|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jun 15, 2004 2:27:53 GMT -5
To Hell in a Bipartisan Hand Basket[glow=red,2,300]Garry Reed Wrote:[/glow] "Aha!" I squawked as I read the Washington Times headline: "Bush to wage ideological campaign." Now, once and for all, we'll find out exactly what's so different between these Republicans and Democrats. I eagerly skimmed over the hors d'oeuvres, seeking the sirloin:
"… offer voters a stark choice between liberalism and conservatism."
"… a very clear choice on the issues …"
"This election will represent a clear choice, an ideological choice on the issues."
"The ideological differences between Mr. Bush and Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry …"
"The Bush campaign's effort to play up the ideological differences between the president and the Massachusetts senator …"
And that was it. All bun, no beef. Not one example of ideological differences. Not a single sampling of dissimilitude. Nary a representative remark to distinguish the two.
Nothing. Nada. Nil. Naught. Nix. Nuttin Honey.
Was there really an ideological difference, then, or did everyone just assume that there was?
How is it that elephant President Bush who lied us into a Persian Gulf war is more admirable than donkey President Johnson who lied us into a Tonkin Gulf war?
What good is a Republican Party that defeats Hillarycare in the 1990s only to support piecemeal Republican Hillarycare today in the form of taxpayer subsidized prescription drugs for seniors?
What is the difference between President Bush's conservative collectivist redistribution plan called "Faith-based Initiative" and the scores of liberal collectivist redistribution plans with similar high-minded names?
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 15, 2004 2:52:21 GMT -5
This is a question that gays don't have to ask. Now that the Libs have a candidate that believes abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, even rape and incest, it seems the ideological differences aren't that much different from the Republicans either.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jun 15, 2004 11:03:25 GMT -5
This is a question that gays don't have to ask. Now that the Libs have a candidate that believes abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, even rape and incest, it seems the ideological differences aren't that much different from the Republicans either. Well, Libertarians are split on this issue. There are pro-life and pro-choice libertarians. Still, rarely do libertarians vote based on just one issue. You can't tell me you agree with Kerry 100%. I know you disagree with his votes on the USA Patriot Act and the Iraq war, and I also know those two issues are very important to you. Yet, you are going to vote Kerry. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 15, 2004 17:34:45 GMT -5
Well, Libertarians are split on this issue. There are pro-life and pro-choice libertarians. Still, rarely do libertarians vote based on just one issue. You can't tell me you agree with Kerry 100%. I know you disagree with his votes on the USA Patriot Act and the Iraq war, and I also know those two issues are very important to you. Yet, you are going to vote Kerry. - Rick Yes, you're right.There is no one politician that I agree 100% with. I'm only making the point that to gays the ideological differences are very clear. The Libs like to make the point that there is really no difference between the Dems or the Reps when that is not true at all on issues of civil rights. In these matters, the Libs pretty much mirror the Reps with the exception of gay marriage. That's all I'm sayin here. You pick your issues. Abortion isn't that important to you. It is to me. Nothing is more important to me than civil rights. In these two areas the lines are clearly drawn. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jun 16, 2004 2:48:11 GMT -5
Yes, you're right.There is no one politician that I agree 100% with. I'm only making the point that to gays the ideological differences are very clear. The Libs like to make the point that there is really no difference between the Dems or the Reps when that is not true at all on issues of civil rights. In these matters, the Libs pretty much mirror the Reps with the exception of gay marriage. That's all I'm sayin here. You pick your issues. Abortion isn't that important to you. It is to me. Nothing is more important to me than civil rights. In these two areas the lines are clearly drawn. Libertarians are pretty far from Republicans on civil rights. Give me some issues, and I'll lay it out. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 16, 2004 9:41:38 GMT -5
Hate crimes legislation
Affimative action
Anti discrimination laws (ENDA)
Title IX (don't really know if the Libs are against this but assume since it's an affirmative action program)
These aren't really civil rights issues, but gun control laws and states rights are also areas where the two parties seem similar. Now, add abortion to the mix and clearly you can see that the ideological differences between the two major parties are quite clear for someone like me.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jun 16, 2004 13:14:28 GMT -5
Hate crimes legislation Affimative action Anti discrimination laws (ENDA) Title IX (don't really know if the Libs are against this but assume since it's an affirmative action program) These aren't really civil rights issues, but gun control laws and states rights are also areas where the two parties seem similar. Now, add abortion to the mix and clearly you can see that the ideological differences between the two major parties are quite clear for someone like me. As we are against all governmental discrimination, we are against affirmative action and hate crimes laws. That's pretty in line with the Republicans. As to ENDA, we believe in the freedom of association and private property rights, so we would be against that. But not just for homosexuals. We would roll back many of the private discrimination laws enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We believe that your business is your property, and you may serve or hire whomever you choose. If you arbitrarily discriminate, you will see it in your bottom line. We can't force people to like each other, and we shouldn't force people to do business with people they don't want to do business with. To bind the hands of the majority of business owners because a small minority would discriminate is to us, the equivalent of dropping a nuke on New York to kill a cockroach. This is different from Republicans because they are against ENDA because they don't think gays should be treated equally. We believe they should be treated equally, but we think everyone should be treated equally. If you have the right not to work or shop somewhere, you also have the right to refuse service and employment to anyone for whatever reason. That is not to say we believe discrimination is right. On gun control, we think that the Republican party has gone too far to appease gun grabbers. We understand that the right to bear arms is the final check on federal power. If it goes too bad, and there needs to be another revolution, it won't go too far if the government has all the good weapons. On states rights, we believe in limited federal government with specific powers, with the rest left to the people or the states (10th Amendment). The Republicans say they believe in this, but only do when it fits their end. Can't really say on abortion. Libertarians are pretty evenly split on this issue. Now, of course, you chose civil rights issues you knew would diverge from your own, but really, on most civil rights issues, you will find libertarians more closely aligned with the Democrats than the Republicans. Those few you mentioned ride the divide where libertarians don't believe rights exist. We believe rights produce negative actions, not positive ones. This means that to respect someone else's rights, you must refrain from certain activities, but not take proactive steps. Respecting someone else's rights should be a matter of refraining from action, not engaging in action. True rights do not conflict with each other - meaning, in essense, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. I have the right to offer my services for money. That does not correspond with someone else's responsability to hire me. The only reason this transaction should take place is if both parties feel they come out ahead in the process through voluntary cooperation. There is no virtue in coerced righteousness. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Jun 16, 2004 19:13:12 GMT -5
I still like the Libertarian candidate from the last presidential election who viewed much of governmental function as enforcing contract law. He put it so simply it sounded silly, but after looking at it, he made very good points.
It seems like it isn't so much affirmative action type laws that would help as much as simply recognizing when a group of people are systematically being victimized/ripped off. To see a discrimination for what it is enough to recognize that someone might be an arbitrary target because they are part of a group. Not to say that type of motive is any better than another. It's just a motive.
As far as discrimination, it seems like government employees, people being paid from tax dollars, deserve equal treatment all the way. I'm for all that. I think that because, well, I'm paying with taxes, and that's how I want to run MY business. Same with schools.
I don't think it would be too expensive to provide services to the handicapped or opportunity to a minority, because, ideally, these are the people who need government assistance anyway, for physical reasons or economic reasons. I understand that the libertarian view isn't for governmental handouts, but also, realistically, everyone wants to be able to provide some help for the less fortunate, even if the system is out of control now. Keeping in mind too, I'm talking about those being paid with tax dollars.
Except I think public schools should revert back to the basics...small, local. Of course, that goes with what I believe about people shouldn't live in cities, *said with Louis Black voice* because it's too close to too many other people...and it drives us nuts!!! That's about where I lose it with most people. But it's just a personal perference on that; it doesn't work for everybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 16, 2004 22:50:34 GMT -5
It doesn't really matter to me if your reasons for being against ENDA are different, the end result is the same to me.
These are the key issues for me. As I've stated before, these are personal issues for me. The Libs are clear on their stance and it is not what I believe to be in my best interest or what's right for this country. I don't think I'm confused about your position, I just don't agree with it. What civil rights issues do the Libs resemble the Dems in their views?
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 16, 2004 23:15:18 GMT -5
PERSONALLY, I THINK IT WOULD BE TERRIBLE IF THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF THOSE IN NEED.( I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A STATEMENT WITH THE CAPS, LOL BUT FOR SOME REASON I CAN'T GET IT OFF CAP LOCK. IT SEEMS THAT I NEED A LITTLE ASSISTANCE MYSELF. )
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jun 17, 2004 9:32:09 GMT -5
It doesn't really matter to me if your reasons for being against ENDA are different, the end result is the same to me. I think that is short-sighted. I think there is nothing more important than the reason why. These are the key issues for me. As I've stated before, these are personal issues for me. The Libs are clear on their stance and it is not what I believe to be in my best interest or what's right for this country. I don't think I'm confused about your position, I just don't agree with it. What civil rights issues do the Libs resemble the Dems in their views? USA Patriot Act, Total Information Awareness, racial profiling, the drug war, some with abortion, defendant's rights, gay marriage, immigration, free speech issues, separation of church and state, etc. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 17, 2004 10:15:49 GMT -5
Not to me if I'm still allowed to be discriminated against because of my sexual orientation.
As you love to point out, the Dems are as responsible as the Reps for the Patriot act and the drug war. As far as the other issues, ok. The Dems would never have a candidate who was anti choice though. There are a lot of issues from the war to civil rights but I will never vote for anyone who does not support the issues that are most important to me as a lesbian and a woman. That's the difference between the older gays like me (fuck me I'll be 48 tomorrow) and the younger generation of gays. Youi just won't have an older Andrew Sullivan. We have Gore Vidal and Larry Kramer. Twenty something gays don't let their orientation define them . It's different for us. We have seen too many people die. Being gay is a major part of our identity. I will never vote for anyone that doesn't support these issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jun 17, 2004 10:33:00 GMT -5
This is an unpopular opinion amongst hardcore libertarians, but my favorite libertarian candidate so far has been Harry Browne. His views most closely match my own. Harry Bowne for President 2000 - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Jun 17, 2004 22:50:06 GMT -5
PERSONALLY, I THINK IT WOULD BE TERRIBLE IF THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF THOSE IN NEED.( I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A STATEMENT WITH THE CAPS, LOL BUT FOR SOME REASON I CAN'T GET IT OFF CAP LOCK. IT SEEMS THAT I NEED A LITTLE ASSISTANCE MYSELF. ) Well, it certainly gets my attention  And that's a good thing ;D being a little spaced as I am  Issues like this tear me the most. I believe redistribution of wealth, from the rich "haves" to the poor "have nots" is a a notion of a system that's wrong...wrong if it's not vouluntary. Now I know, you'd think people would starve. I have had this discussion with so, so many people, and it's gone this way so many times I swear we as a nation would practically guilt ourselves into a system of charity if we didn't use taxes for it. Everyone want's our nation to be able to help people in need. It's something I don't think there would be any problem funding, if it were more direct. outgirl, I'm sorry you don't agree with libertarians because they don't agree with... HEY, I ALMOST MISSED THIS! Happy Birthday outgirl!!! So you're a gemini My oldest son is a gemini too. I hope you're doing something special? I was going to stay on topic, I swear, but since you two might have started arguing anyway, what the hell Nice time of year for a birthday  I had him up in Alaska, Fairbanks. An army hospital. I swear, there were mosquitoes everywhere. My focal point...was a smashed one on the ugly green wall in front of me. I couldn't help it; every time I opened my eyes, there it was. They were remodeling, and hadn't replaced the screens yet. Did I mention I had to lay there 2 days? Well, since they were timing it, it was only 47.5 hours. Anyway, it was warm, but when we came home from the hospital, there was still ice on the rivers. The 3 AM feedings in broad daylight were a real trip, let me tell you. I've told this story so many times now |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 18, 2004 10:54:44 GMT -5
How long were you in Alaska? I'm thinking of taking a traveling assignment there for a couple of months . Maybe next spring if I get the courage to just go ahead and do it. I'd be alone and I've never been alone before. Alone in Alaska sounds kinda scarey. I know I should do it. I'm just such a chickenshit sometimes.
|
|
