What makes a Republican/Democrat?

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?

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

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

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.

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.

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.

.
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.

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"?

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

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.

.
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?

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

- beads

.
D: Emotion
R: Reason

(That should really get me blasted!)

good first shot...

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

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.

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.

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....

.
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.

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.

.
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)

.
....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.

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?)

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?

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.

.
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.

.
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.

[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?

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

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.