and you *continue* to do that…you are a contributor to terrorism…whether wear a suit or a robe.

          I have no doubt Robertson is a motivator to the radical portions of the Christian community who would see it as their divine right to enforce the word of God.

          Just the same, Bin Laden is a motivator in the same way with the radicals in the Muslim community.

          I think you fail to see the correlation…I do not know if it is because your bias in favor of Christianity, or if you think only a man who waves a gun and speaks against the USA can motivate people to do terrorism.

          Don’t be afraid to think outside the box, Max.

        • #3132033

          Oh…and…btw…

          by jck ·

          In reply to stupid games?

          Mr. Libertarian…calling my exercising my freedom of speech silly…well…may I quote:

          “Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

          As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

          We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.”

          National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Preamble, Paragraphs 1-3.

          Your belittling of a fundamental right in this country to express myself is to negatively coerce and repress a freedom that is a freedom that is to be protected by the members of the party whose ideals *you* claimed personally to support and follow. “We defend…”, not “We repress…”. Remember that. Telling me to shut up is not defending my right or “respect for my individual rights”.

          Nice job. Hey…maybe you can get some political advice from Stephen Hawking next.

          Just in case you want to read it…or, anyone else wants to…

          http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

          I have read a bit of it this morning…I like it. I think I’m gonna join ASAP.

          Hey Max! That will make me your politicial brother! Get ready to give me a hug! 😀

          And…I’m still praying for you…unless, it’s not in the party platform…hahahaha

    • #3118329

      How to chose, Rep, or Dem?

      by barkleyc ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      The only reason to register either way is to enable you to vote in the Primaries. That gives you an affiliation, not an identity, just like religion.
      The Republican and Democratic parties used to be reversed. The Repubs were environmentalists and the Dems were pro Corps. I have been a staunch Democrat all my voting life but recently re-registered as a Republican when it dawned on me that as such the bastards would have to listen to me. I am now a constituent of the majority of Congress who is telling them to raise the ceiling on Medicare, tax the crap out of anyone with an income over $1million/year and rescind corporate advantages. Oh yes, and please stop trying to rule the world while you’re at it.

      • #3118231

        This begs a reply

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to How to chose, Rep, or Dem?

        .
        You said that you are, “…telling them (your Republican congressional delegation) to raise the ceiling on Medicare, tax the crap out of anyone with an income over $1 million/year and rescind corporate advantages. Oh yes, and please stop trying to rule the world while you’re at it.”

        >>>>> Comment – Question Number One <<<<< You don't want them to RULE over the world, but rather just RULE over us. Is that right? Personally, I would choose for them to not RULE over either. >>>>> Comment – Question Number Two <<<<< If they were to "tax the crap out of anyone with an income over $1 million/year", will you answer these questions concerning the outcome of such a policy. 1. How many people would that be, in either real numbers or as a percentage of total taxpayers? 2. Define "tax the crap out of". Put a real percentage number to your term "crap". Would it be 35 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, 95 percent, 100 percent, or something else? And how does that compare to what it is today? 3. How much additional revenue, in real dollars, do you think that would generate? And how did you come to that conclusion? 4. How would these people take such a policy. At what point, for example, would these people just stop earning over $1 million/year, if "the crap" is going to be taxed out of it anyway? For example, if "tax the crap out of" them means to tax at a rate of 100 percent, why would they even bother to earn it in the first place. If that were me, I'd just go play golf instead of earning anything. At what point will they all go play golf? 5. Why did you choose the $1 million level? Why not $2 million? Why not $900,000? Why not $500,000? Why not $100,000? What basis did you use to target that specific $1 million target? 6. What would the additional money pay for? (If there would be, in fact, additional money at all.) And please be specific. What's the purpose of this "crap tax"? >>>>> Comment – Question Number Three <<<<< You said that you are, "...telling them (your Republican congressional delegation) to raise the ceiling on Medicare..." Raise if from what to what? Be specific. How much money will this generate? And what will the money be used for? >>>>> Comment – Question Number Four <<<<< You said that you are, "...telling them (your Republican congressional delegation) to.....rescind corporate advantages." To which specific corporate advantages are you referring? And what would the corporations do as a result? And how much money, specifically, would this generate, and how did you come to that conclusion? And what would you do with that money? (If there would be, in fact, additional money at all.) >>>>> Comment – Question Number Five <<<<< You said at one time, "....the Republicans were environmentalists and the Democrats were pro-corporation." When was that? How long ago? And what policies did each party espouse that led you to that conclusion? And who were the ones spearheading such policies? I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, but rather trying to understand the thought-process that led to such a conclusion. I'm sure you thought these thing out to the Nth degree, and your conclusions are based on sound reasoning instead of emotional platitudes. So thanks in advance for the answers I'm sure you have right at your finger-tips.

      • #3118220

        But that’s the whole point

        by cp7212 ·

        In reply to How to chose, Rep, or Dem?

        I greatly believe that your affiliation DOES create your identity. That’s where the ever constant Republicans vs. Democrats come from. Your affiliation comes from what you believe, in relation to what party you “join”.

    • #3118214

      Sean Hannity

      by master3bs ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      Hannity defined it yesterday this way. (Actually I can’t remember if Hannity said this or a guest said it.)

      Democrats are a party of demographics (female, African American, poor, etc.)

      Republicans are a party based on ideas. For instance, the Republican party is currently being fueled by ideas on judical policy; security; terrorism; immigration and taxes.

    • #3117653

      Is someone going to say what Democrats stand for?

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      Is someone going to say what Democrats stand for?

      Do they stand FOR ANYTHING, or do they just stand AGAINST whatever the Republicans stand for?

      Still waiting for someone to step up.

      • #3117513

        Don’t hold your breath

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Is someone going to say what Democrats stand for?

        .
        Democrats, whether they will admit it or not, strive to have a bigger collectivist society. The American Democrat Party is no different than the Socialist Democrat parties in many European nations. They want a Democratic form of socialism, pure and simple.

        But do you know what? They’ve been successful by being chameleons.

        How do you cook frogs? You don’t drop them into a pot of hot water, because they’d only jump out. Instead, you put them into a pot of cold water, heating it slowly to a boil. By the time the frogs realize it’s getting a little hot, they’re already cooked.

        We’re a nation of frogs ………. ribbit.

        • #3119507

          As rabbid as many are now

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Don’t hold your breath

          I would have thought they would just use a mallet and smash the heads in of all the frogs that try to get away.

          It is good that the general public is finally catching on that the Democratic party has been hijacked and it doesn’t really stand for anything positive anymore.

          People are relearning an old skill they forgot all about long ago. How to think.

    • #3119212

      Where are the Democrats?

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      .
      Come on, Democrats? speak up. What defines you?

      • #3131915

        OPPOSITION

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Where are the Democrats?

        What do you mean, “to what?”? The purpose of the left is to oppose. They are obstacles to progress, same as all collectivists in history.

    • #3118629

      Greek vs Roman, and US political history in 3000 chars or less

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      Greeks practiced direct representation and called it “democracy”. Romans conquered so much they needed to elect representatives to take the interests of their constituents to Rome, where the governance of the “republic” was centered. The question of direct vs indirect representation was one of the most important issues that could [b]not[/b] be fully resolved by the Continental Congress, which is the reason that the two major political parties have had those names throughout most of US history.

      Unfortunately, communist “thinking” has polluted the “national dialogue” to include the immoral proposition that changing wealth distribution from each according to his production to each according to his need. The appearance that Marxism is a valid political “viewpoint” has been accomplished by employing euphemisms like “populist” in the past, and “economic justice” among some members of the Democrat Party today. The Democrats’ allegiance to communist principles actually triggered the Republicans to court “traditionalists”, which at first meant believers in the values traditionally important in US government, but increasingly means moral atavists and Christian theocrats.

      Both parties oppose the rights guaranteed by the constitution, and neither Democrat nor Republican implies any true commitment to any consistently-defined values when capitalized.

    • #3119808

      Jesus IS a Liberal

      by thechas ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      Jesus is a liberal. And, a pacifist.

      He gave up his job to preach for free, and depended on the good will of others for his earthly sustenance.

      He asked his followers to set aside their earthly jobs and possessions to follow him.

      Jesus was clearly for the separation of commerce and religion.

      Jesus rallied against the religious establishment of his day.

      Jesus admonished us to place those who are poor and less skilled ahead of ourselves.

      Jesus admonished people to use their given abilities for the best interests of all of mankind.

      Jesus recommended disobeying man’s law if that law conflicted with God’s law.

      The miracles that Jesus performed benefited the poor and down-trodden, not the rich and powerful.

      Jesus was against punitive penalties for crimes / sins.

      While Jesus despised sin, he kept his heart open to all that had sinned.

      In fact, Jesus was derided for spending so much of his time with sinners.

      Jesus did not fight, and stopped his followers from fighting when the guards came to arrest him.

      Still, the above pale to the most liberal thing that Jesus did. He gave his earthly life to redeem mankind’s immortal soul.

      Were Jesus walking amongst us today, he would no doubt be dismayed by the US Christian community.

      The majority of US Christian faiths are Christian only in their belief in the risen Christ. The faith and social teachings of most “Christian” churches follow the cosmic thunder of a vengeful Old Testament God rather than the loving healing ways of Jesus Christ and the Gospels.

      One need only read the Be-Attitudes in the Gospel to see the difference between US Christian churches and the role that Jesus calls on each of us to take.

      That said, none of the US political parties meet what should be the standards of true Christian.

      While the Republican party generally adheres to a Christian view of morality, they miss the mark in many areas.

      Living wages, aid to the poor, environmental laws, the death penalty, strict prison terms, even the stance on gun control, all fail the test of “What Would Jesus Do”.

      The US Democratic party does much better on general “people” issues, but has gone too far in embracing the sin along with the sinner.

      I believe that if Jesus was living in the US today, and HAD to join a political party, that Jesus would join the Green Party.
      Take a look at the party platform, and compare it to the Be-Attitudes to understand why.

      Some further thoughts:

      If Jesus was a US Supreme Court justice, he would be one of those dreaded liberal activist judges. He would always champion the poor and less well off in society rather than simply following man’s law.

      It is just as difficult for a political conservative to be a true follower of Christ as it is for a rich man to get to heaven. It is much easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

      Of course, Jesus was not concerned with the law of the land as much as he was concerned with how an individual lived their life with regard to attaining their place in heaven.
      Your political party affiliation has little to do with your chances of getting into heaven.

      As to the other part of your question, there are 3 reasons to join a political party in the US.

      1. In some cities and counties, party affiliation is an unwritten requirement for a government job, and even to be considered for government contracts.
      Chicago and Cook County Illinois are but a pair of examples.

      2. If you wish to vote in primary elections and influence what candidates you have to choose from in the general election.

      3. In order to run for political office.

      Chas

      • #3119776

        No, your “wishful thinking” is flawed because of. . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Jesus IS a Liberal

        .
        1. moral freedom

        2. free will

        Jesus would have never forced anyone into capitulation, as “liberals” MUST DO in order to advance their agenda, and you know it.

        You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting such a thing.

        • #3119767

          Confused

          by thechas ·

          In reply to No, your “wishful thinking” is flawed because of. . .

          Lets see here:

          Liberals believe in moral freedom. U.S. conservatives wish to force there moral views onto everyone.

          Liberals also believe in free will.

          Forced capitulation? Sounds more right wing than left wing to me!

          Just what has a liberal ever forced you personally, or the country as a whole to do that is morally or ethically wrong?

          Everything that you rally against as a liberal wrongdoing has been accomplished through the legislative process of our representative system of government.

          I admit there is a level of force involved in the tax collection system.
          Show me any modern government where the people freely pay their taxes without some form of collection enforcement.

          If the majority of businesses and individuals in the US followed the example of Jesus in their daily lives and business dealings we would not need laws to protect people and the planet from being taken advantage of.

          I stand by my statement that Jesus IS a liberal. And, that it is VERY difficult for a US style conservative to be a true follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

          Chas

        • #3119757

          Like I’ve said before. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Confused

          .
          ….deep-end.

        • #3119754

          I don’t even have to put up a challenge any more

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Confused

          .
          Your messages are so ridiculous that they speak for themselves.

          All I have to say is, Ooooooooooookay.

        • #3119751

          Chas is just like Pat Robertson

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Confused

          .
          He wants to shove his religion down other people’s throats. He wants to legislate in the name of Jesus.

          Thank goodness those two religious extremist positions are seen for what they really are.

        • #3119721

          A question, Chas

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Confused

          How long have you been a Christian?

          As I have followed your posts for three years you appear to have changed your views in the following order:

          If my memory serves me, you were formerly a Republican but changed parties after expressing horror (or some such strong word) at the prospect of a second term under President Bush.

          It was only after this that you started to talk about religion.

          If you have been a Christian all along, then I am surprised that you never posted in the religious threads which I am notorious for starting.

          I would also be interested to know what particular brand of Christianity you affiliate with.

        • #3118061

          For the Record

          by thechas ·

          In reply to A question, Chas

          Actually, I am still registered as a Republican. This is pragmatic, as the only election that really matters in this area is the Republican primary.

          Plus, the Republican committees spend lots of money trying to attract me with their message.

          Prior to GWB coming to the national political scene, I had voted nearly straight party Republican in every election I was eligible to vote in.

          After experiencing the (lack of) leadership and aid for the rich policies of the Bush administration, it may be a long time before I vote for Republican candidates again.
          (Similar policies of our former Republican state governor left the state too weak to deal with the current economic crisis.)

          I still cannot answer the question of what causes me to have so much disdain for GWB. Interestingly, I still wish his father had won his second term in 1992.

          What has lead me to espouse my Christian beliefs and brought out my inner liberal is more complex.

          The fundamentalist conservative Christian right in the US has always bothered me. While they no doubt have a deep faith, they practice more of an Old Testament faith. They just don’t grasp the concept of following Christ’s path of love and empathy.

          Still, the primary credit for my transformation goes to Max. Max has continually questioned every post where my opinion conflicted with his libertarian philosophy. One day in the midst of a particularly terse discourse between Max and myself, I was contemplating how to get my ideas across without offending Max. It dawned on me, that not offending Max was not a good reason to temper my thoughts. Lets just say that things have changed a lot since then.

          I hope that I have grown enough from this experience to never again be taken in by the dark forces of US style conservatism.

          As to my faith, I am a cradle Catholic.

          As to your threads, I have looked at some of them. I just don’t have enough time to post as I did a couple of years ago.

          Perhaps a few years from now, my work and family schedule will ease a bit and I can spend more time trolling the threads.

          Chas

        • #3117941

          American evangelical Christians

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to For the Record

          terrify me.

          But the Australian equivalent is much the same.

          The mega televangelists are also a worry because they suck in so many people.

          A female friend of mine raved about Benny Hinn so I thought that would make a good article for my Christian website. However a search revealed that his methods were questionable to say the least.

          A neighbour of mine was invited to attend a meeting of Sydney’s largest charismatic church. As an observer rather than a member, she described in detail the order of the service. She said that she was convinced that the “preacher” worked the congregation up to a hypnotic state. No Holy Spirit, just human manipulation.

          Her experience was identical to what I had read on the web about Benny Hinn and his ilk.

          I also have contact with American evangelicals through matchmaking websites which I have joined to alleviate the loneliness of my bachelorhood.

          What these people are taught to believe is that the Islamic terrorists represent true Islam and that a Jihad is already in progress which will continue until Armageddon.

          They are fanatical and SCARY.

          As I am sure you would know, Bush’s campaign director at the 2004 election deliberately targeted the Evangelical Christians on the correct assumption that they would feel more strongly about the moral issues (abortion, homosexual unions) than Iraq and the domestic economy.

        • #3117886

          “. . . . .a Jihad is already in progress. . . . .”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to American evangelical Christians

          .
          I’m not an “Evangelical Christian”, and I, too, believe a Jihad is already in progress. This particular Jihad may not be supported by ALL Muslims, but it certainly is supported by a pretty large faction of Muslims. And I’d further think that there’s a pretty large contingent of “silent support” for it as well. Moreover, I’d say they’ve been at it for thirty or more years. Do you disagree?

          I realize the full context of the statement (that the Islamic terrorists represent true Islam and that a Jihad is already in progress which will continue until Armageddon), but consider this. The “pretty large faction” to which I referred ALSO believes they “represent true Islam”, and they plan (or might plan, since I’m not into their heads) to “continue until Armageddon”. That’s what’s scary, not some bible-thumpers who want their kids to say a prayer in a public school.

          I wonder why I’m not as frightened by the, so-called, “Christian-Right” as others appear to be. It seems that the “Christian-Right” opposites don’t even want to be exposed to them. I’ve known quite a few people that others would put into the “Christian-Right” category, but they’re just ordinary, and usually very nice people. Are there “Christian-Right” people who are absolutely fanatical about it? Well sure there are, but I’ve never know one to be violently fanatical. (Yes, I know about the instances of anti-abortion activists.) But there are also the fanatics in the rest of the population that is not part of the “Christian-Right” — the eco-left, for example.

          In my opinion, the fanatical eco-left is just as, fanatical, perhaps even more so, and it almost seems like eco-causes IS their religion! Moreover, they get more “respect”, if you will, than they actually deserve. It’s the “religiously eco-left” fanatics who’ve infiltrated the main-stream, and the ones who should be feared more than the “Christian-Right”. Moreover, the FBI reports that eco-terrorism is the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the USA today.

          “Twenty of the 22 recorded instances of terrorism and the three terrorist preventions in the United States and its territories in 2000 and 2001 were perpetrated by domestic terrorists, predominantly by special interest extremists active in the animal rights and environmental movements.”

          – From an FBI report

          Just some thoughts.

        • #3131339

          respect

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to American evangelical Christians

          “…eco-causes … get more “respect”, if you will…”

          To chime in, I don’t think they get more respect. From my camp (and perhaps I’m the only one in it) each of the extremes and fanatics therein disrepect as much life as they cherish.

          Basically, they all pretty much suck.

          Do I believe they all deserve a voice? Regrettably, yes. There are always flares to the sides of the bell curve. Trying to chop them off just puts in in that category yourself.

          Should there be limits on their actions, though? Indeed, yes. Those few on the fringes have every right to convince us, peacefully, to move the center in their direction. But until that might become the way of it all, they will have to live within the bounds set forth by the super-majority.

          Lucky for my country, we have limits even on the super-majority to make sure we all have level heads when changing policies…

        • #3130721

          1.3 billion Muslims

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to American evangelical Christians

          Naturally I don’t know what is in the minds of the 1.3 billion Muslims around the world, but I can tell you what is in the minds of those I meet in Sydney.

          They come from many countries and invariably emphatically dissociate themselves from the extremists and stress that Islam is a religion of peace.

          They are in no way fanatical.

          Charismatic Christians with whom I come into contact ARE fanatical. They are so busy saying “I love Jesus, I love God, Jesus fulfils my every need ” etc ad nauseam that it is impossible to have a rational conversation with them.

          Like the Muslim extremists they also interpret the Scriptures to suit their purpose. The most visible example is the so-called speaking in tongues. These people yabber on making all kinds of strange sounds and IN A GROUP, and here is the point: This is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Paul on the phenomenon of speaking in tongues.

          1 Corinthians 14:27-28 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
          But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church.

          I have NEVER attended a charismatic service at which there was present someone who could interpret these alleged garbled messages.

          So if the Jihad has already started these people just add fuel to the fire by spreading lies about Islam and openly hating Muslims.

          I find them scary because they HATE, disseminate lies, and misinterpret the Scriptures to suit their own purposes.

        • #3130681

          I see a parallel

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to American evangelical Christians

          .
          You said, “I find them scary because they HATE, disseminate lies, and misinterpret the (facts) to suit their own purposes.”

          I changed one word, and that sounds like the American Democrat Party to me!

        • #3131503

          A message from an American friend

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to American evangelical Christians

          An American woman who regularly forwards various items to me, today sent the following:

          A MESSAGE FROM AN APPALLED OBSERVER:

          Today I went to visit the new World War II Memorial in Washington, DC.
          I got an unexpected history lesson. Because I’m a baby boomer, I was one of the youngest in the crowd. Most were the age of my parents, veterans of “the greatest war,” with their families. It was a beautiful day, and people were smiling and happy to be there. Hundreds of us milled around the memorial, reading the inspiring words of Eisenhower and Truman that are engraved there.

          On the Pacific side of the memorial, a group of us gathered to read the words President Roosevelt used to announce the attack on Pearl Harbor:

          “Yesterday, December 7, 1941– a date which will live in infamy–the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked.”

          One elderly woman read the words aloud:

          “With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph.”

          But as she read, she was suddenly turned angry. “Wait a minute,” she said, “they left out the end of the quote. They left out the most important part. Roosevelt ended the message with “so help us God.”

          Her husband said, “You are probably right. We’re not supposed to say things like that now.”

          “I know I’m right,” she insisted. “I remember the speech.” The two looked dismayed, shook their heads sadly and walked away.

          Listening to their conversation, I thought to myself, “Well, it has been over 50 years. She’s probably forgotten.”

          But she had not forgotten. She was right.

          I went home and pulled out the book my book club is reading — “Flags of Our Fathers” by James Bradley. It’s all about the battle at Iwo Jima.
          I haven’t gotten too far in the book. It’s tough to read because it’s a graphic description of the WWII battles in the Pacific

          But right there it was on page 58. Roosevelt’s speech to the nation ends in “so help us God.”

          The people who edited out that part of the speech when they engraved it on the memorial could have fooled me. I was born after the war. But they couldn’t fool the people who were there. Roosevelt’s words are engraved on their hearts.

          Now I ask: “WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF HISTORY?????????”

          Send this around to your friends. People need to know before everyone forgets. People today are trying to change the history of America by leaving God out of it, but the truth is, God has been a part of this nation, since the beginning. He still wants to be…and He always will be!

        • #3131467

          Julian – FYI

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to American evangelical Christians

          .
          http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/memorial.asp

          I’m not passing judgement on your friend, or anything like that, but only trying to inform.

          It seems that lately I’ve been entwined in a number of silly discussions that were started with a gross misstatement. You know me, Julian. I’m a nut for truth and accuracy in reporting. It’s one of my major pet-peeves. I don’t like it when those with opposing views do it; and I think I like it even less when those who generally agree with me do it, albeit oftentimes (but not always) unintentional. And it absolutely amazes me that people will make a misstatement, or some distorted statement, and build an entire argument on that falsehood; but when confronted with proof that their premise was misstated or is false, people continue to make the same argument. Call me stupid, but I just don’t get it.

          Speech that stirs up the emotions is a powerful thing. Its power of persuasion is very mighty and most compelling. It can sway enormous numbers of people. But it can be quite destructive if based on falsehoods. And if such speech actually works against you, as it always works against somebody, what’s the best defense against it?

          Is there some sort of “truth detector” a person could have to defend against such things?

          A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. — Mark Twain

          The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth. — G. C. Lichtenberg

          Oh, and by the way. Pass this one onto her. I’m sure she’ll like it.

          http://www.snopes.com/military/sixboys.asp

        • #3131883

          Maxwell: religion IS collectivism

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to American evangelical Christians

          “And it absolutely amazes me that people will make a misstatement, or some distorted statement, and build an entire argument on that falsehood; but when confronted with proof that their premise was misstated or is false, people continue to make the same argument. Call me stupid, but I just don’t get it.”

          It doesn’t amaze me, it disgusts me.

        • #3132465

          Sorry about that, Max

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to American evangelical Christians

          This woman forwards me all kinds of rubbish and I should have known better than to assume that the item was correct.

      • #3119752

        wrong wrong, and wrong

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Jesus IS a Liberal

        [i]He gave up his job to preach for free, and depended on the good will of others for his earthly sustenance.
        He asked his followers to set aside their earthly jobs and possessions to follow him.[/i]
        [b]Liberals and the poor poor have not given up their possessions, they are asking for the possessions of others that work for it.[/b]

        [i]Jesus was clearly for the separation of commerce and religion.[/i]
        [b]one example of him ever saying commerce should be un-religious. He thought EVERYTHING should be religious and for the glory of GOD, not in spite of God.[/b]

        [i]Jesus rallied against the religious establishment of his day.[/i]
        [b]the false teachings and corruption, not that there shouldn’t BE any religion anywhere but in church on Sunday morning. Never for the complete removal of religion from all aspects of our lives.[/b]

        [i]Jesus admonished us to place those who are poor and less skilled ahead of ourselves.[/i]
        [b]God also helps those that help themselves with the gifts he has given.[/b]

        [i]Jesus admonished people to use their given abilities for the best interests of all of mankind.[/i]
        [b]explain how liberals are the only ones that do any good for all of mankind please.[/b]

        [i]Jesus recommended disobeying man’s law if that law conflicted with God’s law.[/i]
        [b]Liberals are ALWAYS up in arms if they think someones “religious values” would influince their decisions as a judge, senator, or President. This is ALWAYS seen as a BAD thing by ALL liberals.[/b]

        [i]The miracles that Jesus performed benefited the poor and down-trodden, not the rich and powerful.[/i]
        [b]They benifited his FOLLOWERS, regardless of their economic stature. There was NEVER a miracle that excluded someone because they were rich. EVER.[/b]

        [i]Jesus was against punitive penalties for crimes / sins.[/i]
        [b]I seemed to miss that one in Church and growing up. Please explain.[/b]

        [i]While Jesus despised sin, he kept his heart open to all that had sinned.
        In fact, Jesus was derided for spending so much of his time with sinners.
        [/i]
        [b]But he did not PARTAKE in the sins, nor did he CONDONE them. A big difference between trying to lead them to a better life in God, and joining them in their world of decadance and saying it is just fine.[/b]

        [i]Jesus did not fight, and stopped his followers from fighting when the guards came to arrest him.[/i]
        [b]We see where that got the Jews in WWII. God HAS shown that there ARE times to fight for what is right and just against the forces of EVIL.[/b]

        [i]Still, the above pale to the most liberal thing that Jesus did. He gave his earthly life to redeem mankind’s immortal soul.[/i]
        [b]Liberals don’t give their own souls, they take things from OTHERS and give it away. BIG difference between YOU giving me your last dollar, and YOU giving me Max’s last dollar.[/b]

        [i]Were Jesus walking amongst us today, he would no doubt be dismayed by the US Christian community.[/i] [b]WORLD[/b]

        [i]The majority of US Christian faiths are Christian only in their belief in the risen Christ. The faith and social teachings of most “Christian” churches follow the cosmic thunder of a vengeful Old Testament God rather than the loving healing ways of Jesus Christ and the Gospels.[/i]
        [b]Wrong, most are very active in ministry and helping people in need. Can’t speak for your church, providing you attend one. [/b]

        [i]One need only read the Be-Attitudes in the Gospel to see the difference between US Christian churches and the role that Jesus calls on each of us to take.[/i]
        [b]please explain the diffence between US and NON-US Christian churches you have repeatedly pointed out here? [/b]

        [i]That said, none of the US political parties meet what should be the standards of true Christian.[/i]
        [b]True, but especially the “get God out of our lives” liberals. Like Peter, you have denied him three times….. Jesus NEVER said or did anything to promote a separation of church and state. So we should ignore “mans law” and wrap ourselves back in religion, as you have indicated earlier?[/b]

        [i]While the Republican party generally adheres to a Christian view of morality, they miss the mark in many areas.

        Living wages, aid to the poor, environmental laws, the death penalty, strict prison terms, even the stance on gun control, all fail the test of “What Would Jesus Do”.[/i]
        [b]Jesus NEVER said “let people make a living wage flipping burgers”. Republicans DO give aid to the poor. The FACT that his diciples HAD a sword to cut off the soldiers ear CLEARLY shows that weapons were allowed among his followers at all times, doesn’t it?[/b]

        [i]The US Democratic party does much better on general “people” issues, but has gone too far in embracing the sin along with the sinner.[/i]
        [b]Being generous with OTHER peoples money is NOT what Jesus preached. Living on welfare for generations is NOT what Jesus preached. Running a platform based around HATE for the leader of the opposeing party is NOT what Jesus preached. Jesus would NEVER condone the party of hate.[/b]

        I believe that if Jesus was living in the US today, and HAD to join a political party, that Jesus would join the Green Party.
        Take a look at the party platform, and compare it to the Be-Attitudes to understand why.

        Some further thoughts:

        [i]If Jesus was a US Supreme Court justice, he would be one of those dreaded liberal activist judges. He would always champion the poor and less well off in society rather than simply following man’s law.[/i]
        [b]But Jesus would never sit on the US Supreme Court because the LIBERALS would filibuster to keep this man from imposing his religious beliefs on everyone else. But then, you already knew that before I wrote this reply, didn’t you?[/b]

        [i]It is just as difficult for a political conservative to be a true follower of Christ as it is for a rich man to get to heaven. It is much easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.[/i]
        [b]or the godless masses the make up the progressive liberal movement? You get into heaven by believing and living a good christian life. Not by removing all God references from your daily life. Not by being afriad of pushing your moral values on others. “go forth making deciples of ALL nations”, not “don’t mention this, you might hurt some non-believers feelings”[/b]

        [i]Of course, Jesus was not concerned with the law of the land as much as he was concerned with how an individual lived their life with regard to attaining their place in heaven.
        Your political party affiliation has little to do with your chances of getting into heaven.[/i]
        [b]And the party of theft, drugs, immorality and no values has what affiliation? The liberal movement is anti-Christian at every turn.[/b]

        Jesus would never indorse the progressive liberals removing prayer from schools. A very unChrisian thing to do.

        Jesus would never indorse removing “one nations, under God”. A VERY unChristian thing to do.

        Jesus would NEVER indorse removing the ten commandments from ANYWHERE. A very unChristian thing to do.

        Jesus would NEVER indorse abortions at will, as a result of living a permiscuous and immoral life style. Abortions for birth control would NOT be acceptable, nor it is Christian like as you would not have gotten into that positition if you had been living a Christian life according to the true teachings, correct?

        • #3119729

          Liberals do not mean Democrats

          by thechas ·

          In reply to wrong wrong, and wrong

          You are confusing liberals and Democrats.

          While the Democrats in the US are generally considered to be liberals, they do not clearly follow the liberal line of thought. Like all political parties, they have a group of people that they attempt to placate.

          On a couple of questions you have:

          Religion and Commerce:
          Kicking the money changers and other merchants out of the temple.

          On punitive penalties:
          Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

          On current US laws and political positions, while Jesus would likely voice the positions you describe, I don’t think he would really care what the law was. Jesus was much more concerned about what was in an individuals mind and heart.

          I do personally believe that it takes an open (activist) reading of the US Constitution to allow both prayer in schools and posting the 10 commandments in a public building. The arguments for removing the mention of a Christian God in government activities follows a strict interpretation of the Constitution by the letter without regard for the intent.

          Chas

        • #3119725

          Activist reading of Constitution

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Liberals do not mean Democrats

          First, the whole “Separation of Church and State” is no in the Constitution.

          There is only freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM all religion.

          It states that the government will not saction or mandate a religion. This means you have the freedom to follow any religion you wish.

          You will also note that they use the generic word “God” and not a specific god. This means in what every god you believe in.

          Posting of the 10 commandments would only offend heathens that don’t like that someone would have rules of conduct. Honor thy mother and father, thou shalt not kill, oh yeah, these are a real bad influence. Freedom of religion AND freedom of expression BOTH cover allowing this in public.

          Liberals support the total removal of God from the country. They are not like Jesus, and it is disgraceful to have him compared to them with all the anti-religion aspects and anti-moralistic aspects of the progressive liberal movement, as I very clearly pointed out in my previous post, point by point.

        • #3119717

          “Liberals” versus American Democrats

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Liberals do not mean Democrats

          My only knowledge of the American Democratic Party and its policies and actions is what I read in these TR forums. I have no particular reason to follow American politics except when they may impact on Australia.

          On the basis of what I read at TR, I would emphatically agree with Chas that your Democrats do not follow the normally understood doctrines/ideals/goals of true “liberalism.”

          BTW, on separation of government and religion:

          “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

        • #3120215

          unto Caesar

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “Liberals” versus American Democrats

          While people should not mandate a natianal religion, nor should there be persecution of anyone for believing or not believing in anything they wish, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs yourself.

          If your beliefs to not influence your behavior while in office as in ALL aspects of your life, then your beliefs are not strong nor valid. To do something in office that is against your “beliefs” show that you are a person without character.

          If you won’t stand up for what you believe in, what WILL you stand up for?

          There can never be nor should there ever be a total separation of your religious life and the rest of your life if you have chosen to follow a paticular faith.

          The difference is, in the US the intent was to allow everyone to believe activly in anything they wish without anyone to say “boo” about it. The “liberals” today in the US have perverted this to mean no mention of religion anywhere, anytime except for in your church and you MUST HIDE your religious valuse. Manily it is Anti-Christian as it would be picking on a poor minority to every say anything bad about a Muslim or Budhist. Can’t hurt THEIR feelings, but the Christians? Open season.

        • #3119708

          On right wing “Christians.”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Liberals do not mean Democrats

          First let me explain the names of the major political parties in Australia. The main conservative party is called the “Liberal Party” and in coalition with the National Party is able to form a government.

          The “liberal” party is the Australian Labor Party.

          I will relate a personal experience to show the contradiction with which at least one group of Australian right-wing Christians apparently feel comfortable.

          It was the Federal election of 2001. I was attending regularly a 10 am communion service at an Anglican (Episcopalian to you) Church.

          I was also a member of the Labor Party and agreed to set up and man the Labor stand at the church I attended which is an official polling place.

          Without exception, these “Christians” who each week drank the “blood of Christ” from the same cup as myself snubbed me when they saw me handing out How-To-Vote Labor pamphlets. Yes, without exception. Some deliberately turned their faces away from me. Not one smiled or said hello to me.

          When I told my minister about this, he said their behaviour was unacceptable, but made no effort to express his opinion to these parishioners.

          It was well known that his own sister and brother-in-law were active Labor supporters. What was not advertised, however, was that the much revered bishop who conducted these weekly services was himself a member of the Labor Party.

          Naturally I felt too embarrassed to attend the regular weekly service for some time afterwards.

          And on a note of irony, the local federal candidate for whom I was campaigning told me AFTER the event that St Martin’s Anglican Church, Killara, was THE strongest Liberal polling place in the whole country.

    • #3132433

      Parties obsolete

      by dr dij ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      their platforms vary over time, not matching that of their constituents and even at best are only ‘the worst of two evils’.

      Probably everyone has seen the graph with social issues vs economic issues where democrats rank high on spending but low on laissez-faire while republicans the opposite. this ignores libertarians and communists, at other positions on the graph.

      I’d suggest that we instead re-organize the govt to be issue based. Reps would be elected to work on bills for specific broad issues.

      Flip-flopping would allow for immediate no-confidence vote for representative and expulsion (tho they could be re-elected later for other issues if they chose to run). Some issues people could vote directly for.

      In a free society we should also not allow voting on issues that use force on us, i.e. the majority would not be allowed to vote themselves in transfer payments. Voting could be limited to those whose money would be taken, so if the rich decided they wanted to pay higher taxes (unlikely) they could vote this in but those not paying the taxes would not vote on that issue.

      In fact, about half or so of taxes could be made voluntary. You’d pay automatically to protect yourself from force, fraud (police, courts, military defense) but could voluntarily vote for specific issues such as offensive war (i.e. Iraq). If not enuf people voted to spend their money on it, the war would not happen unless it became defensive (i.e. they attacked us). If you wanted to help foreign countries, you’d pay into that. (or give directly to charities, as govt aid to foreign countries largely lines pockets of the rulers).

      People who didn’t have school children might not be required to pay school tax. (and schools could be privatized / voucherized). Housing tracts commonly in the past had legal stuff in deeds that were transferred to anyone who bought house in that area. These might include road taxes, infrastructure, etc.

      Obviously I haven’t worked out the details exactly. There is a way to make this work and our society would be much more fair, stable and advance faster under a system like this.

      • #3132461

        Utopia

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Parties obsolete

        The closest thing I have seen that would go at least part way to achieving what you suggest was a science fiction movie which from memory was called: “Planet Earth.” (not at all sure of that but it is beside the point).

        In this movie there was a society in which all members participated in making legislation. If the government wished to introduce some new legislation, it would be debated on TV (to which all citizens had access) and comments were filtered through an “emotional” detector, which measured whether the comments were emotive or factual.

        At the conclusion of the debate, ALL citizens voted on the legislation.

        As for political parties, to the best of my knowledge there is no mention of political parties in the Australian constitution. I don’t think they are mentioned in the US constitution either, but at the time of writing this post I do not have time to check.

        However for practical reasons parties have evolved because otherwise every MP would present his/her own priorities and no conclusion could ever be reached.

        Until quite recently, Italy was a perfect example of a country that could not form a stable government because there were so many different parties.

        • #3132444

          so many different parties. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Utopia

          .
          I think a difference in the USA might be that our two major parties are actually an umbrella for what other countries might have as smaller parties. The environmentalists, for example, have, for the most part, found a home in the Democrat Party. That’s why the Green Party will never be strong enough to win. And the libertarians in America have, for a large part, settled for the Republican Party, since the Libertarian Party will never win.

          That’s why you might see a lot of infighting, so to speak, within the two major parties. And that’s why you might see instances where the agenda of one faction within a party conflicts with the agenda of another.

          I can only imagine an America with a dozen or more viable political parties. What might those be?

          The Republican Party
          The Democrat Party
          The Pro-Abortion Party
          The Anti-Abortion Party
          The Green (environmentalist) Party
          The Destroy the Earth Party
          The Libertarian Party
          The Democrat-Socialist Party
          The Christian Party
          The Freedom From Religion Party
          The Free Enterprise Party
          The People of Color Party

          Nothing would ever get done!

          On second thought, that might not be a bad thing!

        • #3131087

          Sign me up for…

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to so many different parties. . . .

          The Anti-Abortion Party
          The Destroy the Earth Party
          The Libertarian Party
          The Christian Party
          The Free Enterprise Party

          Is that Right-Wing enough? 🙂

          However, there might be some contradictions between the Libertarian party and the Christian and Anti-Abortion parties. I would think that the Christian and Anti-Abortion parties might merge, anyway, since most Christians are Anti-Abortion, and vice versa.

          Also, if there is going to be a “People of Color” party, how about a party for Albinos?

        • #3130967

          How would you like to be the color commentator…..

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Sign me up for…

          .
          ….at the People of Color Party convention or the Albino Party convention?

        • #3132316

          Can you match this lot?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Utopia

          Here is a list of political parties that were listed on the ballot paper for New South Wales (different for each state) for the Federal Senate at the October, 2004 Federal Election.

          Australian Democrats
          New Country Party
          The Great Australians
          Ex-Service, Service and Veterans Party
          Socialist Alliance
          Australian Progressive Alliance
          Pauline Hanson?s One Nation
          Australian Labor Party
          Liberal/Nationals
          Help End Marijuana Prohibition
          Liberals For Forests
          Lower Excise Fuel and Beer Party
          Australians Against Further Immigration
          Nuclear Disarmament Party of Australia
          Citizens Electoral Council
          Progressive Labor Party
          Save The ADI Site Party
          Non Custodial Parents Party
          The Greens
          Christian Democratic Party
          Family First
          Outdoor Recreation Party
          No GST (Goods & Services Tax)
          The Fishing Party

        • #3131100

          A question

          by cp7212 ·

          In reply to Can you match this lot?

          How many states are there in Australia? Are they states as we look at them in U.S.A? Or are they more like territories?

          I ask because I don’t know if the aforementioned parties are excessive or not. It sure looks that way to me…..

        • #3130807

          Australian states and territories

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to A question

          There are six states and two territories in Australia.

          The states are: Queensland (where Hal lives), New South Wales (where I live), Victoria (where Gret lives), South Australia (where Alan lives), Tasmania — which is an island south of Victoria, and Western Australia. The Territories are: ACT (Australian Capital Territory) and the Northern Territory.

          Every state and territory has its own government. The state governments have two houses — Legislative Assembly (lower house) and Legislative Council (upper house). The territories have a simplified form of government.

          The ACT was set up as the seat of the Federal Parliament.

          The states have elections at fixed four-year intervals. At each election one half of the members of the Legislative Council stand for re-election which is for the second of two terms of four years each.

          The Federal Government must hold an election at least every three years, but the Prime Minister may call an earlier election if he thinks it expedient to do so.

          At a federal election, one half of the senators stand for re-election for a second of two successive three year (or slightly less) terms.

          The senators represent the states and a quota is set relative to the population of each state.

          So my list is for the parties which stood for election for the NSW quota.

          There are no fixed number of terms for the Federal Government or the state governments. The current federal government, under John Howard, is now in its fourth consecutive term.

          At the last NSW state election, the government was re-elected for an unprecedented third term.

          Unlike America, where each state may have a different system of government, in Australia all the states have the same form of government.

          And now for the punchline if you are not confused already, the conservative party (both State and Federal) is called the Liberal Party. In the case of the federal government, the Liberal Party has traditionally joined with the National Party in order to get the numbers to form a government.

          The left wing party (federal and state) is the Australian Labor Party which appears to bear little resemblance to the American Democratic Party as regards general policies.

          Currently — and for more than four years — Australia is in the unique position of having a Labor Government in all states and territories, and a Liberal/National Government in the federal parliament.

          Now aren’t you sorry you asked?

        • #3131088

          Parties

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Can you match this lot?

          Can you send me info about the “No Excise Tax and Beer” party? That sounds like a good one I might want to get organized over here!! 🙂

          As far as the Nuclear Disarmanent Party, what do they do? I was unaware that Australia had a nuclear arsenal, so what would their platform be?

          Is there a “Raving Loony” party in Australia?

        • #3130966

          The “Raving Loony” party is in Canada…..

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Parties

          .
          They even have their own coin!

    • #3132411

      This is the way I really look at it all….

      by cp7212 ·

      In reply to What makes a Republican/Democrat?

      If voting made a difference and changed anything, it would be illegal.

      I believe in the right to vote and even though I don’t like the candidate choices most of the times, I still vote. But Republican or Democrat, it seems like the outcome is always the same. They tell you all you want to hear, but they’re not listening to themselves.

Viewing 15 reply threads