D wants more social programs, and cut the rest. R wants more military and don't cut the rest. Overall, the Ds spend less. Just look back at past data. The Rs try to give the Ds a bad fiscal name, but I'll let the last half decade speak for itself. Sure, the Ds were the part of the big spenders. But those big spenders switched sides in the big shift ~50 years ago when Democrats became Republicans.
The idea of Democrats is that abortion is the woman's choice. Everyone else should mind their own business. It is the Rs who want to legislate this issue. It is D by a long shot.
Don't blow it out of proportion. The majority of Ds own and use guns too. The NRA just tries to pin the Ds as wanting to end people's rights to own and use guns. That simply isn't the case. Yes, some have attempted laws. But to put the minority opinion on the majority is a mistake.
You are correct that neither side will stop enforcing drug laws. I'll give you that. But of the two sides, the Ds tend to be a bit more lenient than Rs on it. But I'll let you take a neither position here.
What law are you talking about here? There is no federal seat belt law as far as I know of. And every state but NH (a swing state) has one. It is just my personal experience on the local level that the Rs push much harder for the seatbelt laws. That might not be universal though. So I'll give you that.
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Then Libertarian isn't a perfect fit for you, but it's the closest there is until I form my own.
Libertarians want no federal taxes, and want businesses allowed to rape and pillage at will without consequences.
You and I appear basically equal in our political desires (as are many of my friends). We've serious contemplated creating a party (working title: The Rationalist Party), but the big issue is that we'd be competing with the Libertarians. In order for third parties to have a chance there needs to be support for the best chance candidate, and right now that's Libertarians. So we're torn between throwing in with the Lib's for now and splitting off later, or forming ours and hoping we end up with more support than Lib's. Tough call.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Then Libertarian isn't a perfect fit for you, but it's the closest there is until I form my own.
Libertarians want no federal taxes, and want businesses allowed to rape and pillage at will without consequences.
You and I appear basically equal in our political desires (as are many of my friends). We've serious contemplated creating a party (working title: The Rationalist Party), but the big issue is that we'd be competing with the Libertarians. In order for third parties to have a chance there needs to be support for the best chance candidate, and right now that's Libertarians. So we're torn between throwing in with the Lib's for now and splitting off later, or forming ours and hoping we end up with more support than Lib's. Tough call.
Thank you for exposing to all of us that you know jack sh!t about Libertarianism.
Quite the opposite of what you said, the LP does support conservationalist policies and oversight, opposes environmental harm as being harm against the greater good, and instead of letting corporations scoot by with lax EPA regs and taxpayer-support superfund sites like both the major parties do now, the LP would have blatant environmental damages treated as criminal offenses with jail time for corporation principals and clean-up costs paid solely by the offending entity.
Libertarians believe in the sovereignty of individual human rights. If one person harms an unconsenting other, regardless of the circumstances, Libertarians believe that harm to be a crime, and that the offender (and not the taxpayers) should be solely responsible for recompensing for that harm. Environmental crimes almost always involve the damage to another (non-consenting) person's property, and Libertarians believe that damage is a crime. Now if you think that "environmentalism" involves telling another person what they can do with their property simply because you personally disapprove, while no demonstratable harm is actually being done, then you just have a whacked idea of what environmentalism is (but than again, most people do). If environmental damage is being/will be done, then harm can be demonstrated.
Contrary to your ignorant falsehood, Libertarians are NOT strongly supportive of corporate rights. Corporations are collective government entities, and Libertarians believe in individuals. Libertarians are supportive of business rights (because business is the process of one individual conducting a market transaction with another individual), but business rights, you lying dumbass, are not the same as corporate rights.
Does this post sound like a personal attack? Before you start whining, consider that you were talking lies out of your ass. You are indeed not too well versed on the subject. Kindly educate yourself before spouting FUD again.
I call into question your "years of study and experience." But what do I know, I'm just a member... :roll:Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Then Libertarian isn't a perfect fit for you, but it's the closest there is until I form my own.
Libertarians want no federal taxes, and want businesses allowed to rape and pillage at will without consequences.
You and I appear basically equal in our political desires (as are many of my friends). We've serious contemplated creating a party (working title: The Rationalist Party), but the big issue is that we'd be competing with the Libertarians. In order for third parties to have a chance there needs to be support for the best chance candidate, and right now that's Libertarians. So we're torn between throwing in with the Lib's for now and splitting off later, or forming ours and hoping we end up with more support than Lib's. Tough call.
Thank you for exposing to all of us that you know jack sh!t about Libertarianism.
Quite the opposite of what you said, the LP does support conservationalist policies and oversight, opposes environmental harm as being harm against the greater good, and instead of letting corporations scoot by with lax EPA regs and taxpayer-support superfund sites like both the major parties do now, the LP would have blatant environmental damages treated as criminal offenses with jail time for corporation principals and clean-up costs paid solely by the offending entity.
Libertarians believe in the sovereignty of individual human rights. If one person harms an unconsenting other, regardless of the circumstances, Libertarians believe that harm to be a crime, and that the offender (and not the taxpayers) should be solely responsible for recompensing for that harm. Environmental crimes almost always involve the damage to another (non-consenting) person's property, and Libertarians believe that damage is a crime. Now if you think that "environmentalism" involves telling another person what they can do with their property simply because you personally disapprove, while no demonstratable harm is actually being done, then you just have a whacked idea of what environmentalism is (but than again, most people do). If environmental damage is being/will be done, then harm can be demonstrated.
Contrary to your ignorant falsehood, Libertarians are NOT strongly supportive of corporate rights. Corporations are collective government entities, and Libertarians believe in individuals. Libertarians are supportive of business rights (because business is the process of one individual conducting a market transaction with another individual), but business rights, you lying dumbass, are not the same as corporate rights.
Does this post sound like a personal attack? Before you start whining, consider that you were talking lies out of your ass. You are indeed not too well versed on the subject. Kindly educate yourself before spouting FUD again.
I would love it if that were true, but that's not what I've read nor been told. I used to think I'd found the ideal party (after nearly 30 years of searching). The more I researched though, the more despondant I grew as I ran into policy papers and party members that saw the party as the means to end government regulation of business (and not merely pull the fed out of business taxation as they espoused). That, and the stance that federal taxes can be suddenly and totally terminated finally led me to the conclusion that the LP was very close, but not quite what I was looking for.
I do realize that the LP has a fairly good environmental stance (maybe not quite Green, but a LOT better than dem's or rep's). When I mentioned rape and pillage I was not just meaning environmental restrictions, but instead was referring to general immoral business practices.
I was not whining, nor was I 'takling out of my ass'. I was merely relating what my years of study and experience have shown me. Now, it is entirely possible that I simply ran into bad representatives of the party. If you can provide me party approved statements or policy papers in which they clearly state that they would seek to retain neutral or government oversight of safety, worker's rights, environmental controls, anti-monopoly, anti-trust, and other corporate globo-greed activities then I would happily change my statement (and probably join the party completely).
On a side note, if you can show me a party that wants to remove the interpretation of businesses/corporations as individuals with rights equal to individuals I'll have their children.
Originally posted by: Vic
I call into question your "years of study and experience." But what do I know, I'm just a member... :roll:Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Then Libertarian isn't a perfect fit for you, but it's the closest there is until I form my own.
Libertarians want no federal taxes, and want businesses allowed to rape and pillage at will without consequences.
You and I appear basically equal in our political desires (as are many of my friends). We've serious contemplated creating a party (working title: The Rationalist Party), but the big issue is that we'd be competing with the Libertarians. In order for third parties to have a chance there needs to be support for the best chance candidate, and right now that's Libertarians. So we're torn between throwing in with the Lib's for now and splitting off later, or forming ours and hoping we end up with more support than Lib's. Tough call.
Thank you for exposing to all of us that you know jack sh!t about Libertarianism.
Quite the opposite of what you said, the LP does support conservationalist policies and oversight, opposes environmental harm as being harm against the greater good, and instead of letting corporations scoot by with lax EPA regs and taxpayer-support superfund sites like both the major parties do now, the LP would have blatant environmental damages treated as criminal offenses with jail time for corporation principals and clean-up costs paid solely by the offending entity.
Libertarians believe in the sovereignty of individual human rights. If one person harms an unconsenting other, regardless of the circumstances, Libertarians believe that harm to be a crime, and that the offender (and not the taxpayers) should be solely responsible for recompensing for that harm. Environmental crimes almost always involve the damage to another (non-consenting) person's property, and Libertarians believe that damage is a crime. Now if you think that "environmentalism" involves telling another person what they can do with their property simply because you personally disapprove, while no demonstratable harm is actually being done, then you just have a whacked idea of what environmentalism is (but than again, most people do). If environmental damage is being/will be done, then harm can be demonstrated.
Contrary to your ignorant falsehood, Libertarians are NOT strongly supportive of corporate rights. Corporations are collective government entities, and Libertarians believe in individuals. Libertarians are supportive of business rights (because business is the process of one individual conducting a market transaction with another individual), but business rights, you lying dumbass, are not the same as corporate rights.
Does this post sound like a personal attack? Before you start whining, consider that you were talking lies out of your ass. You are indeed not too well versed on the subject. Kindly educate yourself before spouting FUD again.
I would love it if that were true, but that's not what I've read nor been told. I used to think I'd found the ideal party (after nearly 30 years of searching). The more I researched though, the more despondant I grew as I ran into policy papers and party members that saw the party as the means to end government regulation of business (and not merely pull the fed out of business taxation as they espoused). That, and the stance that federal taxes can be suddenly and totally terminated finally led me to the conclusion that the LP was very close, but not quite what I was looking for.
I do realize that the LP has a fairly good environmental stance (maybe not quite Green, but a LOT better than dem's or rep's). When I mentioned rape and pillage I was not just meaning environmental restrictions, but instead was referring to general immoral business practices.
I was not whining, nor was I 'takling out of my ass'. I was merely relating what my years of study and experience have shown me. Now, it is entirely possible that I simply ran into bad representatives of the party. If you can provide me party approved statements or policy papers in which they clearly state that they would seek to retain neutral or government oversight of safety, worker's rights, environmental controls, anti-monopoly, anti-trust, and other corporate globo-greed activities then I would happily change my statement (and probably join the party completely).
On a side note, if you can show me a party that wants to remove the interpretation of businesses/corporations as individuals with rights equal to individuals I'll have their children.
Some research for you (although next you'll probably say that the official party website isn't a credible source):
http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.shtml
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lp.org/issues/cut-taxes.shtml">Stop Bailing Out Industry
No one has the right to cover his losses at taxpayer expense -- and yet wealthy corporations demand exactly that. The federal government has bailed out railroads, banks, and other corporations with your tax dollars. This must stop!</a>
Oh yeah, that sounds VERY pro-corporate...
And more...
Okay, first, you've contradicted yourself. Above you said that Libertarians "want businesses allowed to rape and pillage at will without consequences," and now you say that "the LP has a pretty good stance on environmental issues." So you're basically backpedaling and running empty on credibility here.
Right...
Ah... now you have your hands over your ears while screaming "LALALALALA.... "
Originally posted by: Vic
Ah... now you have your hands over your ears while screaming "LALALALALA.... "
A most effective argument.
You just don't get it. To the point where you won't even grasp what I'm saying. For example, when did I say I wanted business to oversee business? Just once, where did I say that? So why are you arguing that as though I did? When you figure that out, you might realize just how far off-base you are in this discussion.
And don't make me search for that thread while you're spouting your own fantastic indoctrination here. I can see you now, praying "I know my Gubment lives!"
Not at all. I see clearly that -- out of pure selfishness -- you hate paying people for the goods and services that they provide you (which is what actual business -- which you claim to be against -- is all about), and you disguise that selfishness by bringing up the relatively isolated abuses of the megacorps created by the very big government system that you support.
Facebook
Twitter