The marriage amendment is part of the "American values agenda" the House is taking up this week that includes a pledge protection bill and a vote on President Bush's expected veto of a bill promoting embryonic stem cell research. Bush has asked, and social conservatives demanded, that the gay marriage ban be considered in the run-up to the election.
All this sucking up to the social conservatives and ignoring the fiscal conservatives will not win my vote. It's likely to get me to stay home or even vote for the other side.
But what's terrifying is appeals to bigotry always seem to work when you're trying to win votes. You can't kick around the irish or blacks anymore so let's deny rights to gay people to get votes from people who aren't really effected either way.
GAH!
You just can't win, ya know? If you believe in small government... Both sides, all they want is to run every aspect of your life. *sigh*
posted
But they want to run different aspects of it. The republicans want you to de able to do anything you want with your money; the democrats want you to be able to do anything you want with your body.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy, economics, or you view the underfunding of public resources as "robbery" (which it isn't).
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb: That's the way it used to be but the Republicans seem to care more about controlling these days than freeing you up economically.
Also the democrats, as a group, seem to support banning gay marriage too. Otherwise every ban ever proposed wouldn't have passed with 70+ percent of the vote when taken to the people.
CONTROL is the focus for both parties. They only talk of Freedom when they're contrasting themselves to the other side. And only when talking to the groups the other side wants to opress.
posted
I think you greatly overestimate the degree to which they think at all, much less about you. George W. Bush is not up for reëlection and, thus, feels he can do anything, whereas Congressional Republicans always feel like they can do anything. Whereas the Democrats just won't do anything. Given the choice between stagnation and actively marching backwards, I shall always choose the former. Although, as a Texan, I can vote Green without worrying about diluting the electorate.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy, economics, or you view the underfunding of public resources as "robbery" (which it isn't).
This is how I feel... Plus someone needs to be blamed for me having to go the ER and end up with a two thousand dollar bill I can't pay that ruins my credit... When they cut taxes for the wealthy it has to come from SOMEONE! So most likely, it's me and other folks who are struggling to hold on to something they earn.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel: Green are the worst of the lot, sorry to tell you. There's no economic freedom under the Greens.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say I agreed with them, although I do on many issues. I am a Liberal Democratic man, through and through, and thus a Capitalist. However, the Greens are largely post-materialist, and it is on non-materialist issues that I most agree with them, although I think that post-materialism is incredibly naïve, just as I think purely materialist schools are incomplete.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're assigning motives that aren't there. I don't believe the people in power want to take away your money or your ability to use it.
What they want to do instead is take away any and all restriction on how they acquire and use their money.
The result is much the same -- without regulations or any real enforcement of finance laws the unscrupulous rich (which is not all the rich) can dominate the financial field and keep others from profiting through unfair but legal practices.
The continuing refusal to raise minimum wage is an example. It's not being done to keep people under poverty level. It's being done because companies complained they wouldn't be able to continue making profits if they had to pay it.
They don't want to make poor people poorer. They want to make rich people richer. From the poor person's point of view there may not seem like much difference, but there is. The current administration and the people funding it are selfish, but they're not evil.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy...
It's also possible that she does not believe that Republican economic policies have the effect that Republicans say they do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Republican Economic Conservative Policy--people can do whatever they want with their money.
Our Currently Elected Republican Economic Policy--If you donated to my cause, then you can do whatever you want to get more money.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I choose not to belong to a party, but I do consider myself a member of the The International Federation of Liberal Youth and, to a lesser degree, its parent organization Liberal International, even though, as an American, I cannot join officially.
quote:Plus someone needs to be blamed for me having to go the ER and end up with a two thousand dollar bill I can't pay that ruins my credit...
Yourself, for not having insurance? Whoever/whatever caused the injury in the first place? The hospital, for charging such obnoxious rates for emergency care? People who unjustly or unnecessarily file malpractice suits, resulting in rising costs?
quote:When they cut taxes for the wealthy it has to come from SOMEONE!
Yeah, it does - everyone.
quote:So most likely, it's me and other folks who are struggling to hold on to something they earn.
Why is it the responsibility of the rich to help pay for you? This question is directed at anyone believing in a "liberal" economic policy.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Liberal economic policy is Capitalist, although most liberals, myself included, believe in some degree of a welfare state, financed by taxation, rather than state ownership, as more leftist groups favor. Please elaborate on your point.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
A liberal economic policy favors extensive government regulation of all aspects of business, including production, taxation, trade, etc.
quote:although most liberals, myself included, believe in some degree of a welfare state, financed by taxation, rather than state ownership, as more leftist groups favor.
That's a difference of degree, not direction.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I was under the impression that Pel was using the word "liberal" in its classical rather than modern sense.
A classical liberal would be a capitalist where as a modern liberal would be a socialist.
Am I wrong in interpreting your usage, Pel?
Ah, that would be where the confusion lies, although given Pel's fondness for archaic language forms, I shouldn't be surprised.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not quite, no Liberal is a Socialist, the two are opposed ideologically. Marx and his followers, including the Socialists, believed in state ownership, Liberals believe in private ownership. The problem arises when "liberal" is used to mean "leftist," although the two are unrelated. The Economist is Liberal, Pravda was Leftist.
"That's a difference of degree, not direction." It is a massive difference in direction.
"A liberal economic policy favors extensive government regulation of all aspects of business, including production, taxation, trade, etc." WRONG. A Liberal economic policy favors taxation (I would like you to show me any serious political theories that do not), minimum wages, employee health insurance and laws designed to protect human rights and the environment, but not "extensive regulation of all aspects of business" and no constraints on production, which is a Marxist policy.
I recommend that you read the short manifesto I linked to, it is worth your time.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A liberal economic policy favors extensive government regulation of all aspects of business, including production, taxation, trade, etc.
So does a conservative economic policy. People are in favor of enforceable contracts - an incredibly huge amount of regulation of business - the protection of private property - which also entails enormous quantities of regulation.
The two sides differ on what should be regulated.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not quite, no Liberal is a Socialist, the two are opposed ideologically. Marx and his followers, including the Socialists, believed in state ownership, Liberals believe in private ownership. The problem arises when "liberal" is used to mean "leftist," although the two are unrelated. The Economist is Liberal, Pravda was Leftist.
Yeah, you're definitely using the classical definition of liberal. As per modern language, Pel, Liberal and Leftist are synonymous when it comes to economic policy, and you obviously know it.
Why bother to set up such a ridiculous, unnecessary trap? Given that the modern usage of "liberal" is overwhelmingly commonplace, simply acknowledging your own use of the classical definition would have gotten your point across. Instead, you choose this.
I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you really have been pointedly ignoring anything constructive people have to say. I give up on trying to have any sort of meaningful interaction with you.
quote:So does a conservative economic policy. People are in favor of enforceable contracts - an incredibly huge amount of regulation of business - the protection of private property - which also entails enormous quantities of regulation.
posted
Demon, you need to calm down, and change your tone. Since you were talking about economic policy, do you not think that it's fair for Pel to use the economic/classical definition of liberal?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Actually, the government in power in Australia at the moment (The Liberal Party) is liberal in more or less the way Pelegius describes.
I don't get what's "classical" about it.
Forgive me, I tend to ignore that other countries exist except insofar as they affect my everyday life.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: Demon, you need to calm down, and change your tone. Since you were talking about economic policy, do you not think that it's fair for Pel to use the economic/classical definition of liberal?
I think you're severely misreading my post, given that it's completely calm, and my tone is one of pity and surrender, not confrontation.
And no, I don't think it's fair.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy, economics, or you view the underfunding of public resources as "robbery" (which it isn't).
Do you not see agression in your tone here?
And then you went on to blame Syn for not being able to pay for insurance, and then gave attitude to Pel for using a correct definition that you misunderstood (don't get me wrong, ragging on Pel is great, but only when he deserves it, and he doesn't in this case).
Why are you so confrontational/angry? And if you are not, then maybe you should be more careful as to how your posts come off.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy, economics, or you view the underfunding of public resources as "robbery" (which it isn't).
Do you not see agression in your tone here?
And then you went on to blame Syn for not being able to pay for insurance, and then gave attitude to Pel for using a correct definition that you misunderstood (don't get me wrong, ragging on Pel is great, but only when he deserves it, and he doesn't in this case).
Why are you so confrontational/angry? And if you are not, then maybe you should be more careful as to how your posts come off.
...are you serious?
Did you READ syn's posts?
Frankly, I think my response was pretty level-headed given how amazingly accusatory, offensive and ill-informed hers was. My response advanced several much more likely possibilities for her inability to pay for her insurance, rather than blaming TEH REPUBLICANZ Z0MG!!!! for it and, by extension, for her bad credit.
Edit to add:
You know, maybe Pel didn't deserve it here from a purely objective standpoint, but I'm no longer willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt.
Edit to further add:
Pel's definition, while definitively correct, is still deliberately deceptive, the same way it would be deceptive of me to walk up to some random guy on the street and say "you're so gay!" quickly followed by "what? I meant happy. Gay means happy."
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could Syn's post not be construed as a valid commentary on the failings of trickle down economics? I'm being facetious, but really, Syn hardly wrote enough for you to accuse her of being "amazingly accusatory, offensive and ill-informed". All I'm saying is maybe take a deep breath before you go and acuse someone of being completely ignorant, maybe there is some validity in their opinions?
And yes, I agree that Pel has done nothing to deserve the benefit of the doubt, but why not give it to him anyway, at least he wrote a semi-coherent post.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could Syn's post not be construed as a valid commentary on the failings of trickle down economics? I'm being facetious, but really, Syn hardly wrote enough for you to accuse her of being "amazingly accusatory, offensive and ill-informed". All I'm saying is maybe take a deep breath before you go and acuse someone of being completely ignorant, maybe there is some validity in their opinions?
Given the way she wrote and formatted it and given that she doesn't (if ever) post sarcastically, I'm going to go ahead and venture that all facetiousness aside, there's really only one way to interpret her post: life sucks, bad things happened, it's all the fault of The Republicans (tm).
quote:And yes, I agree that Pel has done nothing to deserve the benefit of the doubt, but why not give it to him anyway, at least he wrote a semi-coherent post.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. This thread has more or less removed any shred of a forgiving mood I had.
That and work. This, THIS is why you shouldn't forum at work.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also the democrats, as a group, seem to support banning gay marriage too. Otherwise every ban ever proposed wouldn't have passed with 70+ percent of the vote when taken to the people.
So what you're saying is that many of the people who vote Democratic are opposed to gay marriage. That says nothing about whether Democratic politicians are opposed to it.
In fact, almost all of them are for it. If the Democrats held Congress and the White House securely, gays would have the right to marry.
When you vote Democrat, you're not voting for the average blue-state resident. You're voting for the Democratic candidate, who will almost always be pro-gay.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find foruming at work to be quite nice actually. Though I don't have the typical job.
I work in a lab as a summer student, so my work (ie experiements) plan my day for me. What is nice about scientific work is that there are ALOT of breaks. Right now, I'm waiting for a gel to harden, and there really isn't anything else to do but surf around the net.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would consider the Australian Party to be Conservative. Parties that I would consider Liberal include the British Liberal Democrats, the Irish Progresive Democrats and the German Free Democrats, to name a few.
"you're definitely using the classical definition of liberal. As per modern language, Pel, Liberal and Leftist are synonymous when it comes to economic policy" I am using the definition used by Liberals around the world, including the parties I mentioned.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clinton is pro-gay marriage, but he's also a pragmatist who doesn't always let his ideals dictate his actions. If he'd had a Democratic congress, Defense of Marriage would never have happened.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I should prolly edit this into my previous post but I'm not gonna.)
Destineer: See, the thing is, the democrats have proven they don't give a rats buttocks about gay people. That's the problem If I really thought they would give equal rights to gay people I'd probably vote for them.
But they've proven they won't. When they had both houses of congress and the presidency, after promising "gays in the military" they couldn't even pull that off. They gave us Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Now the Republicans are showing that they don't care about the main issue I share with them. Cutting the grotesque size of the federal government and cutting taxes across the board. They did some lame little tiny tax cut when Bush first got into office and now they're debating if they even want to keep that. At the same time they're throwing money around like Ted Kennedy at a strip bar.
So who do I vote for? The party that says they want to give me equal rights but instead wants to take all my money... or the party who says they want to let me keep most of my money (but not really) and so long as I'm in a relationship with One Man and One Woman, cuz them there dykes are icky and against god.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
My fondest memory of the recruiting process was when we got to the DADT form. It's a lot of jargon, and I got the gyst, but I looked at the colonel who was presiding and asked him to explain it.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I am using the definition used by Liberals around the world, including the parties I mentioned.
However, since the context of this thread deals with Democrats and Republicans (American parties), for the sake of clarity you could have either gone with the American usage or explained right off the bat that you were using it in a different sense.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're being unfair to the Dems. Many of them do care about gay rights, but they realize that it's one of the least popular bits of their platform (see your post above about state amendments garnering 70% at the polls). So they're forced into a defensive battle, because taking the offensive would accomplish nothing except losing even more elections.
Interestingly, I think fiscal conservatives are in the same boat. People like Arlen Specter really do want to cut government, but they know that's not what the people want.
quote:So who do I vote for? The party that says they want to give me equal rights but instead wants to take all my money... or the party who says they want to let me keep most of my money (but not really) and so long as I'm in a relationship with One Man and One Woman, cuz them there dykes are icky and against god.
I imagine your views on the Middle East will break the tie in favor of Republicans.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, since no American pary calls itself "Liberal" or is a member of Liberal International, I can not claim to see your point.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dest: actually, Syn's post broke the tie. No matter how holier-than-thou the republicans get the sense of entitlement to other people's money I see in the left will always scare me off.
As for the politicans really wanting to help but not being able to... regardless of what I think about that, the result is the same. Vote Republican, get shafted, Vote democrat, get shafted.
quote:No matter how holier-than-thou the republicans get the sense of entitlement to other people's money I see in the left will always scare me off.
Suit yourself.
The way I see it, money is an idea my ancestors thought up to make things run smoothly. But I was born with sex organs. So the free use of the latter seems a bit more important to me.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, fortunately we've come far enough that the Republicans can't make it illegal to be gay. They can just continue to fight for special rights for heterosexuals.
When people take what I earn without my consent they're effectively making me their slave. I don't mind giving. I DO mind when giving is demanded.
On a side note, the republicans called me up to ask for money the other day. This year they start every call with "Do you think it's a good thing for the Democrats to gain more power in congress this year?"
I responded "Well, it might get the republicans off their butt and work toward cutting the size of government instead of wasting time on social issues."
She thanked me for my time and hung up.
Funny thing is though, this year I've given more in political contributions than I ever have in my life. To a Conservative Christian Republican who supports Civil Unions.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I didn't say I agreed with them, although I do on many issues. I am a Liberal Democratic man, through and through, and thus a Capitalist. However, the Greens are largely post-materialist, and it is on non-materialist issues that I most agree with them, although I think that post-materialism is incredibly naïve, just as I think purely materialist schools are incomplete.
Pel-Your original post.
You said you were a Liberal Democratic man. Not that you belonged to a Liberal Democratic party. Would "I am a Democrat man" call to mind the United States' Democratic party if you lived in South Africa and were discussing South African politics?
If you fail to see how you could possibly have been misinterpreted, then you are either being deliberately obtuse or you're not as smart as you like to pretend to be.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Couldn't we settle on definitions on the terms and refer to a list from somewhere, instead of arguing about who really meant what?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, I also said I do not belong to any party. Liberal Democrat is pretty international in it meaning, just as the term Liberal Democracy is internationali meanint. So, when I met a man from the Czech Repuplic on the Wikipedia page about U Tam'si and his user page said that he was a Liberal Democrat, I knew what it meant, even though neither of our countries has a party called the Liberal Democrats.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, you should really look into your state's Medicaid program. Also, if you're as poor as you seem to be, you don't even pay taxes. Anything taken from your paychecks is refunded to you at the end of the year.
I can understand if you're upset at Republicans because they're interested in removing tax breaks that the poor receive. They're also interested in getting rid of Social Security (and, by consequence, Medicare/Medicaid). That's the kind of hogwash that just twists my nipples.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
