 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
grizzle
Posts:36
 | | 07/11/2007 3:37 PM |
 Alert | I'm registered Independent. I vote for the person, not the party. I would like some better choices though...It's like that South Park episode a few years ago. Who do you vote for, A giant douche or a turd sandwich??  | | | |
|
| | TU Pablo
Posts:21
| | 07/13/2007 10:45 PM |
Alert | When I was in my teens I thought that I was a Democrat. I grew up during the 1950s and 60s in Western Pennsylvania. Most of local politicians were Democrats because the area was heavily unionized.
My father, however, was an executive with a steel corporation and he was is a Republican.
When it came time for me to register (it was 21 then) I registered Republican. I signed on with the Republican party in order to help obtain summer jobs with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
Later, I moved to Tulsa, OK for law school. Tulsa is heavily Republican so I was in the majority. When I started my law practice and was in charge of earning money and making a payroll I decided that the Republican ideal of less government and lower taxes was for me.
I don't really understand the sense in registering as an independent. Many local elections in Oklahoma are decided in the primaries. For instance, in my State legislative district four Republicans filed for the office. There were no Democratic candidates for the office. Independent voters and of course Democrat voters did not get to vote. | | | |
|
| | Reagan
Posts:737
| | 07/14/2007 8:37 AM |
Alert | Pablo, great story. The Republican party of the 50's and 60's are no more. The Democrats of the 50's and 60's are more conservative than the Republicans of today. At least they could balance a budget back then. The wave of independents is a sign of how feed-up Americans are with the politics of today. Rather than standing strong behind a LEADER, I would bet most Americans cast a vote like I do, the lesser of two evils.
Even though I side more closely with the Republicans than the Democrats, I will not register a Republican until they remember those of us who got them where they are today. | |
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Reagan, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970 | |
|
| | The Nag
Posts:128
| | 07/18/2007 9:57 AM |
Alert | I am a registered Republican. I like to call myself a Liberal Republican. If I had to give a specific reason for being a Republican it would be my views on abortion.
| |
If your too open minded your brains will fall out. | |
|
| | HiggsBoson
Posts:641
| | 07/18/2007 2:12 PM |
Alert | Reagan,
I think the Republocats want and like it that way. So much of their message (on both sides) is not about why they are the best choice, but rather to scare people into voting for them because of what the other "evil" side will do if elected.
| |
Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.
-- Ludwig Von Mises | |
|
| | LadyAmalthea
Posts:86
| | 07/18/2007 3:29 PM |
Alert | I'm registered as "Independent". Have been since I turned 18. I don't fit neatly into either of the two major party's platforms. I guess you could say I'm a gun-toting bleeding-heart.  | |
"Ain't nothin' but a barn dance, sugar. Ain't nothin' but a round de round" - Sara Tidwell and the High Tops | |
|
|  | Michelle
Posts:102
| | 07/18/2007 6:36 PM |
Alert | | I'm a registered Democrat, but most of what I believe falls more in line with the Libertarian Party than the DNC. I hesitate at changing my registration because while I agree with much of the party platform, the Libertarians have yet to produce a candidate I feel I could support in a major election. |
|
I used to be Chelle.
"Well-behaved women seldom make history." - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2559
| | 07/18/2007 8:39 PM |
Alert | That's always been a problem with the Libertarians, Chelle. The best candidates we had were Lyndon LaRouche and George Wallace back in the 70's, and they were both whack jobs.
If our political process ever becomes more about picking a leader and less about marketing, we'll have a chance. We have had some outstanding people as candidates, but there was no name recognition and no well-financed campaign to achieve it. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | NEZ
Posts:515
| | 07/19/2007 7:28 AM |
Alert | | Roy Innis would make a great president. But, why would he want to run?? | |
AmyG steals lil' nick nacks from your home.
Don't let AmyG in your house. | |
|
| | LeonPotter
Posts:508
| | 07/25/2007 3:11 PM |
Alert | I grew up in a household of democrats. I registered democrat at 18. I wasn't informed of issues on any side. By age 24, I began to pay more attention to the world( Especially the financial part of it.) The theme that I heard from dems over and over was "the republicans are for the rich and the dems for the poor". The dems helped me looked inward instead of outward.The question AND answer then became apparent to me. "Do I want to be rich or do I want to be poor?" I have been a registered Republican since.
However, I feel I'm more aligned with liberterian ideals. For instance, a consumption tax versus an income tax.
I'm not big on politics anymore. But, hey, it is what it is. I play to win within the rules of the game. If the rules change, I'll win at that, too.
I do hold an appreciation for the DNC, the party helped me evaluate what I wanted in my life. | |
My answer is "NO" to Q#5 and Q#1.
Proverbs 22:7
The rich ruleth over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender. | |
|
| | cptpizza
Posts:73
| | 07/25/2007 9:15 PM |
Alert | A friend once explained it like this to me.
1. When you are young and don't have anything, you are a democrat (because you want the government to help you out all the time.
2. When you get a little older and start to get on your feet, you realize that you can determine the best way to spend your money better than the government can.
3. When you get really old, you need the government again (for healthcare, since no insurance company in their right mind will cover you at a reasonable price.)
Personally, I am in stage 2. I registered as independant when I turned 18. As I got older, I found that my political philosophies fell more in line with the right than the left, so I re-registered.
Although, after the immigration bill deboggle, I am voting for Goofy in the next presidential race (and every seat in the Senate for that matter.)
| | | |
|
| | LeonPotter
Posts:508
| | 07/26/2007 6:57 AM |
Alert | 1) I was registered dem because everyone else in my immediate family was. I never felt I needed the government. I just wasn't informed. So, it wan't a case of not having anything, but a case of not knowing anything.
2) very true. That is my core belief.
3) I don't see myself registering dnc because I need healthcare. I don't believe in insurance now.(another topic).
However, I do find myself hoping that Clinton or Obama pull it off. Not necessarily because I agree with them on issues, but because I would like to see a breakthru in this fine nation of a female and minority to have the highest ELECTED position.
We took a huge stride when Speaker Pelosi took her position. I definitely don't agee with her on many a issue, but i'm glad to see the highest position in the House and the third highest position, as defined in the U.S consitution behind the Pres ad VP, to be open to all. | |
My answer is "NO" to Q#5 and Q#1.
Proverbs 22:7
The rich ruleth over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender. | |
|
| | cptpizza
Posts:73
| | 07/26/2007 7:26 PM |
Alert | I know this is going to come across as sexist, but I am going to put it out there anyway...
Though the American public may be ready, I do not believe the world is ready for a female President. It has nothing to do with a lack of ability to do the job, as I don't feel thats the case. Females are more than adequately capable of doing the job.
I look at the world's major problem's and many of them reside in the middle east, in Muslim nations, where they have absolutely no respect for women. It makes me fear for the future of our country when leaders of many of these terrorist nations will not take our president seriously.
As far as Obama, let him finish a few terms in the Senate before we start putting him in charge of the whole country. I just don't think he is experienced enough to be president. Not to mention, I don't agree with his politics.
Or Hillary's for that matter... | | | |
|
| | GilaGuy
Posts:789
| | 07/27/2007 12:28 AM |
Alert | Posted By LeonPotter on 07/26/2007 6:57 AM
However, I do find myself hoping that Clinton or Obama pull it off. Not necessarily because I agree with them on issues, but because I would like to see a breakthru in this fine nation of a female and minority to have the highest ELECTED position.
We took a huge stride when Speaker Pelosi took her position. I definitely don't agee with her on many a issue, but i'm glad to see the highest position in the House and the third highest position, as defined in the U.S consitution behind the Pres ad VP, to be open to all.
Your candor is refreshing. But I have to ask this. I mean this as an open question, and not as a slam towards you or anyone else who holds this belief.
How is rooting for Obama because of the color of his skin, or Clinton because of the genitals she was born with, any better than rooting against those two for those reasons?
Surely, anyone who would refuse to vote for Obama solely because of the color of his skin would handily be written off as a racist. And just as surely, anyone who would vote against Clinton solely because of the gender she was born into would quickly be written off as a sexist.
My point is this. We either should be against discrimination in all forms, or not. Why is it okay for some to prefer individuals based upon race or gender, but not others? | | | |
|
| | alanf
Posts:1473
| | 07/27/2007 11:14 AM |
Alert | | Hillary Was Born As A Female? | | | |
|
| | Reagan
Posts:737
| | 07/27/2007 2:21 PM |
Alert | Posted By cptpizza on 07/26/2007 7:26 PM
I know this is going to come across as sexist, but I am going to put it out there anyway...
Though the American public may be ready, I do not believe the world is ready for a female President. It has nothing to do with a lack of ability to do the job, as I don't feel thats the case. Females are more than adequately capable of doing the job.
I look at the world's major problem's and many of them reside in the middle east, in Muslim nations, where they have absolutely no respect for women. It makes me fear for the future of our country when leaders of many of these terrorist nations will not take our president seriously.
As far as Obama, let him finish a few terms in the Senate before we start putting him in charge of the whole country. I just don't think he is experienced enough to be president. Not to mention, I don't agree with his politics.
Or Hillary's for that matter...
Well, I find myself out of place offering this opinion, but here is my two cents. Not because I am against women, but the only one currently running I disagree with on almost everything that comes out of her mouth.
I have no problem with a female President. I have thought very long and hard on your point of being respected by nations who don't recongize women as a part of their society.
I think this really doesn't matter. Here are the 2 points I think would work strong for a female President.
1. A strong willed female that doesn't have any respect from a country is more likely to be more stern to these countries. Maybe she wouldn't accept Pakistan harboring terrorist in their mountains? Maybe her thought would be "You don't like me anyways, so too bad, here comes the bombs."? This could work great on many counties in the middle east.
2. Being that women are more emotional than men, maybe they would take a fresh look at the way we are handling Iraq and other countries. A smart women would know we can't leave Iraq to the hands of terrorists. I know this excuse was used in Vietnam, that they would follow us here, however, they never did. Iraq and Islamist terrorist are different though. They have already been here. 9/11. Maybe with their emotions and their great knowledge, they would give an ultimatum. Start taking care of yourselves, or we will leave. And we when do, your country will look like a huge parking lot because we will solve the problem from 42,000 feet.
That being said, I don't know if that is how things will happen or not. Hillary voted for the war, and no matter what excuse she uses, she had great knowledge of what was going on there. She did live in the White House for 8 years, just 2 years before we went to war. I will give Hillary credit for her foreign policy stance the other night. She said she wouldn't open up communication is rouge nations until she knew their intentions. She wouldn't be used for propoganda by terrorist states. I agree, but then again, who knows what the elected Mrs Clinton would do, as opposed to the candiate Mrs Clinton. | |
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
Reagan, Los Angeles Times, January 7, 1970 | |
|
| | LeonPotter
Posts:508
| | 07/27/2007 8:31 PM |
Alert | I will support whatever the outcome is for our president. I was only stating I would like to our fine nation to move beyond racial and gender preferences. Ironically, my wanting so only brings it up.
I believe there is a misconception about Muslims and Muslim nations regarding women. I was fortunate to be at a speech given about Muslim teachings such as the Quaran. I'm summing up what I remember: Muslims are to be respectful of positions of authority regardless of gender. For instance, Margaret Thatcher was viewed as honorable for her position for England.
As regards for women in general, the concept is similar to Christian teaching, a man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. | |
My answer is "NO" to Q#5 and Q#1.
Proverbs 22:7
The rich ruleth over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender. | |
|
| | GilaGuy
Posts:789
| | 07/28/2007 4:13 AM |
Alert | Posted By LeonPotter on 07/27/2007 8:31 PM
I will support whatever the outcome is for our president. I was only stating I would like to our fine nation to move beyond racial and gender preferences. Ironically, my wanting so only brings it up.
Yes, that's sort of what I was getting at. This is the 21st Century. None of us are purebred anything at this point, so it would seem that the whole hypersensitive racialism that we have on both sides in this country is an anachronism. I'd like to be rid of the "identity politics" that took hold in the 1960s, but I think it'll take another few generations before we get there. Which is a shame. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|