|
Post by thereisnospoon on Jan 4, 2008 17:44:25 GMT -5
Because Betty Ann is right and it's best to make the issue its own topic. Let's keep the fighting down to a minimum, please.
I support Edwards at the moment, although his second place finish in Iowa makes it unlikely that he'll be able to pull this out. That's really unfortunate because he was ahead of Obama and Clinton in mapping out his policies---many of which I agree with. He just doesn't have the resources. Essentially, he's where he was in 2004, but he lacks the "I'm the young optimist fighting against the Washington machine" charm that he once had as Obama has taken that mantel and used it perfectly.
Now that Edwards will most likely fade, I'll probably support Obama. I do think experience is an issue, and I don't hate Hillary like many other people who aren't voting for her do, but he appears to be a smart, capable, and articulate. His victory speech last night was fantastic. Whether or not you agree with him, you have to tip your hat to him in so much as he is masterful with rhetoric. Edwards is a lot like that too. To be honest, almost every candidate sounds like a great communicator when compared to George W. Bush. I'm not saying his gaffes like "misunderestimate" the true faults of his presidency, yet being clear spoken is very important when you're the head of a world power.
On a side note, there's a part of me that fears some idiot will try to take Obama out. It seems to happen to many of the young, idealistic candidates who have national exposure. Hopefully they've learned from RFK and doubled the security detail on him.
If Hillary manages to win, I'll most likely vote for her. Like I said, I don't have a vendetta against her like every other person who dislikes her seems to have. She could probably run the country well, but she'd face a fuckton of opposition.
There's little to no chance that I'll vote for a Republican candidate. I live in New York and I'll say that Giuliani isn't nearly revered here as he is across the country. I briefly skimmed through an article not too long ago on his campaign that essentially revealed that he's using the old stereotype of New York---lawless, full of druggies, prostitutes, and homeless people---to prop up his crime fighting credentials across the country. That and he's been milking out 9/11 to get himself where he is today.
McCain I'm upset with because he's bent over for Bush so many times after he was slandered in his 2000 run.
Huckabee is, in my mind, the Republican version of Howard Dean (grassroots, appeals to the base on key issues). That being said, I'm not keen on having a president who doesn't believe in Evolution, though that's not the main problem I have with him.
Romney is a blatant opportunist---more so than any other candidate I think. I have no qualms with him being Mormon.
Thompson is an empty candidate who is the Wesley Clark of this campaign: was a very popular choice for some time, but he waited too long before his support eroded.
I'm not big on libertarians like Ron Paul who believe dismantling the entire government makes our problems go away.
|
|
|
Post by Betty Ann on Jan 4, 2008 17:47:09 GMT -5
NOTICE: PLEASE KEEP FIGHTS TO A MINIMUM. FLAME WARS WILL RESULT IN WARNINGS/BANNINGS
(Note to mods: please PM/email me of any problems in this thread before you take action against anyone for their posts in this one. I trust you guys of course, but political threads can get volatile and out-of-hand sometimes so I want you guys to be able to freely discuss without being accused of abusing your mod powers or anything like that)
|
|
|
Post by thereisnospoon on Jan 4, 2008 17:49:29 GMT -5
Understood.
|
|
|
Post by Betty Ann on Jan 4, 2008 17:57:26 GMT -5
I am just glad Hillary's ratings are sinking. I basically think she's the devil incarnate. I support Edwards at the moment, although his second place finish in Iowa makes it unlikely that he'll be able to pull this out. That's really unfortunate because he was ahead of Obama and Clinton in mapping out his policies---many of which I agree with. He just doesn't have the resources. Essentially, he's where he was in 2004, but he lacks the "I'm the young optimist fighting against the Washington machine" charm that he once had as Obama has taken that mantel and used it perfectly. I know what you mean... Edwards really seems like the best Dem candidate to me, but I wish he had better resources. I was really hoping he'd use some of that ultra-charisma and hotness to pull ahead, but alas, no. Now that Edwards will most likely fade, I'll probably support Obama. I do think experience is an issue, and I don't hate Hillary like many other people who aren't voting for her do, but he appears to be a smart, capable, and articulate. His victory speech last night was fantastic. Whether or not you agree with him, you have to tip your hat to him in so much as he is masterful with rhetoric. True: he is a very good speaker and his has a lot of charm and charisma. I don't really mind the inexperience so much, but I don't like how he avoids hot-button topics and kind of shies away from talking about issues sometimes. It seems like no one really knows where he stands sometimes, and that bugs me! Also, I really like his wife. She seems like a great lady, and she is a better speaker than he is IMO. On a side note, there's a part of me that fears some idiot will try to take Obama out. It seems to happen to many of the young, idealistic candidates who have national exposure. Hopefully they've learned from RFK and doubled the security detail on him. Oh lord, that would be horrible. And not just for the fact that it's a candidate getting taken out, but because if a person of a different race does it, a freaking race riot will explode in the US. There's little to no chance that I'll vote for a Republican candidate. I live in New York and I'll say that Giuliani isn't nearly revered here as he is across the country. I briefly skimmed through an article not too long ago on his campaign that essentially revealed that he's using the old stereotype of New York---lawless, full of druggies, prostitutes, and homeless people---to prop up his crime fighting credentials across the country. That and he's been milking out 9/11 to get himself where he is today. I think Guiliani is one of the better Republican candidates, although I don't particularly like his views on things like gun control. I get really sick of people bringing his personal life into things; who cares! It should be about how well he could perform the job of president, not about how much he likes ~da ladiez~ Huckabee is, in my mind, the Republican version of Howard Dean (grassroots, appeals to the base on key issues). That being said, I'm not keen on having a president who doesn't believe in Evolution, though that's not the main problem I have with him. Yea. I really, really am getting sick of the ridiculous Evangelicals. Religion and politics should be kept separate, in my opinion, and no one has the right to cram their morals down other people's throats. Romney is a blatant opportunist---more so than any other candidate I think. I have no qualms with him being Mormon. Again with the religion in politics. Thompson is an empty candidate who is the Wesley Clark of this campaign: was a very popular choice for some time, but he waited too long before his support eroded. Thompson is a nutjob, and I think the only people who like him are other Republican nutjobs. That said, my Republican nutjob husband really likes him. *sigh* I'm not big on libertarians like Ron Paul who believe dismantling the entire government makes our problems go away. I am a libertarian... please don't blame us for Ron Paul. The man is a basket case! He has some libertarian ideas but mostly he has some insane ideas. Libertarians aren't about dismantling government; we're about personal liberty and responsibility. Do you really want government telling you what food you are allowed to eat?
|
|
|
Post by thereisnospoon on Jan 4, 2008 18:44:27 GMT -5
I am just glad Hillary's ratings are sinking. I basically think she's the devil incarnate. Care to say why? I find people hate her simply because she's Hillary Clinton and for little else. To me it seems petty. Maybe I'm just missing something. Unfortunately, Edwards is pretty much sunk. Unless both Obama and Hillary suffer a simultaneous collapse, there isn't much hope for him. I haven't seen his wife speak, actually. I had a feeling she was better than Teresa Heinz Kerry, though. I haven't been able to watch the debates as much as I would have liked to, so I have a very limited grasp of how Obama defines himself when dealing with the issues. Some are pretty clear (Iraq especially) while others seems to be sort of up in the air. There's no doubt that Giuliani has a measure of competence and is definitely intelligent, but he's also brash (a part of his charm) and quick to lose his temper. Besides, as I said before, his campaign revolves around cleaning up New York (essentially portraying himself as saving the country from NYC) and 9/11. A Giuliani Administration would probably be more of the same. As much as I think we'd like it to see the two broken apart, politics and religion are always going to be intertwined. That being said, Huckabee really represents the Evangelical wing of the GOP which is now clashing with the fiscal conservative and national defense/PNAC parts of the party. Thompson, as I mentioned before, isn't much to behold. I recall reading somewhere that Nixon thought he was a nice guy, but was ultimately an empty suit. That's why I said Libertarians like Ron Paul. I don't think Libertarians are one in the same just like I don't think every Republican is a clone of Bush. No, I wouldn't, but I'm not too keen dismantling government programs like Social Security and Medicare either. Those sorts of programs are, at lest to my understanding, obstacles to personal liberty in the view of Libertarianism.
|
|
|
Post by Betty Ann on Jan 4, 2008 20:36:29 GMT -5
I am just glad Hillary's ratings are sinking. I basically think she's the devil incarnate. Care to say why? I find people hate her simply because she's Hillary Clinton and for little else. To me it seems petty. Maybe I'm just missing something. Well, a lot of it is her personality. She's a major opportunist and it's just so blatantly obvious. She seems like she cares more about gaining power than about helping the country, despite anything she says. I feel that her position on things isn't about what she thinks is best, it's about what she thinks will get votes or make her popular, which is a really dangerous thing. It makes me think that she will be super-susceptible to lobbyists and persuasion. I also don't like her opinions on taxes, on social programs, gun control, illegal immigrants, universal healthcare, and her opposition to free-market capitalism. She voted for the Iraq War, and although she seems opposed to it now, she isn't as strongly opposed to it as I'd like, or as serious about it as I'd like. She wants flag burning to be illegal (I think it is a violation of the first amendment to ban flag burning). She has shown strong opposition to gay marriage, but she now evasively claims that she doesn't want marriage to be defined as being between a man and a woman (the opportunistic thing again: it seems like she's just saying what will get her support now). I am strongly, strongly pro-gay marriage. She wants censorship of video games because she says they "threaten morality," which is BS and basically a justification restricting free speech. I really just have a whole slew of reasons. Unfortunately, Edwards is pretty much sunk. Unless both Obama and Hillary suffer a simultaneous collapse, there isn't much hope for him. Sad!!!! I liked Edwards. But he has a lot on his plate right now with his wife and all. On the other hand, you just never know! Maybe he'll make a surprise comeback! I haven't seen his wife speak, actually. I had a feeling she was better than Teresa Heinz Kerry, though. Michelle Obama rocks! She should run instead of her husband I haven't been able to watch the debates as much as I would have liked to, so I have a very limited grasp of how Obama defines himself when dealing with the issues. Some are pretty clear (Iraq especially) while others seems to be sort of up in the air. Yea, I really hate how much he avoids talking about his issues. From what I gather, he is opposed to school vouchers (which I support), but he wants merit-based pay for teachers (which I like). He wants universal healthcare (which I think is a terrible idea). I'm not really clear on his immigration issues. I don't care for his gun control ideas (apparently he thinks that people should be prosecuted for discharging a gun within city limits if they are acting in self-defense which is just silly and defeats the purpose of self-defense). He voted for the 2006 Patriot Act. He's just too vague on things for me to fully support. How can you vote for someone if you don't really know what their positions on important issues are? There's no doubt that Giuliani has a measure of competence and is definitely intelligent, but he's also brash (a part of his charm) and quick to lose his temper. Besides, as I said before, his campaign revolves around cleaning up New York (essentially portraying himself as saving the country from NYC) and 9/11. A Giuliani Administration would probably be more of the same. I agree in some respects that he does have a quick temper and bases a lot of his campaign on NYC experiences, but I don't think it would be quite the same as with Bush. As much as I think we'd like it to see the two broken apart, politics and religion are always going to be intertwined. I disagree. Politics didn't start out intertwined with religion, especially in this country... we were supposed to be an ideal Enlightenment-style government, which meant a huge separation of church and state based on Enlightenment ideas. Right now, it seems that the world's major religions are all experiences a fundamentalist fanaticism which is pretty scary. Religion is bigger in politics than it historically has been in our country. But there is a very large secular community and I hope that they will be able to bring some sense to things. No, I wouldn't, but I'm not too keen dismantling government programs like Social Security and Medicare either. Those sorts of programs are, at lest to my understanding, obstacles to personal liberty in the view of Libertarianism. I don't think it's so much about dismantling them as reforming them to come up with a better, more sensible system that fits everyone. I like Medicare a lot, but Social Security needs major work. The payouts are just a joke, especially compared with what people are putting in. I like the idea of private accounts much better. You are still putting money in through taxes, but you get what you put in. If you put in a lot, you get a lot. If you don't, you don't. And if people aren't working due to disability, they won't get the Social Security payments... but it's ok because they're still getting the Disability payments. What do you think of the Fairtax?
|
|
|
Post by thereisnospoon on Jan 4, 2008 21:49:20 GMT -5
Well, a lot of it is her personality. She's a major opportunist and it's just so blatantly obvious. She seems like she cares more about gaining power than about helping the country, despite anything she says. I feel that her position on things isn't about what she thinks is best, it's about what she thinks will get votes or make her popular, which is a really dangerous thing. It makes me think that she will be super-susceptible to lobbyists and persuasion. I also don't like her opinions on taxes, on social programs, gun control, illegal immigrants, universal healthcare, and her opposition to free-market capitalism. She voted for the Iraq War, and although she seems opposed to it now, she isn't as strongly opposed to it as I'd like, or as serious about it as I'd like. She wants flag burning to be illegal (I think it is a violation of the first amendment to ban flag burning). She has shown strong opposition to gay marriage, but she now evasively claims that she doesn't want marriage to be defined as being between a man and a woman (the opportunistic thing again: it seems like she's just saying what will get her support now). I am strongly, strongly pro-gay marriage. She wants censorship of video games because she says they "threaten morality," which is BS and basically a justification restricting free speech. I really just have a whole slew of reasons. That is probably the most comprehensive and thoughtful reply I've ever heard for not supporting Hillary. Granted, I don't think those things make her the devil incarnate, but still, you raise valid points. That's a pretty low hurdle to cross, though. Almost any of these candidates could most likely do better than Bush. I meant religion and politics throughout world history, not the United States necessarily. It seems to me that religion became a major issue in American politics in the 1980's. I think that defeats the purpose of Social Security. The design is meant to create a social safety net. Once you begin to privatize it, companies begin butting in and wanting to turn it into an industry. That's what has happened in health care and the whole thing is a mess. Secondly, those who don't earn as much won't be likely to place their money into private accounts. I'm not talking about the so-called "welfare queens" who just sit around and mooch off the system; folks who don't have the opportunity to increase their earnings will be on the short end of the stick. I don't disagree with the fact that Social Security form is necessary. I think many of the issues with Social Security would have been avoided had Gore become president and invested the surplus into the system and locked it off from being picked by the government (the "Lock Box"). Just another "what if" in history now... I'm not well versed on that system of taxation, so I can't really comment on it. I find the goals rather lofty, though; whatever candidate supports that better make sure they can secure enough clout in Congress to get that through.
|
|
|
Post by Betty Ann on Jan 4, 2008 22:48:06 GMT -5
That is probably the most comprehensive and thoughtful reply I've ever heard for not supporting Hillary. Granted, I don't think those things make her the devil incarnate, but still, you raise valid points. Thanks! I know what you mean about the vicious anti-Hillary attacks, though. If you're going to hate someone, at least have a reason for it. I never really liked her much (I LOVED Bill, though). After the Monica thing, I had a lot of respect for her for sticking by her man, which seemed like an extremely honorable thing to do. But now it seems like she just did that for the name recognition and publicity, and it kind of pisses me off. There are just SO many things about her that I dislike, and I honestly think she would be the worst candidate to possibly win. Possibly as bad if not worse than Bush (in different ways, obviously, but bad nonetheless) That's a pretty low hurdle to cross, though. Almost any of these candidates could most likely do better than Bush. At this point we could put a poodle with a learning disability in the White House and it would do better than Bush. I meant religion and politics throughout world history, not the United States necessarily. It seems to me that religion became a major issue in American politics in the 1980's. Yes, definitely with world history. But it has historically also been a TERRIBLE thing which is why our country tried to start off with getting away from it. There are a lot of reasons why religion is so intertwined with politics, but it doesn't mean it's right or it should be that way. Spanish Inquisition? I think that defeats the purpose of Social Security. The design is meant to create a social safety net. Once you begin to privatize it, companies begin butting in and wanting to turn it into an industry. That's what has happened in health care and the whole thing is a mess. Private accounts are really "private" in the sense of say, privately-owned business. They would still be regulated by the government and essentially under government control like SS is now. Ideally, it would be something like IRAs, but run by the government (not private companies). It is still a social safety net, but you get what you put in. Secondly, those who don't earn as much won't be likely to place their money into private accounts. I'm not talking about the so-called "welfare queens" who just sit around and mooch off the system; folks who don't have the opportunity to increase their earnings will be on the short end of the stick. The money that goes into Social Security right now would go into a private account. You're not using any extra money beyond that unless you want to. If you're working, you're already putting money into SS, so ideally that same money would go into your private account instead of the SS account. Of course people who earn less would get less in the end. It encourages people to work harder, and elect to put more in if they are able to do so. I don't buy that no one has the opportunity to increase their earnings. I came from a family of 9 who was below the poverty level for the entire time I lived at home; we didn't even have running water or electricity sometimes. Sometimes we didn't even have enough food. But that wasn't because my parents somehow were being held back, it was because they weren't trying to get ahead. They were just... sorry and lazy. I got out and am now upper middle-class; it isn't impossible to move up the social ladder if you work hard. For some people, it is impossible, but there is already a lot in place to protect them, such as disability benefits. I've done extensive work with the homeless and the poor, and here are some things I can tell you about that: - homeless people are generally disabled, either mentally or physically. They are overwhelmingly men, and many of them are vets. They should be eligible for disability benefits. - People in poverty generally do not stay that way for long. Poverty is short-term for most people. They work hard and they get out. Welfare benefits are amazing because they help the people who are working hard to get out, just to keep them on their feet while they are looking for a job or whatever. - If they don't get out it is because they are disabled (see above) or lazy. - The lowest-paying jobs are not typically held by heads-of-household. So there really aren't many people who are chronically poverty-stricken who cannot increase their earnings, and for those that are in that situation (not by choice), there are benefits in place to help them. I'm not well versed on that system of taxation, so I can't really comment on it. I find the goals rather lofty, though; whatever candidate supports that better make sure they can secure enough clout in Congress to get that through. You should look into it! It has a lot of support from regular people, politicians, and lots of economists. Basically it eliminates the income tax and does everything based on sales taxes. You are being double-taxed right now: you get taxed on your income once, then you are taxed on it again when you spend it. Even the governments knows and acknowledges this: if you save every single receipt for every single thing, you can send them in with your taxes and get tax breaks. But nobody does that because that is insane and taxes are already complicated enough as it is. With the fairtax, there's no more ridiculous complication, and the IRS is eliminated. It removes a lot of bureaucratic BS which saves a ton of money for the government which can in turn be used on things like social services. There are just so many great things about it!!!
|
|
|
Post by Ellethwen on Jan 4, 2008 23:23:55 GMT -5
I'm a really big supporter of Obama, so I was happy he won. I can't vote, which makes me very sad. And I would have gone to watch the caucus if it hadn't been for the $600 worth of computerized baby that I had to watch. We were working today on caucuses and our own political beliefs today in Historical Viewpoints. We were supposed to put down whether we were liberal or conservative on an issue. I voted liberal on all the issues but one, which involved campaign funding. As you can see, I'm a very big Democrat. Like many of the people I know. I think the Quad-Cities is a very democratic area. I have a problem with supporting Hilary for basically the same reasons as Betty Ann stated. I also have a huge problem with all those people saying that they "supported traditional marriage and stopping abortion". Every time I see those commercials, I wave my hands in the air asking "Why? WHYYY?". I have nevereverever had a problem with homosexuals and I think that there are legitimate reasons for abortion. Granted, I still think adoption is the best way to go, but if you have a legitimate reason to get an abortion (like, the baby has anecephaly, so they'll be missing a huge chunk of their brain and will most likely die soon after being born) then I don't think it should be up to the people in government who do not even know the names of the people. I think the government is overextending their power a lot. I feel like I can't do much anymore without it creating a problem, especially artistic things Basically, the people who are not supporting gay rights and want to stop abortion are basing it purely off Christian beliefs. I won't deny the fact that Christians are the majority. I just think that a government basing the laws it passes off those beliefs is inherently flawed (and you're not even supposed to do that in America). I cannot comprehend why people would try to eliminate the seperation of church and state in a country as diverse as America, and if that ever does wind up happening I'll be packing up and moving to New Zeleand within the hour. I thnk part of why I like Obama is also a bias. He comes from Illinois. I can drive to Illinois in 3 minutes, depending on the traffic (Drive down the street, take 2 right turns, take a bridge over the River and I'm in Moline). People tend to like people that come from where they come from, or nearby. At least it's not a really bad bias. I could live with Edwards being President. He seems like a nice, honest guy. I just think Obama really has the dedication. But I'll take nearly anything now over Bush. I have never supported him. One last thing that bothers me is that people are saying "we aren't ready for a woman/black president". Well, if we aren't ready now then we will never be ready. America says it prides itself on its equality and diversity, yet we seem very reluctant to let non-white men into important offices. *frowns* I think a woman president would be nice. Just not Hilary; she changes her tune too often. P.S. I think the reason Iowa is not as diverse is that nobody WANTS to live in Iowa. There's a lot of misperceptions about this state, and it seems to be turning into a retreat for senior citizens. Within the past 3 years 6 new nursing homes have come up in the area, and the ratio of senior citizens to non-senior citizens I see during the day (excluding school, and most of the teachers there are seniors) must be at least 50:20. :S
|
|
|
Post by Betty Ann on Jan 4, 2008 23:51:17 GMT -5
I have a problem with supporting Hilary for basically the same reasons as Betty Ann stated. I also have a huge problem with all those people saying that they "supported traditional marriage and stopping abortion". Every time I see those commercials, I wave my hands in the air asking "Why? WHYYY?". I have nevereverever had a problem with homosexuals and I think that there are legitimate reasons for abortion. Granted, I still think adoption is the best way to go, but if you have a legitimate reason to get an abortion (like, the baby has anecephaly, so they'll be missing a huge chunk of their brain and will most likely die soon after being born) then I don't think it should be up to the people in government who do not even know the names of the people. You should read this article about a pro-life woman who had an abortion at six months because her baby was very unhealthy. It is so heart-wrenching and it has really changed the opinions of some pro-life people whom I've shared it with. (Seriously, get out the tissues before you read this, I cried forever when I read it!) www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.htmlI think the government is overextending their power a lot. I feel like I can't do much anymore without it creating a problem, especially artistic things That sounds like libertarianism, for small government. Dems want big government and bureaucracy, and overextended power (ie, telling you what you can eat by banning trans fats) Basically, the people who are not supporting gay rights and want to stop abortion are basing it purely off Christian beliefs. I won't deny the fact that Christians are the majority. I just think that a government basing the laws it passes off those beliefs is inherently flawed (and you're not even supposed to do that in America). Seriously, the Christian right is scary. Being the majority is one thing, but forcing the rest of us to abide by Christian ideals is quite another. It is so hypocritical that we tell Middle Easterners that their oppressive religious governments are wrong, yet the same people who say that are the ones who want us to be forced to pray to a Christian god in school, to pledge our allegiance to a nation "under God," to base our sexuality on what the Bible says. One last thing that bothers me is that people are saying "we aren't ready for a woman/black president". Well, if we aren't ready now then we will never be ready. America says it prides itself on its equality and diversity, yet we seem very reluctant to let non-white men into important offices. *frowns* The people who say that crap are idiots, to be honest. I hate it when people say stupid things like that; race/gender/whatever shouldn't matter. At all. I think a woman president would be nice. Just not Hilary; she changes her tune too often. A woman would rock! But not Hillary. She doesn't even seem like a woman to me at this point; she tries too hard to be a man so she can play with the big boys. I don't really get that whole attitude. When she was first lady she was on Sesame Street showing how she baked cookies. Whatever's most convenient is what she'll be doing. P.S. I think the reason Iowa is not as diverse is that nobody WANTS to live in Iowa. Ain't that the truth! Just having come back from there, I can see why... it was COLD! j/k. Honestly, it's not a bad place, and it is even more "modern" than Alabama is, which I found to be surprising. Iowa has a lot of cities, which I think is really cool... Alabama just has the major three ones all spread out, then a lot of small towns. I love how many cities Iowa has, and how close together they are. But alas, it's effing cold up there. My husband (he's from Iowa) said they are like paying young people to stay there now. o.o
|
|
|
Post by thereisnospoon on Jan 4, 2008 23:59:16 GMT -5
I just want to point out that both parties will have debates tomorrow night.
|
|
|
Post by Betty Ann on Jan 5, 2008 0:05:35 GMT -5
I just want to point out that both parties will have debates tomorrow night. Woot woot! Politics is exciting
|
|
|
Post by thereisnospoon on Jan 5, 2008 0:14:53 GMT -5
I feel I should come to the defense of my party here. Ideally, the Democratic Party wants a government that is energetic and effective---an idea that isn't totally alien to the foundations of this nation. It's never perfect, but I believe the Democrats come closer to what this nation needs at the moment. Then again, I'm sort of biased. The Republican Party, for all of its rhetoric about small government, has been a part of a enormous increase in the federal government that even the Democrats don't want any part of. If anything, I would think Democrats and Libertarians currently see eye to eye on more issues with the GOP being in the state it's in. Be free to worship, I say; just don't drag everyone else into it when they say "no."
|
|
|
Post by Ellethwen on Jan 5, 2008 0:36:57 GMT -5
I recently read a book on Libertarianism for Historical Viewpoints: Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick. This guy is an extreme Libertarian. I agree that the government needs to be scaled down-I've been doing things like signing petitions on MoveOn.org and working on Facebook to stop the FCC from expanding more then it already has. But this guy wants the tiniest government possible. I think he only wants them to make the most basic laws and that's it. That could work in other places in the world, maybe smaller countries, but not here. o.0
Betty Ann, I just finished reading that story and it made me cry. I can't believe Bush would outlaw the process the mother used. It's so ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by BTTF Rini on Jan 5, 2008 3:05:50 GMT -5
This debate reminds me a lot of the arguements I had on this messageboard I go to. Back in 2004, with the previous Presedential elections, we actually almost had a flame war going. Sad part is, I was the only guy making good points and making a good defence for the Dems. *Sigh* I'm mostly Democratic, but some Libertarians make some good vailid points.
Honestly though, I haven't been watching the debates lately. So, I really don't know who is making a good run for the presidentacy right now.
|
|