Did you ever hear of this group? It's a gay republican organization. And people are always making such a big deal about how they are gay AND republican. but there's more to being republican than disapproving of gays and thinking homosexuality is a choice (it is NOT, by the way), right? i'm a gay democrat, but still, i feel i should defend them....they can have republican views on war, ecomnomics, etc., can't they?

Oh, the GOP isn't really anti-gay.

The core of the Republican platform is make the rich richer, comfort the comfortable, and transfer public resources into private hands.

The anti-gay agenda is just a ploy to get the rubes and bigots on board.  Same thing with God, motherhood, and apple pie.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/usa2.gif

???

Oh, the GOP isn't really anti-gay.

The core of the Republican platform is make the rich richer, comfort the comfortable, and transfer public resources into private hands.

The anti-gay agenda is just a ploy to get the rubes and bigots on board.  Same thing with God, motherhood, and apple pie.

And I thought I was cynical...

And I thought I was cynical...


You ain't seen nothin'    ;D

What exactly is going on in that Log Cabin? ???

I hear that they are going to start a lesbian auxiliary called the Mrs. Butterworth Alliance.  ;D ;D

What exactly is going on in that Log Cabin? ???



Well, the Republican party is the party of Lincoln, so they're Lincoln Logs!
:-\\

they probably got the idea from the rumour that lincoln was gay....

they probably got the idea from the rumour that lincoln was gay....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans
According to the wiki entry, the organization did adopt the name from Lincoln's birthplace in a "log cabin," though it does not comment on rumors about Lincoln's homosexuality. 

Their platform is not inconsistent with the majority of the GOP's platform except for the Christian Right-influenced social agenda.

Did you ever hear of this group? It's a gay republican organization.

According to the Wikipedia site, the LCR's are not just restricted to gays.  Lesbians, too are members.

Wikipedia also indcates that the LCR express no opinion about the Transgender issue. I wonder what's up with that? ???

Is Mary Cheney a member of the Log Cabins? 

Even in the GLBTQ community there still is some uneasiness about Transgender issues. Actually from what I've witnessed they're divided on a lot of issues.

Is Mary Cheney a member of the Log Cabins? 

Even in the GLBTQ community there still is some uneasiness about Transgender issues. Actually from what I've witnessed they're divided on a lot of issues.


OK in the PC alphabet soup, what's the difference between Q and GLBT? 

I remember when I first got to the university it was the GLBSA (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Student Association), but then the "transgendered" wanted a separate designation, and the organization wanted to welcome non-student members of the campus community, so they changed the name to the GLBTA.  When I saw the posters in the SU building, I thought, "Now what can that be?  The Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transit Authority?"
(Ring ring ring goes the trolley....)
:P

OK in the PC alphabet soup, what's the difference between Q and GLBT? 

I remember when I first got to the university it was the GLBSA (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Student Association), but then the "transgendered" wanted a separate designation, and the organization wanted to welcome non-student members of the campus community, so they changed the name to the GLBTA.  When I saw the posters in the SU building, I thought, "Now what can that be?  The Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transit Authority?"
(Ring ring ring goes the trolley....)
:P


I think it's for those who are proud to be called Queer.  The reason why the Transgendered  students wanted it separate is because transgender goes beyond sexual orientation.  Gender identity is different than sexual orientation.

Personally, I could not give a damn what a person's sexuality is.  And in reality, I am sure that the vast majority of Republicans and Conservatives feel the same way.

And along the same lines, we do not want it thrown in our face constantly.  You never hear people going around stating "Hey, I am a heterosexual", or marching up and down the street in "Straight Day Parades".  I am all for keeping the Government out of the beedroom, but I also wish that some people would stop shoving their bedroom practices in my face.

And a person's sexual preference in reality should no more decide their political beliefs then anything else.  To assume that "Somebody is/should be a Liberal/Conservative because they are..." is among the worst kind of stereotyping.  Because it can take a segment of a community and make them an even smaller minority, because they do not "follow the approved philosophy".

Personally, I could not give a damn what a person's sexuality is.  And in reality, I am sure that the vast majority of Republicans and Conservatives feel the same way.

And along the same lines, we do not want it thrown in our face constantly.  You never hear people going around stating "Hey, I am a heterosexual", or marching up and down the street in "Straight Day Parades".  I am all for keeping the Government out of the beedroom, but I also wish that some people would stop shoving their bedroom practices in my face.

And a person's sexual preference in reality should no more decide their political beliefs then anything else.  To assume that "Somebody is/should be a Liberal/Conservative because they are..." is among the worst kind of stereotyping.  Because it can take a segment of a community and make them an even smaller minority, because they do not "follow the approved philosophy".

You and I as heterosexuals never had to worry about getting beaten up it in school, thrown out by our families, marked as perverts, kept out of the armed forces, and made object of cruel jokes SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE WERE BORN!!!

That distinction goes a long way in explaining the "gay pride" phenomenon.

As I type this Sean Hannity is on the tube cursing a story about two gay princes being read to school kids.  And for as long as I live I shall never forget Pat Robertson at the '92 Republican National convention bellowing:
"Clinton wants to put HO-MO-sexauls into the military! and Clinton wants to put HO-MO-sexauls into the White House!"
Sure, and just a little while ago, conservative sexpot Ann Coulter called Senator Edwards an "F-A-G."
If most Republicans and conservatives don't give a damn (and I tend to think you're right), they sure don't mind a bunch of intolerant a-holes acting as their spokespersons on the issues.
::)

Personally, I could not give a damn what a person's sexuality is.  And in reality, I am sure that the vast majority of Republicans and Conservatives feel the same way.

And along the same lines, we do not want it thrown in our face constantly.  You never hear people going around stating "Hey, I am a heterosexual", or marching up and down the street in "Straight Day Parades".  I am all for keeping the Government out of the bedroom, but I also wish that some people would stop shoving their bedroom practices in my face.

And a person's sexual preference in reality should no more decide their political beliefs then anything else.  To assume that "Somebody is/should be a Liberal/Conservative because they are..." is among the worst kind of stereotyping.  Because it can take a segment of a community and make them an even smaller minority, because they do not "follow the approved philosophy".


First of all sexual orientation is not just about "The bedroom" as much as Republican and Conservatives might think.  It's so easy to simplify it that way but so wrong.  I'm not going to try to explain to you gay culture because you obviously don't understand the basics.

First of all sexual orientation is not just about "The bedroom" as much as Republican and Conservatives might think.  It's so easy to simplify it that way but so wrong.  I'm not going to try to explain to you gay culture because you obviously don't understand the basics.


There you go, stereotyping.

I am fully aware that it is much more then that.  But when some people attack Conservatives for their beliefs, the "Stay out of our bedroom" cry is one that you hear most.

And yes, I do understand "Gay Culture".  I am also 100% against any kind of discrimination, including discriminating against somebody for their political beliefs.

There you go, stereotyping.

I am fully aware that it is much more then that.  But when some people attack Conservatives for their beliefs, the "Stay out of our bedroom" cry is one that you hear most.

And yes, I do understand "Gay Culture".  I am also 100% against any kind of discrimination, including discriminating against somebody for their political beliefs.


At least you're not a follower of Dr. Dobson.

The only thing I was trying to say was there's more to the gay agenda then what some people think.

Funny thing sometimes the gay community doesn't even accept it's own.

Funny thing sometimes the gay community doesn't even accept it's own.


That is only if you accept the idea of a group of different people being a "Community" simply because they share one thing.

Personally, I reject almost all such "Communities".  In reality, they are nothing more then a form of Thought Police, saying "Either you think like us, or you are not really one of us".  And some people will give in and conform, simply so that they will not be viewed as outsiders by their peers.

That is only if you accept the idea of a group of different people being a "Community" simply because they share one thing.

Personally, I reject almost all such "Communities".  In reality, they are nothing more then a form of Thought Police, saying "Either you think like us, or you are not really one of us".  And some people will give in and conform, simply so that they will not be viewed as outsiders by their peers.


No, some of it is passive aggressive cruelty, but I digress.

SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE WERE BORN!!!


Sorry, ain't buying it.  I don't believe for even one second that anyone was acutally born gay.

Sorry, ain't buying it.  I don't believe for even one second that anyone was acutally born gay.


So, how are you on this whole "the world is round" thing? 

So, how are you on this whole "the world is round" thing? 


Yeah, because those two things are really comparable, right?

"I don't believe anyone is born gay and as such I think the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, smoking is not bad for you and Bush himself blew up the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."

::)

First of all sexual orientation is not just about "The bedroom" as much as Republican and Conservatives might think. 


Well of course there are also the feather boas and the flannel shirts...  :P

Maybe we can get Senator Craigs spin on all this.  Seriously, how or when a person "becomes" gay doesn't really matter.  What matters with everyone is how they conduct themselves and there lives.

Well of course there are also the feather boas and the flannel shirts...  :P


Feather boas only look good on men who have a knack for accessories.  As for the flannel shirts?  If you see a Dyke with a flat top and flannel . . . run!!!! ;D

Sorry, ain't buying it.  I don't believe for even one second that anyone was acutally born gay.

It ain't for sale.
What you really mean is we're all born heterosexual and then something goes wrong.  That's straight up Dobson's alley.  Being homosexual isn't natural; therefore, it defies God's plan. 

The gay people I have known didn't "choose" to be gay anymore than I "chose" to be straight.

The college lesbians I knew who got into it in their youths out of identity crisis abandoned it by their middle 20s.  On the other hand, there is a very dear friend of mine, an older gentleman, who was married to a woman in his 20s.  The marriage failed because he was gay and he knew it all along.  He divorced his wife and has been in a committed monogamous relationship with the same man for over 30 years. 

It ain't for sale.
What you really mean is we're all born heterosexual and then something goes wrong.  That's straight up Dobson's alley.  Being homosexual isn't natural; therefore, it defies God's plan.


Not this again.  It has nothing to do with Dr. Dobson or a belief in God.  You're not supposed to be attracted to the same sex, God or no God.

I guess it could be a mental problem and you're born with it though.  I'd be willing to believe that.  But I know I personally don't believe that you're born that way and it's "normal, natural, healthy."

I blame George Bush for making Gay people Gay.

  You're not supposed to be attracted to the same sex, God or no God.


Where is the "not supposed to"? 

Who says?

Biological imperitive?  There are over six billion humans on the planet.  We don't all need to make babies.  Essentially, you are saying homosexuality is unnatural.  If it's not an abomination before God, then it's defiance of nature.  I see no evidence that it is either of those.

So, where is the "not supposed to"?  And who or what makes the rules?

Oh, the GOP isn't really anti-gay.

The core of the Republican platform is make the rich richer, comfort the comfortable, and transfer public resources into private hands.

The anti-gay agenda is just a ploy to get the rubes and bigots on board.  Same thing with God, motherhood, and apple pie.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/usa2.gif


Pretty much... although the Republicans were considerably more rational before the Reagan era (when the Religious Right took over).  Barry Goldwater was a true conservative, as is Ron Paul.

Nowadays, the only party interested in actually minimizing government is the Libertarian party.

Pretty much... although the Republicans were considerably more rational before the Reagan era (when the Religious Right took over).  Barry Goldwater was a true conservative, as is Ron Paul.

Nowadays, the only party interested in actually minimizing government is the Libertarian party.

Welcome Macphisto.
If the Libertarian Party actually got control of the government they'd be so scared they'd pee their pants.  The Libertarians can talk big because they are not in charge of anything.  Give them the executive branch and a majority in congress and then they're faced with managing a post-industrial nation of 300 million souls.  Libertarian policy put to the reality test would fall flat on its face in seven business days and the Libertarians would face the daunting task of thinking like grownups.
::)

Well, I wouldn't say that all Libertarianism is bad, but I agree that many of their economic policies are very naive.

For the most part, I agree with their social policies though.

Well, I wouldn't say that all Libertarianism is bad, but I agree that many of their economic policies are very naive.

For the most part, I agree with their social policies though.


Isn't the term for that "liberal"?

Republican: Economic conservative, social conservative
Democrat: Economic liberal, social liberal
Libertarian: Economic conservative, social liberal
Statist: Economic liberal, social conservative

If you disagree with the libertarians on economic issues, but agree with their social agenda, isn't that basically the same thing as a democrat?

Isn't the term for that "liberal"?

Republican: Economic conservative, social conservative
Democrat: Economic liberal, social liberal
Libertarian: Economic conservative, social liberal
Statist: Economic liberal, social conservative

If you disagree with the libertarians on economic issues, but agree with their social agenda, isn't that basically the same thing as a democrat?


No...  it may appear that way, but Libertarians are both true social liberals and true economic conservatives.  In both respects, they advocate as little governmental interference as possible.

For example, Democrats are actually socially conservative on guns.  They believe the government should regulate them more.  Libertarians and Republicans prefer to minimize the government's role in gun regulation.  This is technically a liberal viewpoint.

That being said, I am a civil libertarian on most social issues, because I support things like abortion AND gun rights.

No...  it may appear that way, but Libertarians are both true social liberals and true economic conservatives.  In both respects, they advocate as little governmental interference as possible.

For example, Democrats are actually socially conservative on guns.  They believe the government should regulate them more.  Libertarians and Republicans prefer to minimize the government's role in gun regulation.  This is technically a liberal viewpoint.

That being said, I am a civil libertarian on most social issues, because I support things like abortion AND gun rights.


Okay, I get what you're saying.

You support Ron Paul too?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I really wish he had more of a chance.  The republican frontrunners (especially Giuliani) aren't any good.

Ron Paul is definitely my favorite of the Republicans.  He represents what the Republicans used to be.

Oddly, I also really like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.

The easiest way I can explain this is that I hate the corporate whores that make up the majority of the mainstream middle --  Hillary, Guiliani, Romney, McCain, & Thompson.

I'm not a big fan of Obama either, but of the more popular candidates, I'd rather he win.  Edwards and Richardson aren't bad either.

Barry Goldwater was a true conservative, as is Ron Paul.


I had to stop and look at this twice, because for some reason I read that to say "Ru Paul".  :D


Republican: Economic conservative, social conservative
Democrat: Economic liberal, social liberal
Libertarian: Economic conservative, social liberal
Statist: Economic liberal, social conservative


Actually, I am not sure which I am.

I am a Fiscal Conservative, yet I believe that the Government should help those that truely need help.
I believe in a strong "safety net", but believe that largely it should be left in the hands of private enterprise, family, and other organizations.

I am all for "Universal Health Care", when it comes to low income and nessicary medical care.  I am all for paying for Grandma Beth's hip replacement when she is on Social Security, or paying for Billy's braces when his parents are on Unemployment (or do not make enough money to pay for them).  But I am 100% against paying for Bill Gates' gallblader operation, or paying for Susan to get Lasik because she does not like to wear glasses (or paying for Joe Bob to get a new kidney because he drank his own to death).

I generally seem to straddle the fence between Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian beliefs.  Mostly, I believe in Self Sufficiency and Self Responsibility.  I would like to believe in more Democrat ideas, but am simply to cynical to see how they would ever work.  Every time any politician gives me the "Two Cars In Every Garage" speech, I start grasping for my wallet, because I know he wants to get the money to make this possible out of my pocket.

I had to stop and look at this twice, because for some reason I read that to say "Ru Paul".  :D

Personally, whenever I hear Ron Paul's name I expect a Scooby-Doo-ish voice to say "Rorge and Ringo" ;)

Personally, whenever I hear Ron Paul's name I expect a Scooby-Doo-ish voice to say "Rorge and Ringo" ;)


Karma+1 ;D

Personally, whenever I hear Ron Paul's name I expect a Scooby-Doo-ish voice to say "Rorge and Ringo" ;)



;D

If you disagree with the libertarians on economic issues, but agree with their social agenda, isn't that basically the same thing as a democrat?


Hard to tell what the Dems stand for because they waffle on everything.  That's why Congress is at an 11% approval rating. 

More people want to fire them than want to fire Dubya.  Back in November we hired them to do a job and they didn't do it.  If I went to work every day with a fistful of joints, turned off my phone and my computer, and hung a sign on my office door saying "F*CK OFF!" how long would I last?  That's how we feel our Congress has treated us. 

Congress had a higher approval rating among Democrats when Dems were the minority.  We all voted for the guys from our states and said, "Well, what can they do, they're in the minority!"  Last January we wanted vindication for the Newt Deal, but instead Reid/Pelosi knuckled under and put the GOP right back in the driver's seat!  Eleven percent?  Charles Manson could get a higher approval rating!
>:(

For what it's worth, the Democrats are having to deal with a president who has line item vetoes and a Senate where they have a razor thin majority only due to 2 independents who caucus with them (one a socialist, and the other being Mr. Turncoat himself...  Joe "Zionist" Lieberman).

They don't exactly have the kind of power that people seem to assume they have....  In addition to this, most of the Democrats who entered their first terms in Congress in 2006 are moderates, so they sometimes side with the Republicans on certain issues.

It's not really a Democratic majority as much as it is a moderate buffering zone to hold back the rampant conservatism that came before them.

Isn't the term for that "liberal"?

Republican: Economic conservative, social conservative
Democrat: Economic liberal, social liberal
Libertarian: Economic conservative, social liberal
Statist: Economic liberal, social conservative

If you disagree with the libertarians on economic issues, but agree with their social agenda, isn't that basically the same thing as a democrat?


Have you ever looked up liberalism and liberal in the dictonary?  I'm not going to deprive you of a shock to your system by telling you the definitions.

Be lucky that we live in America and not Iran! http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/usa2.gif

Have you ever looked up liberalism and liberal in the dictonary?  I'm not going to deprive you of a shock to your system by telling you the definitions.


To his credit, his analysis was actually close to being correct.  It's actually the result of political inconsistencies that make his assumptions incorrect.

As I mentioned earlier, if the Democrats were purely socially liberal, they would actually be in favor of less restrictions on guns, not more.

By the same token, if the Republicans were purely socially conservative, they would actually be in favor of stricter environmental standards.

To his credit, his analysis was actually close to being correct.  It's actually the result of political inconsistencies that make his assumptions incorrect.

As I mentioned earlier, if the Democrats were purely socially liberal, they would actually be in favor of less restrictions on guns, not more.

By the same token, if the Republicans were purely socially conservative, they would actually be in favor of stricter environmental standards.



I think what I was getting at was the word liberal has been misconstrued by American political views.  But you are right though. 

For what it's worth, the Democrats are having to deal with a president who has line item vetoes...

They don't exactly have the kind of power that people seem to assume they have....  In addition to this, most of the Democrats who entered their first terms in Congress in 2006 are moderates, so they sometimes side with the Republicans on certain issues.


I'm fairly certain that Bush does not have a line-item veto.  Clinton did for a little while and vetoed some excessive spending with it, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional.

And yes, that is how the democrats took control.  They ran these moderate democrats in areas in the south and midwest.  Democrats who opposed illegal immigration, supported gun rights and oppose gay marriage.  If the democrats ran a bunch of Pelosi-lites, the republicans would still have the majority.  Howard Dean and Rahm Emanuel played it right.

I'm fairly certain that Bush does not have a line-item veto.  Clinton did for a little while and vetoed some excessive spending with it, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional.


I never quite figured out what became of that.  I know that Bush at least initially had line item vetoes.  He made extensive use of them in his first term, if I'm not mistaken.

Clinton's the one who knuckled under and signed the Newt Deal (the welfare reform act, and that was top of my list of reasons why I voted for Nader in '96!

Welfare did need reforming though.... 

Welfare did need reforming though.... 

Ah, I'm glad you mentioned it. 
AFDC and public housing projects were deplorable. 

BUT...

I mentioned in another thread that 20% of the school kids in Holyoke (one of the poorest cities in Massachusetts) are homeless.  Their families are living in shelters and getting groceries from food pantries.  This is NOT welfare reform, this chucking people off the welfare rolls and pretending they've reformed welfare!
::)

Good points, but don't you think that's more indicative of a need for state governments to handle poverty to a greater extent rather than getting the feds as involved?  It seems like whenever Washington intervenes, they half-a$$ it.

Isn't the term for that "liberal"?


I'm not picking on you personally -- but after seeing all the confusion on this thread, I've gotta just say it.

Let's get rid of the words "liberal" and "conservative".  Entirely.  They mean nothing anymore.

Attention, world.  If you have an opinion on any of the following hot-button issues, just up and say it, don't label it.

Gun control:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that private individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, or you don't.

Abortion:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that it's a medical procedure to which a woman has a right, or that it's murder and she doesn't.

Economics:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that free markets work best when minimally regulated, or that all wealth is subject to forcible appropriation and redistribution for the sake of the common good.

Gay marriage/rights/whatever:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, or that gay sex is immoral and should not be sanctioned by the state.

Flag-burning:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that Congress Shall Make No Law abridging the freedom of speech, or that the Flag is sacred, and that to desecrate it is a crime.

Drugs:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that prohibition doesn't work and ought to be abandoned, or that it does - and it ought to be continued in the name of the common good.

Immigration:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that laws ought to be enforced as written and borders guarded in such a way as to uphold those laws, or that they ought to be changed to make what was once illegal into something legal.

Have I missed any?

If you want to generalize:  Do you believe in individual freedom or in government control for the sake of the greater good?

Now that that's out of the way, you can actually look at a politician without just reflexively knee-jerking.  Just because a candidate simultaneously supports abortion and lower taxes, doesn't mean he's a liberal.  Just because a politician supports socialized medicine and the war, doesn't make her a conservative.  The words are meaningless.  Just stick to the issues, and vote according to your conscience.

Let's get rid of the words "liberal" and "conservative".  Entirely.  They mean nothing anymore.
...

Now that that's out of the way, you can actually look at a politician without just reflexively knee-jerking.  Just because a candidate simultaneously supports abortion and lower taxes, doesn't mean he's a liberal.  Just because a politician supports socialized medicine and the war, doesn't make her a conservative.  The words are meaningless.  Just stick to the issues, and vote according to your conscience.

If there were a "post of the month" competition, I'd vote for that one - especially as the word "liberal" in US political-speak means something different to its UK meaning, "conservative" similarly, but slightly less so.

I'm fairly certain that Bush does not have a line-item veto.  Clinton did for a little while and vetoed some excessive spending with it, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional.


President Clinton had that right from April 1996-February 1998.  It was a major component of the "Contract With America", and Clinton used it 11 times, to remove 82 cases of pork spending.  And the veto was struck down by the Supreme Court after several Democratic members of Congress sued to have it struck down.

President Bush has proposed a revised version of the veto, which died in Congress last year.  The revised version would have had the "vetoed item" actually placed on hold, and sent back to Congress for re-approval.  It would have required a simple majority to approve, and could not be filibustered. 

I'm not picking on you personally -- but after seeing all the confusion on this thread, I've gotta just say it.

Let's get rid of the words "liberal" and "conservative".  Entirely.  They mean nothing anymore.

Attention, world.  If you have an opinion on any of the following hot-button issues, just up and say it, don't label it.

Gun control:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that private individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, or you don't.

Abortion:   You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that it's a medical procedure to which a woman has a right, or that it's murder and she doesn't.

Economics:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that free markets work best when minimally regulated, or that all wealth is subject to forcible appropriation and redistribution for the sake of the common good.

Gay marriage/rights/whatever:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, or that gay sex is immoral and should not be sanctioned by the state.

Flag-burning:   You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that Congress Shall Make No Law abridging the freedom of speech, or that the Flag is sacred, and that to desecrate it is a crime.

Drugs:  You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that prohibition doesn't work and ought to be abandoned, or that it does - and it ought to be continued in the name of the common good.

Immigration:   You're not liberal on it or conservative on it.  You either believe that laws ought to be enforced as written and borders guarded in such a way as to uphold those laws, or that they ought to be changed to make what was once illegal into something legal.

Have I missed any?

If you want to generalize:  Do you believe in individual freedom or in government control for the sake of the greater good?

Now that that's out of the way, you can actually look at a politician without just reflexively knee-jerking.  Just because a candidate simultaneously supports abortion and lower taxes, doesn't mean he's a liberal.  Just because a politician supports socialized medicine and the war, doesn't make her a conservative.  The words are meaningless.  Just stick to the issues, and vote according to your conscience.


In principle, I agree with you, but a lot of people are in the middle on those issues.

In principle, I agree with you, but a lot of people are in the middle on those issues.


And in practice - there's nothing wrong with that.  Just state yer position without labels. 

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  But extremism in the defence of damn near any other ideology kinda sucks.  (I only quote Rand because nobody else does.  In an age where "bits" can be infinitely replicated at no cost, her economics are almost as broken as Marx's.)

Extremism in the defense of being liberated from American occupation is a lot of the reason for the insurgency in Iraq.  I'd still call that a vice for liberty though....  (among other things).

I'm not a big fan of Rand, actually.  I think she eventually became a capitalistic version of Stalin in her ideology.  Though she began as a fierce critic against authoritarianism, she seemed to favor a corporate version of that in her later years.

The point being...  if you go far enough down the line with any idea, it becomes dogmatic or fanatical, and therefore, lacking in coherence and sound logic.

Moderation is the key (especially in politics), but it seems like complacency has replaced that in this country.

President Clinton had that right from April 1996-February 1998.  It was a major component of the "Contract With America", and Clinton used it 11 times, to remove 82 cases of pork spending.  And the veto was struck down by the Supreme Court after several Democratic members of Congress sued to have it struck down.

President Bush has proposed a revised version of the veto, which died in Congress last year.  The revised version would have had the "vetoed item" actually placed on hold, and sent back to Congress for re-approval.  It would have required a simple majority to approve, and could not be filibustered. 


Okay, so I remember it correctly.  Thanks.

Good points, but don't you think that's more indicative of a need for state governments to handle poverty to a greater extent rather than getting the feds as involved?  It seems like whenever Washington intervenes, they half-a$$ it.

The reason the corporatists are for state government control and, preferably, "local" control is state and local governments are much more bulliable then the Feds; they have less money; and corporations can play them off against one another.  It has nothing N-O-T-H-I-N-G nothing to with reducing the size of of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment, or any other line of flapdoodle the GOP likes to hand out. 




Let's get rid of the words "liberal" and "conservative".  Entirely.  They mean nothing anymore.



I agree.  They don't mean much anymore.  I'm the opposite of most Gen-X-ers.  I tend to be "liberal" economically and "conservative" socially.  However, that doesn't mean much because if you say you are "socially conservative," people assume you are against abortion, for the death penalty, for draconian drug laws, and want to bring prayer back to schools.  I don't subscribe to any of these positions.  However, I won't call myself "socially liberal" because people assume you are some cross between Hugh Hefner and Timothy Leary!
::)

I'm not interested in "liberal" versus "conservative" so much as what works verus what does not work. 

I grew up in a hippie environment that was full-tilt socially liberal.  Here is a list of some things I saw growing up that I say don't work:

a. No fault divorce.
b. Open marriage (a nice term for infidelity)
c. Progressive education*
e. Therapy good, religion bad
d. Parenting based on "friendship."
f. Time-out method of parenting
g. Tolerating your kids' drinking, smoking, cursing, using dope, and doing whatever they want.
h. Selfishness (termed as "me time," "self-actualization," "human grown potential)
I. Pornography as art.
j. Let it all hang out.

I would not have said these ideas are all wrong in 1962; howver, we as a society tried them all time and again, and at long last it's time to be honest and say they don't work.  I'm not making a heavy-handed moral judgment from religious dogma.  I'm just going by imperical observation over four decades.

* Some tenets of progressive education are marvelous.  Here I am referring to a progressive education philosophy that maximizes license and minimizes discipline.  Progressive schools sprouted in the '60s and '70s under the theory that children are naturally curious and want to learn.  I agree with that part.  They went a step further.  Don't structure the student's academic day.  Just surround him with the tools of education (books, science labs, art supplies) and let them gravitate to what interests them.  That way the student won't associate education with force and repression.  Nice idea, but it was DOA.  In order for this to work, a kid has to have at once a high IQ, innate adult-level self-discipline, and strong motivation to work.  Perhaps in 1 in 20 children has enough of these qualities to make "free school" education productive.  I have a story about "free school," but it's too long to post here!
::)

The reason the corporatists are for state government control and, preferably, "local" control is state and local governments are much more bulliable then the Feds; they have less money; and corporations can play them off against one another.  It has nothing N-O-T-H-I-N-G nothing to with reducing the size of of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment, or any other line of flapdoodle the GOP likes to hand out. 

Good points.  I don't doubt that what you're saying is true, when it comes to the deviancy of corporations.  Still, I think things are so hopelessly corrupt in D.C. that I'd like to minimize the influence of the federal government.  It's easier for the public to keep an eye on state government than the federal government.  We also have a better shot at influencing state government as individuals.

I realize that the GOP really doesn't stand for smaller government anymore, but since I personally do, I like to decentralize authority on most things.

I agree.  They don't mean much anymore.  I'm the opposite of most Gen-X-ers.  I tend to be "liberal" economically and "conservative" socially.  However, that doesn't mean much because if you say you are "socially conservative," people assume you are against abortion, for the death penalty, for draconian drug laws, and want to bring prayer back to schools.  I don't subscribe to any of these positions.  However, I won't call myself "socially liberal" because people assume you are some cross between Hugh Hefner and Timothy Leary!
::)

I'm not interested in "liberal" versus "conservative" so much as what works verus what does not work. 

I grew up in a hippie environment that was full-tilt socially liberal.  Here is a list of some things I saw growing up that I say don't work:

a. No fault divorce.
b. Open marriage (a nice term for infidelity)
c. Progressive education*
e. Therapy good, religion bad
d. Parenting based on "friendship."
f. Time-out method of parenting
g. Tolerating your kids' drinking, smoking, cursing, using dope, and doing whatever they want.
h. Selfishness (termed as "me time," "self-actualization," "human grown potential)
I. Pornography as art.
j. Let it all hang out.

I would not have said these ideas are all wrong in 1962; howver, we as a society tried them all time and again, and at long last it's time to be honest and say they don't work.  I'm not making a heavy-handed moral judgment from religious dogma.  I'm just going by imperical observation over four decades.

* Some tenets of progressive education are marvelous.  Here I am referring to a progressive education philosophy that maximizes license and minimizes discipline.  Progressive schools sprouted in the '60s and '70s under the theory that children are naturally curious and want to learn.  I agree with that part.  They went a step further.  Don't structure the student's academic day.  Just surround him with the tools of education (books, science labs, art supplies) and let them gravitate to what interests them.  That way the student won't associate education with force and repression.  Nice idea, but it was DOA.  In order for this to work, a kid has to have at once a high IQ, innate adult-level self-discipline, and strong motivation to work.  Perhaps in 1 in 20 children has enough of these qualities to make "free school" education productive.  I have a story about "free school," but it's too long to post here!
::)



You have some interesting points and an idea for a system that might work.  It's strange that you say you are socially conservative and economically liberal.  That actually describes much of my state, North Carolina.  We are a pretty populist state.  Given my semi-libertarian leanings, however, this puts me in a very awkward position.

If it weren't for the high cost of living and high taxes, I'd much rather live in Massachusetts than NC.  It sounds like you might find things a little more comfortable down here in NC.  Although I'll warn ya...  We're called the Bible Belt for a good reason....

If it weren't for the high cost of living and high taxes, I'd much rather live in Massachusetts than NC.  It sounds like you might find things a little more comfortable down here in NC.  Although I'll warn ya...  We're called the Bible Belt for a good reason....



In the South they take life a little slower and easier than they do in the Northeast.  Might help reduce my stress levels.  I get along with religious people a whole lot better than it would seem from my posts here.  It comes down to the individual.  I'd much rather hang out with a kind and decent Christian fundamentalist than a mean, nasty "secular humanist." 

I know what you mean.  I once roomed with a Christian fundamentalist in college.  He was one of the rare types who actually practiced what he preached and understood that people who don't believe don't hold themselves to the same strict lifestyle they do.

In other words, he was a logical religious person, which is very hard to find.  You're right though...  this kind of religious person makes a good friend.  Unfortunately, the hypocrites greatly outnumber them.

By the same token, some of the most liberal people I know are also some of the least reliable.

I know what you mean.  I once roomed with a Christian fundamentalist in college.  He was one of the rare types who actually practiced what he preached and understood that people who don't believe don't hold themselves to the same strict lifestyle they do.

In other words, he was a logical religious person, which is very hard to find.  You're right though...  this kind of religious person makes a good friend.  Unfortunately, the hypocrites greatly outnumber them.

It goes to how it's presented.  A lot of Christian fundamentalists are taught it is OK for them to shake their fists at others.

A lot of people who get "born again" are hurting and frustrated.  Some theorize loss of economic security over the past generation has left a lot of working class people feeling frightened and violated.  It's not enough that Christ is my personal Lord and Saviour.  It's not enough that I shall go to eternal bliss in heaven after a hard life on Earth.  It won't be enough unless I am vindicated by the Divine punishment of those who mistreat me and of those who offend me.  In short, it's not enough that I am saved, others must be damned.

The Lord shall avenge avenge the good for the trespasses of the wicked, so says Christian fundamentalism.  Where else do we hear this?  Fundamentalist Islam.  Just replace "Lord" with "Allah."  Islamic fundamentalists also feel frightened, violated, and humiliated.  Christian fundamentalists are not detonating bus bombs, but they would if they got desperate enough.
::)


By the same token, some of the most liberal people I know are also some of the least reliable.


The Left runs a similar trip without the heaven and hell part.  I was just discussing this with a friend of mine tonight.  I live in Bush-hatin' country and I have reached my wit's end with the rhetoric.  Yeah, I'm on the Left, I think Dubya stole the election, I think they're not telling the truth about 9/11, I think the neo-cons lied us into the Iraq war, I think giant corporations are fascist and amoral...but every speech I hear on these matters I have heard ten times or more.  The triad of events for present-day left-wing wrath is:
1. The 2000 election.
2. 9/11.
3. The Iraq war.
I'm burned out on the self-righteous indignation from the Left.  I'm not thinking of changing sides, but after 4.5 years, I am sick hearing shrill anti-war demonstrators and Leftie scolds preaching to the choir.  Don't they ever get sick of hearing themselves?*
:P

*No, they don't.

If you ever move down here, you'll get sick of religious people.  NC is religious conservative central.

If you ever move down here, you'll get sick of religious people.  NC is religious conservative central.

My aunt lives down there and she enjoys it.  She's most definitely a non-churchgoing liberal.  Can't quite remember where she lives, I think it's the Asheville area anyway.  She doesn't do much living on a generous divorce settlement with her rich ex-husband.  She has a horse and loves horseback riding, I know that....

Oh... well, Asheville is the San Francisco of the east.  Very hippy, significantly gay, but ironically surrounded by really religious rural communities.

I went to college there, so I know all about it.  Great place to have fun; crappy place to look for work.

Oh... well, Asheville is the San Francisco of the east.  Very hippy, significantly gay, but ironically surrounded by really religious rural communities.



I thought that was Chapel Hill.

Jesse Helms once said North Carolina didn't need to spend no gummint money on zoos, just put a fence around Chapel Hill.  Something like that.  Jesse used to call UNC "the University of Negroes and Communists."  I've cleaned that up a bit.
::)

I went to college there, so I know all about it.  Great place to have fun; crappy place to look for work.
My aunt's ex was a bigtime advertising exec.  When the dust settled after the divorce, she didn't have to look for no job!  I'd trade her life for mine in a second.  It would be pretty sweet to ride thoroughbreds and sip Mint Juleps under the shade of the Weeping Willows!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumright.gif

Jesse Helms is the second greatest shame to my state -- Andrew Johnson being the first.

NASCAR is a close third though.

Jesse Helms is the second greatest shame to my state -- Andrew Johnson being the first.

NASCAR is a close third though.

Heh heh!  When I was doing the computer dating thing, NASCAR was a red flag in a woman's profile (as opposed to a chequered flag)!  It was easy to spot, too, being an acronym in all caps!

i'm just catching up on all this, and nothing PISSES me off more than people saying i'm "unnatural", or implying that homosexuality is a CHOICE, like they know what the f**k they're talking about, like they understand what goes in a  gay persons mind, so THEY would know  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(.

You don't understand us.