Another reason to vote against republicans

[peaceloveunderstanding]

then he/they should gladly welcome inquiries and REAL investigations to prove they are doing nothing.

They should, and I hope that real investigations will take place. I do agree that the republicans shouldn't have tried to impeach Clinton, especially with Gingrich and his extraoffice activities. But I'm not yet convinced that Bush has lied about anything but it's possible that he was fed misinformation. Maybe my biases are clouding my judgement...

I never said I'm a proud republican but I do agree with many, not all, of the party's traditional platform. That the platform is not carried faithfully is unfortunate yes, but I couldn't really vote for the democratic platform on principle. I may have to look more into the liberatarian platform but they are so poor at organzing, they don't stand a chance.

As for sharing, I feel that can better allocate my money to helping people who have potential than the government can. There is also a difference between the Federal government providing a loan and providing cash.

[monsoon]

I never said I'm a proud republican but I do agree with many, not all, of the party's traditional platform.

The Republican Party's traditional platform was tossed aside when Bush Sr. took office in 1988.

[Charlotte_native]

Once again, my pipe-dream, a real viable third party. I believe in republican and democratic principals. I believe in fiscal responsibilty -- if you take my money, spend it wisely. I believe in personal freedom. I believe in helping my fellow man. I believe in the death penalty for very specific certain cases. I believe I have no right to tell a woman to have a baby if she does not want to. I believe doctors, not politicians should decide whether marijuana has a medical use. I believe in smaller government. I believe in the separation of Church and state and that everyone should worship as they please.

These mingle between both parties. Unfortunately we only have two REAL parties to choose from so we all compromise. If I have to err one way or another, I will err on the side of helping my fellow man and maybe paying too much in taxes (though I don't believe we really pay more under anyone, you pay one way or another unless services cease) over taking freedom away or fighting wars many or most of us don't believe in. I don't like the open corporate theives that have raped us since 9-11 and definitely don't like the obvious ties between the administration and those profiteers.

In wars past, the revolutionary war, the civil war, profiteers were considered lower than traitors. What a change we have now.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

You guys are right about corporate welfare, I believed I touched on that somewhere in here.

I'm not so sure that my problems with social welfare are derived from the idea of helping people but rather they are failed programs that are actually hurting people using my money. Poverty rates have risen among minorities, literacy rates have fallen, and there is still a tremendous gap between whites and say blacks. 'Progressive' education has set us behind the rest of the world while we spend more money on each student than we ever have. We are doing less with more, and the only way to stop it is to start from scratch and throw out the government. I want the best for humanity, but I don't believe throwing dollars at it helps anyone. As such I do donate to charities, but for people that have potential. I'm not so fond of helping the hopeless or giving second chances, but people should at least have one chance. I don't like to have my hand forced either, I like to choose where I can put my dollars.

I probably sound in contradiction of my previous posts but it may be that I was trying to prove a point in my other posts. The current system of helping people doesn't work, it hasn't worked since the great society. A new system has to be put in place that emphasizes personal development, no one is the same, one size does not fit all. The government can't handle that. Telling people that they aren't succeeding because whitey is hindering their progress won't help at all. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their lives.

There is no hatred of poor people from me, only of the lazy and those that take advantage of people. I've made my money in the most ethical manner possible, through hard work and actually providing an useful service without scamming and to see it go to some of these scams telling people that there is a ceiling and someone limiting their progress is outrageous. Single motherhood, something I probably shouldn't have mentioned in the name of good taste, is epidemic in this country and should be slowed, there are exceptions but much of it is a result of feminism as 70% of divorces are started by the women. There could be other reasons, but from what I see feminism preaches that the man isn't needed and that women can raise children just fine on their own. It doesn't work that way, and statistics show (a poor argument but I have things to do, and I need to wrap this up).

As for the taxes, I don't want to see more failed programs and see my taxes go up. We live in an age of deficits and the bill will come due some day. Once they start getting more money, they want more and more. The only way to get accountability and efficiency is to provide them with less money. We need to start doing more with less.

I know I haven't produced much if any evidence to support my vote of republicanism, I see I have barely a leg to stand on there. I will need to think about that between now and November. Consider my part in this discussion over. I'm going to need to work to 4:00 AM to make up the lost time discussing this.

Thanks for the good thinking material. Ideas are what these forums are all about.

[Charlotte_native]

Civil debate is always worthwhile.

[Clobber]

there is no unborn if conception never occurs, which is what contraception prevents. i actually learned more about the emergency contraceptive today as it's possibly becoming non-prescription for those over 18. it works in the same way the birth control pill does, only it's a higher dose of it taken at once. it works in 2 ways, either preventing fertilization or preventing implantation. the latter is where the blurred lines occur. it depends on your definition of pregnancy. for some, it's the moment of fertilization, but for others it's the implantation of the fertilized egg in the lining of the uterus. because i believe that a baby cannot be born without implantation (which is medically accurate), it's still contraception and not abortion. RU-486 (the abortion pill) works differently from the emergency contraceptive (aka, the morning after pill or plan b). RU-486 actually ends a pregnancy after fertilization and implantation have occurred. so no, the emergency contraceptive is not ending the life of an unborn child.

now, onto why i believe pro-death penalty and pro-life are inconsistent beliefs... it's mainly a beef i have with conservative christians. they say they believe in jesus and what he taught, but if you read what he taught, he taught non-violence. in fact, i believe he was the one who said "if someone hits you on one cheek turn and give him the other". it's completely contrary to the old testament's "eye for an eye", which is exactly what the death penalty is. i also believe you're pro-life, for all life, or you shoudl not be calling yourself pro-life at all. but when the death penalty comes into play, it's not so much taking the life of a murder vs the life of an innocent unborn child. it's more taking away a life, any life. in jesus' eyes, we're all equal, including murders. i am not a religious person, however, yet i do feel that way. everyone is equal. besides, it's more punishment to rot in prison for the rest of your life thinking about what you did, making license plates for the state rather than be killed off. however, having a lot of people spending life in prison is not consistent with the abilities of the prison system when we lock up non-violent offenders, another beef i have with the republican party... the war on drugs.

I misread your conception argument. But, you did attach conditions to your abortion support, and the conditions/appeals process to execute a murderer is far more detailed and involved than those conditions.

I have many problems with conservative Christians as well, stemming primarily from the corruptibility of a centralized church, any centralized church, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim. I don't support the indoctrination of children into the religion of the parents. But that is a digression. I don't think you can read christian philosophy into the pro-death/pro-life evaluation, because not everyone who is pro-death/pro-life is christian, or even religious. How are their views inconsistent if you stress so much on christian philosophy. Basically your argument is how the pro-death/pro-life view is inconsistent with Christianity, which I can neither deny nor support. That's different from focusing on the sole pro-death penalty/pro-life issue. You did hint on this a little though, and I disagree with your black and white view. I don't know you, but it's rare that I observe anyone is black and white on everything. I doubt you are, so I'm making an assumption there are issues where you recognize grey areas (which you alluded to in your abortion evaluation). From my view, certain actions absolutely justify death. Not many actions -- they're extremely rare, not even the general taking of a life, but a despicable subset of that. Under that context, you preserve the lives of those who do not fall into that despicable subset, and even then you have to go through an extensive screening and review process. If you're outside that subset, it's not an issue. Unless you're the unborn. Then you're perceived as deserving of the same result as murderers.

We can go into the issues of the detention system/ACLU (I got many thoughts about that).

[Clobber]

Nobody, let alone the Bush administration, has produced any detailed studies on what is going on with the SS trust fund. As usual this Administration is big on words, very very scant on details. Conservatives have been predicting the death of SS almost since the day FDR signed it into law, it yet here we are many decades later and that has not happened. And consider this. The Bush Plan if implemented would take more than 26 years to implement for most people. Meanwhile hundreds of millions of tax dollars would be headed to the corporations of America. It is corporate welfare at its worst.

Well I think that says it all. The Bush Administration counts on this fact. It is a known fact, you can search for it if you like, that the Bush plan came directly from Karl Rove.

I don't dispute Rove's influence within the Bush administration in promoting the current plan. The dude's a tool. I question the insinuation that SS emerged as an issue in the American psyche at the hands of the Bush administration, or even Republicans in general.

I also question the long-term stability of SS. I think the stats lay out that given the aging of the baby boomers it will create a burden recognized by even liberals upon the current and future generations of baby boomers. There is a problem, and I think everyone agrees with that. The issue is whether the Rove administration can provide an effective solution.

I'll read up on some of the SS stuff and get back on that.

[Clobber]

You're right. Rich white men have a long, painful history of being oppressed.

Seeking to offer a helping hand to the disadvantaged does not equal hatred toward the priviledged. Isn't it the single most important aspect of that Christianity thing the conservatives like to flaunt?

Christian conservatives do not constitute all conservatives. The current leadership of the GOP gives enormous, perhaps dominant weight on assuaging their concerns, but there are many conservatives who do not follow that. Additionally, I'd hazard to guess that in their private lives, most of the Christian conservatives are extremely charitable, in time if not in money. I don't think you can extrapolate that if a person is not charitable in government, that he is not charitable or compassionate period. In my view, liberals aren't so much about hate-mongering; it seems to be more about spreading dependence on government, which I do not think is compassionate in the least. And there doesn't seem to be much motivation among liberal feudal lords to reform safety-net programs to become more effective and efficient. My faith in private-sector social programs far exceeds that of government programs. Liberal policies as espoused by the Democratic party thus far do not appear to promote self-reliance, they do not promote individuals' graduation into independence from government, statistics do not boast how many folks previously served no longer require government intervention. It is more about, you need this from us, you need our help, you cannot do this on your own, we shouldn't expect you to do this on your own. That's what I see in liberal programs. I don't think the current GOP is providing a stark contrast to liberalism, b/c I view Christian conservatives as selectively liberal, and not true conservatives at all. They too, like liberals, want to intrude the governmental authority into the lives of the private citizen, just on different issues than liberals.

There needs to be a true conservative national party that advocates deference to the localities (you might be surprised that I support local liberals more than national ones, primarily because liberals need extensive supervision, and people can supervise the local politicians more closely than on a national level), and advocates consistent restraint on the national level. You would probably get a broader diversity of programs among states, a variation that would allow citizens to choose where they want to live, and how intrusive the government is. Local government couldn't "undo" national intrusion. But local government, by being liberal, could essentially "undo" national restraint.

[Clobber]

You guys are right about corporate welfare, I believed I touched on that somewhere in here.

I'm not so sure that my problems with social welfare are derived from the idea of helping people but rather they are failed programs that are actually hurting people using my money. Poverty rates have risen among minorities, literacy rates have fallen, and there is still a tremendous gap between whites and say blacks. 'Progressive' education has set us behind the rest of the world while we spend more money on each student than we ever have. We are doing less with more, and the only way to stop it is to start from scratch and throw out the government. I want the best for humanity, but I don't believe throwing dollars at it helps anyone. As such I do donate to charities, but for people that have potential. I'm not so fond of helping the hopeless or giving second chances, but people should at least have one chance. I don't like to have my hand forced either, I like to choose where I can put my dollars.

I probably sound in contradiction of my previous posts but it may be that I was trying to prove a point in my other posts. The current system of helping people doesn't work, it hasn't worked since the great society. A new system has to be put in place that emphasizes personal development, no one is the same, one size does not fit all. The government can't handle that. Telling people that they aren't succeeding because whitey is hindering their progress won't help at all. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their lives.

There is no hatred of poor people from me, only of the lazy and those that take advantage of people. I've made my money in the most ethical manner possible, through hard work and actually providing an useful service without scamming and to see it go to some of these scams telling people that there is a ceiling and someone limiting their progress is outrageous. Single motherhood, something I probably shouldn't have mentioned in the name of good taste, is epidemic in this country and should be slowed, there are exceptions but much of it is a result of feminism as 70% of divorces are started by the women. There could be other reasons, but from what I see feminism preaches that the man isn't needed and that women can raise children just fine on their own. It doesn't work that way, and statistics show (a poor argument but I have things to do, and I need to wrap this up).

As for the taxes, I don't want to see more failed programs and see my taxes go up. We live in an age of deficits and the bill will come due some day. Once they start getting more money, they want more and more. The only way to get accountability and efficiency is to provide them with less money. We need to start doing more with less.

I know I haven't produced much if any evidence to support my vote of republicanism, I see I have barely a leg to stand on there. I will need to think about that between now and November. Consider my part in this discussion over. I'm going to need to work to 4:00 AM to make up the lost time discussing this.

Thanks for the good thinking material. Ideas are what these forums are all about.

You and I probably agree on quite a few things. One, liberalism does not provide enough to justify at least our personal faith in it. However, the current leadership of the GOP is alienating us with recent actions by Rove, which don't address the issues we feel are priorities. We want the GOP to work to show that conservatism is inherently more compassionate that you don't even need to use the words "compassionate conservatism," but to implement it, you need to cut the fat of some of these distracting issues that seem to predominate the GOP. The GOP's current priorities aren't mine, and they seem dismissive of the conservative issues that are my priorities. AS the GOP has grown less conservative by becoming more religious, I have grown less Republican.

[runawayjim]

I misread your conception argument. But, you did attach conditions to your abortion support, and the conditions/appeals process to execute a murderer is far more detailed and involved than those conditions.

I have many problems with conservative Christians as well, stemming primarily from the corruptibility of a centralized church, any centralized church, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim. I don't support the indoctrination of children into the religion of the parents. But that is a digression. I don't think you can read christian philosophy into the pro-death/pro-life evaluation, because not everyone who is pro-death/pro-life is christian, or even religious. How are their views inconsistent if you stress so much on christian philosophy. Basically your argument is how the pro-death/pro-life view is inconsistent with Christianity, which I can neither deny nor support. That's different from focusing on the sole pro-death penalty/pro-life issue. You did hint on this a little though, and I disagree with your black and white view. I don't know you, but it's rare that I observe anyone is black and white on everything. I doubt you are, so I'm making an assumption there are issues where you recognize grey areas (which you alluded to in your abortion evaluation). From my view, certain actions absolutely justify death. Not many actions -- they're extremely rare, not even the general taking of a life, but a despicable subset of that. Under that context, you preserve the lives of those who do not fall into that despicable subset, and even then you have to go through an extensive screening and review process. If you're outside that subset, it's not an issue. Unless you're the unborn. Then you're perceived as deserving of the same result as murderers.

We can go into the issues of the detention system/ACLU (I got many thoughts about that).

i brought up christianity because many of my morals stem from that, but i also don't like a centralized church structure that doesn't give you any views to pick and choose. i believe in religion only for the morals it sets forth... such as the ten commandments, while very christian (and jewish i suppose), they're basic morals that everyone should live by (with the exception of the first couple... about worshipping only one god and the sabbath day thing). but that's a digression...

i don't believe in an eye for an eye. i don't think it's right. i think everyone deserves a fair chance, whether they kill one or many. that fair chance might be rotting in prison for the rest of their lives, but it's better than death (and worse for some). i also believe people deserve the right to take their own lives (and if they kill themselves while rotting in prison for the rest of their lives, they got the death penalty you like). the prison system sucks and the death penalty alleviates that to a small degree. unfortunately, many of the people in the prison system should not be there, like non-violent drug offenders. so i don't think there's any reason to put someone to death when there's a nice prison cell waiting for them to think about what they did for eternity. there's no grey area in my views on the death penalty.

as for abortion, there are 2 grey areas... mother's life is in danger (which, they can generally induce labor or perform a C section and hope the child lives, and many times it does) or rape (which is the more grey of the 2 because i believe you can have the child and learn to love it after some intense therapy sessions, but i don't have serious problem with abortion in that situation). all other situations are simply using abortion as a form of contraceptive. it's not to be used that way. i don't know what your views on the emergency contraceptive are, but i put it pretty black and white because when it comes to that pill, it's fairly black and white... it prevents pregnancy, not put an end to one already in existence. because of the grey areas with abortion, it needs to remain legal for the time being with parental notification for those under 18 (except in situations where the minor is being abused, but in those cases, the parents should be under investigation). i am ultimately pro-life, i don't really think anyone should be having an abortion. i am not pro-choice because i believe women have a right to kill an unborn child because the condom broke. i think that's arrogant and despicable. i have other views when the woman is married, but they're a bit different than what most are willing to accept, so i won't share them here. but by no means are they chauvenistic or degrading towards women, they're just different.

so that all being said... back to the morals thing and ethics. i don't think it's right to be in favor of taking one person's life while at the same time being against taking another person's. it's contradictory and pretty black and white. think about it this way... the life you take in execution could be a great mind who went off the deep end, but the justice system didn't work for them... while the life you save could be the next charlie manson or ted bundy or osama bin laden. granted you can never tell... but you never know. and that's why i think you shoudl let everyone live. i think it's a cop out to execute people... there's also the problem with executing someone who might later be found innocent, which is a big issue i have and a big reason i'm against the death penalty. it's better to take several years from someone's life than to take the entire life.

[Snowguy716]

Someone asked me in a different thread why Minnesota was as liberal as it is, considering its geographic location.

I don't think Minnesota is "liberal", I just think Minnesotans have common sense solutions for societies problems and accept government as a force for good, as long as it is transparent and includes heavy involvement from its citizens.

This attitude brought the Minnesota Miracle, which reformed the school funding system to be funded by the general fund (out of sales taxes and income taxes) which drastically reduced property taxes (the most unfair tax) and gave property-poor districts a better chance.

We have the lowest number of uninsured people in the nation because our Republican governor of the 1990s believed that everyone should be insured and that good health care was a right. He created a government sponsored and funded program to provide health insurance to low-income workers. He believed that by giving everyone an equal chance to succeed, that they would. (Give them work, health insurance, a good education, and help them a bit to begin with, and people would thrive... it's something today's Republicans can't quite grasp... because they're all about ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME).

We have a large middle class, high graduation rates, we are consistently in the top 5 for public schools, have the best health and highest life expectancy of any state, and the 2nd lowest poverty rate in the country.

This level of excellency was not achieved through what I call "modern Conservatism" that is taking hold in the suburbs. This "F U! I want lower taxes" attitude is eroding at our good quality of life. It was this legacy of common sense that gave most of those people the boost they needed to be successful and get a 5,000 sq. ft. behemoth in the suburbs, and now they're electing idiots like Tim Pawlenty who answered to criticism by state DFLers regarding cuts to our state health care program that some people might die because of the cuts, but that was something we had to accept because of the budget deficit we had.

Good... some Grandma with a heart problem in rural Minnesota heads to the casket because T-Paw wouldn't raise taxes so his selfish suburban counterparts would stop whining.

We also have one of the lowest correlations of people attending church regularly and voting with republicans. That's because all Minnesota Christians know that when it's -30*F in January, gay marriage doesn't matter when the heat is shut off because heating assistance was cut by the same party.

We made the democratic party a good, decent party after World War 2 by promoting civil rights, equality, and avoiding costly conflicts that left thousands dead for no good reason (Check: Humphrey, Mondale) other than other Democrats trying to look tough on communism.... but some people couldn't stand that.. and now we have George W. Bush for president...

Oh well, life is still pretty good in Minnesota... and I'll fight to continue that legacy in November.

[monsoon]

A Republican PR Firm, DCI, which is funded in part by ExxonMobile, were the producer of the spoof on Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth about global warming. The reason this is important is the spoof was produced in such a why hide the real backers of the spoof and instead make it appear to come from a 29 year old who didn't believe in Global Warming. I think this speaks volumes about the real nature of the Republican Party and who is their masters. It certainly isn't the common person.

[Clobber]

i brought up christianity because many of my morals stem from that, but i also don't like a centralized church structure that doesn't give you any views to pick and choose. i believe in religion only for the morals it sets forth... such as the ten commandments, while very christian (and jewish i suppose), they're basic morals that everyone should live by (with the exception of the first couple... about worshipping only one god and the sabbath day thing). but that's a digression...

i don't believe in an eye for an eye. i don't think it's right. i think everyone deserves a fair chance, whether they kill one or many. that fair chance might be rotting in prison for the rest of their lives, but it's better than death (and worse for some). i also believe people deserve the right to take their own lives (and if they kill themselves while rotting in prison for the rest of their lives, they got the death penalty you like). the prison system sucks and the death penalty alleviates that to a small degree. unfortunately, many of the people in the prison system should not be there, like non-violent drug offenders. so i don't think there's any reason to put someone to death when there's a nice prison cell waiting for them to think about what they did for eternity. there's no grey area in my views on the death penalty.

as for abortion, there are 2 grey areas... mother's life is in danger (which, they can generally induce labor or perform a C section and hope the child lives, and many times it does) or rape (which is the more grey of the 2 because i believe you can have the child and learn to love it after some intense therapy sessions, but i don't have serious problem with abortion in that situation). all other situations are simply using abortion as a form of contraceptive. it's not to be used that way. i don't know what your views on the emergency contraceptive are, but i put it pretty black and white because when it comes to that pill, it's fairly black and white... it prevents pregnancy, not put an end to one already in existence. because of the grey areas with abortion, it needs to remain legal for the time being with parental notification for those under 18 (except in situations where the minor is being abused, but in those cases, the parents should be under investigation). i am ultimately pro-life, i don't really think anyone should be having an abortion. i am not pro-choice because i believe women have a right to kill an unborn child because the condom broke. i think that's arrogant and despicable. i have other views when the woman is married, but they're a bit different than what most are willing to accept, so i won't share them here. but by no means are they chauvenistic or degrading towards women, they're just different.

so that all being said... back to the morals thing and ethics. i don't think it's right to be in favor of taking one person's life while at the same time being against taking another person's. it's contradictory and pretty black and white. think about it this way... the life you take in execution could be a great mind who went off the deep end, but the justice system didn't work for them... while the life you save could be the next charlie manson or ted bundy or osama bin laden. granted you can never tell... but you never know. and that's why i think you shoudl let everyone live. i think it's a cop out to execute people... there's also the problem with executing someone who might later be found innocent, which is a big issue i have and a big reason i'm against the death penalty. it's better to take several years from someone's life than to take the entire life.

We can just agree to disagree I guess, it sounds like you don't make a distinction between the actions of the murderer and the actions of the non-murderer, when it comes to the death penalty. While I think that the murderer has earned a more egregious penalty, after going through a number of filtering processes (juries, appeals, etc). I can't fathom the deference that you appear to give those who face the death penalty, not to call you out, just to be honest, I don't see it. It sounds like moral relativism gone amuck to me.

When it comes to the prison system, I agree it sucks, but I venture to guess we disagree as to why. I don't think that prisoners should have luxuries that most inner-city residents have to struggle to obtain. No prisoner should have cable or porn. I'll even venture to say no prisoner should have a/c without working for it by raising crops and stamping license plates. Ask anyone with incomes under 20K; a/c isn't a staple; it isn't easy to pay for even for law-abiding citizens who aren't mooching off of society after committing parasitic acts against it. It shouldn't be a progress in lifestyle when an inner city person goes into the big-house. The lives of prisoners are more luxurious than I would prefer granting them (the ACLU lawsuits are infamous), and taxpayers spend too much to house and sustain them. Ideally, and I know the ACLU would get their panties in a wad, but each prison should be a sweatshop where the prisoners earn their housing and food, produce for society, and maybe even earn trade skills when (if) they get out so they can become productive members of society.

I agree some laws are ridiculous. I'm all for repealing unnecessary laws.

[runawayjim]

We can just agree to disagree I guess, it sounds like you don't make a distinction between the actions of the murderer and the actions of the non-murderer, when it comes to the death penalty. While I think that the murderer has earned a more egregious penalty, after going through a number of filtering processes (juries, appeals, etc). I can't fathom the deference that you appear to give those who face the death penalty, not to call you out, just to be honest, I don't see it. It sounds like moral relativism gone amuck to me.

When it comes to the prison system, I agree it sucks, but I venture to guess we disagree as to why. I don't think that prisoners should have luxuries that most inner-city residents have to struggle to obtain. No prisoner should have cable or porn. I'll even venture to say no prisoner should have a/c without working for it by raising crops and stamping license plates. Ask anyone with incomes under 20K; a/c isn't a staple; it isn't easy to pay for even for law-abiding citizens who aren't mooching off of society after committing parasitic acts against it. It shouldn't be a progress in lifestyle when an inner city person goes into the big-house. The lives of prisoners are more luxurious than I would prefer granting them (the ACLU lawsuits are infamous), and taxpayers spend too much to house and sustain them. Ideally, and I know the ACLU would get their panties in a wad, but each prison should be a sweatshop where the prisoners earn their housing and food, produce for society, and maybe even earn trade skills when (if) they get out so they can become productive members of society.

I agree some laws are ridiculous. I'm all for repealing unnecessary laws.

i actually agree about prison. i also don't think federal prison (where the likes of former providence mayor buddy cianci is residing currently) should be like a day camp. my issue with the prison system and why it sucks is more the overcrowding than anything else, which is why i don't think people arrested for recreational drug use should be put in prison just for using the drugs. but to go along with de-criminalization of drugs, they shoudln't allow addicts to claim insanity or prevent employers from terminating their positions just because they're "in rehab". get most of those people out of jail and you have a lot more room in prison. let the others duke it out and if they get killed, there's the death penalty (like andrea yates for example... she'd be an easy target in prison, kind of like jeffrey dahmer was).

[Charlotteman]

I didn't read the entire thread yet, as this is my first visit to this particular thread. So if I'm repitious here, please forgive:)

One of the main reasons why I vote against republicans:

Republicans run on platforms of "fiscal responsibility" but yet run the most outlandish budget deficits imaginable~~~

Jimmy Carter's largest deficit was somewhere around $60 billion for one year. Reagan, who followed Carter immediately started running up deficits over $200 billion annually. AND to top it off, under Reagan the biggest tax increase in history occurred (1986)

George Herbert Walker Bush, the Gemini president of mediocrity ran up even higher deficits than Reagan. George H.W. Bush's deficits were almost $1 trillion in four years!!!

Then under Clinton, there was actually a small SURPLUS! Imagine that, and under a Democrat:)

Now we have Bush II who is running enormous deficits worse than his daddy did. How can anyone possibly call this fiscal responsibilty?????????

[waccamatt]

We can just agree to disagree I guess, it sounds like you don't make a distinction between the actions of the murderer and the actions of the non-murderer, when it comes to the death penalty. While I think that the murderer has earned a more egregious penalty, after going through a number of filtering processes (juries, appeals, etc). I can't fathom the deference that you appear to give those who face the death penalty, not to call you out, just to be honest, I don't see it. It sounds like moral relativism gone amuck to me.

When it comes to the prison system, I agree it sucks, but I venture to guess we disagree as to why. I don't think that prisoners should have luxuries that most inner-city residents have to struggle to obtain. No prisoner should have cable or porn. I'll even venture to say no prisoner should have a/c without working for it by raising crops and stamping license plates. Ask anyone with incomes under 20K; a/c isn't a staple; it isn't easy to pay for even for law-abiding citizens who aren't mooching off of society after committing parasitic acts against it. It shouldn't be a progress in lifestyle when an inner city person goes into the big-house. The lives of prisoners are more luxurious than I would prefer granting them (the ACLU lawsuits are infamous), and taxpayers spend too much to house and sustain them. Ideally, and I know the ACLU would get their panties in a wad, but each prison should be a sweatshop where the prisoners earn their housing and food, produce for society, and maybe even earn trade skills when (if) they get out so they can become productive members of society.

I agree some laws are ridiculous. I'm all for repealing unnecessary laws.

Clobber, on the surface I agree with you about prison air conditioning, but remember prisons are a powderkeg to begin with and Correctional Officers (who don't make alot to begin with) have to work in that horrible environment. I would be willing to bet that prisons with air conditioning have fewer problems than those without. Anyone that's ever been around me on a stifling hot day would certainly agree with that, lol.

[Charlotteman]

To abolish prison air conditioning would be inhumane. The human body is not suited to the kinds of summer temperatures as seen in Kansas, for instance.

In the 1980s Castro threw HIV poz people in dirt-floored prisons with no A.C., or even decent standards of hygeine, etc.

Abolishing A.C. in prison reminds me of Castro's meanness.

[waccamatt]

To abolish prison air conditioning would be inhumane. The human body is not suited to the kinds of summer temperatures as seen in Kansas, for instance.

In the 1980s Castro threw HIV poz people in dirt-floored prisons with no A.C., or even decent standards of hygeine, etc.

Abolishing A.C. in prison reminds me of Castro's meanness.

Let's hope his days in power are numbered and Cuba can become a free society.

[monsoon]

Let's hope his days in power are numbered and Cuba can become a free society.

Too many people buy the "free" rhetoric. It's not clear to me that covering the island with big box retail, chain store fast food, freeways, and sprawling McMansions belonging to rich Americans is something they might want.

[drc72]

Skimming through the whole thread, I must say there are a lot of interesting points of view here. As for the Republican vs Democrat thing, both parties are pretty much corrupt at this point. I tend to be moderate, so I am Republican leaning, but I am not happy with the way the party is going. The Democratic party has gotten way to liberal for my tastes. We need a third party honestly. Maybe the liberterians can gain some strength from this.

[Gusterfell]

I tend to be moderate, so I am Republican leaning, but I am not happy with the way the party is going. The Democratic party has gotten way to liberal for my tastes. We need a third party honestly.

So you're saying you find the Republicans to be more moderate than the Democrats? The US doesn't know what a liberal political party is.

[Snowguy716]

To me, a true liberal party would be one that champions individual liberty.. basically staying out of your personal life... but one that recognizes that corporate excess needs to be reigned in and also recognizing that government can be a force for good.

Basically the Republican party today is run by a bunch of amoral corrupt power-grabbing money-horders that have blown corruption WAY beyond anything the democrats EVER did in their FORTY years of power in the house of representatives.

Give the democrats 40 years, and the house will get corrupt.. but the Republicans have shown us one thing... they can get it twice as corrupt, twice as authoritarian, and twice as out of touch with the American public in 1/4 the time.

It's time to dump Gingrich/DeLay/Boehner/Bush/Cheney/Rove style politics. It'll be a while before I ever vote for a republican on the national level... unless they're damned good.

[drc72]

So you're saying you find the Republicans to be more moderate than the Democrats? The US doesn't know what a liberal political party is.

The Republican party is far from conservative, but is probably more moderate than the Democratic party. The Democrats just seem to be more leftist, than centrists. Not to say that the Republican party has no leftists either. They do have some as well.

[waccamatt]

Too many people buy the "free" rhetoric. It's not clear to me that covering the island with big box retail, chain store fast food, freeways, and sprawling McMansions belonging to rich Americans is something they might want.

I hardly consider those items to be representative of freedom. I was referring to freedom of speech, freedom of association, free elections, etc.

[Snowguy716]

I don't see anything particularly "left" about the democratic party.. unless you mean supporting civil/equal rights for minorities and women as being "leftist" and not the norm.

Democrats have moved to the right over the past 30 years along with the Republicans, which are now very right-of-center. The Republicans tend not to be fiscal conservatives anymore.. but culture conservatives that believe hte Bible should dictate the way we govern and how everyone should live their lives, whether they believe the Bible or not.

The Republican party was not a conservative party in the beginning. They are the ones that fought for freeing the slaves and pushed forth womens' voting rights. They were also quite progressive in the early 20th century pushing for conserving the environment (national Park system and Teddy Roosevelt) and supported isolationist policies. During the 1920s that began to change with pro-business people coming to power.

Americans became increasingly skeptical of republicans during the late 1920s and with the beginning of the depression revolted and joined the democrats. In 1936, the Republican candidate for president won only 2 states: Maine and Vermont. After WWII, the Democrats began to take on a more liberal note pushing for civil rights, which alienated many of the conservative "Dixiecrats" in the south.. many of whom switched to the Republican side.

The Democrats shifted significantly left during the 50s and 60s... but the party divided over issues like the Vietnam war.. and the Dixiecrats continued to put up a fight to keep the party more conservative... hence the presidential election of 1968 in which Humphrey, an anti-war candidate, was beat out by Nixon because the south split off and voted on their own.

During the late 60s and 70s, the Republicans began to become increasingly more Authoritarian with the added component of right-winged Christians. While Evangelical Christians got Jimmy Carter elected in 1976, by 1980 they became disgusted by his diplomacy/war-avoiding fiscal liberal stance on issues, and switched over to Reagan.

Reagan drug the Republican party far to the right on a social front while claiming to be fiscally conservative despite spending record deficits taht would make WWII look like the "good old days". Reagan assaulted social programs that benefit seniors, the poor, students, and supported hawkish foreign policy...

George Bush, while quite a bit further left than his son, brought deficits to new record highs. George H.W Bush apparently became quite angry and hung up on him when George W. Bush told him his plans for Iraq.. I guess it's not like father, like son.

With Democrats losing congress in 1994, the corrupt, power seeking republicans that had been seeking power during the 1980s came to the spotlight.. (Delay and Gingrich).. the amount of corruption brought into the U.S House by these two is digusting. When George W. Bush came to power, it was the perfect combo for the top people in the party. They've cut federal social programs to benefit students (rising interest rates, cut in the pell grant program), veterans benefits, medicare benefits, welfare.. and have increased the defense budget by leaps and bounds.. not to mention the billions and billions spent on Iraq... All the while giving conservative Christians, their largest party base, symbollic gestures and empty promises to outlaw abortion, ban gay marriage, put prayer back in schools, and stop the teaching of evolution.

And people are becoming disgusted with the party in power. Republicans can say that "democrats aren't popular either" or "they cant win, they're too liberal" or whatever smear campaign they want... but there is a momentum building that could quite possibly give democrats control of not only the house, but the senate as well.

Two recent polls between Amy Klobuchar (DFL) and Mark Kennedy for Minnesota's open senate seat have shown Klobuchar to be ahead by 19% in one and 12% in another (taken by the Republican pollsters).. it's clear that people don't like do-nothings that claim to be "independent" and "bi-partisan" but vote with the party 95% of the time... basically, liars.