|
|
May 11, 2008 6:25 PM GMT
Quote
With all due respect, you few gay Republicans are the minorities' minority and I am curious what drives it. Before diving straight for the small, efficient government, lower taxes line, here is my confusion:
I have several conservative-aligned values. I am a gun owner, believe our government is wasteful and inefficient, think individual states should take it upon themselves to regulate within their own borders, believe in a strong national defense (without going to war), and that individuals should shoulder a great deal more personal responsibility than they seem to today.
Unfortunately, I cannot conscience voting for a party that actively campaigns against the right for me to visit my partner in the hospital, will not allow us equal inheritance rights, actively denies me the same job protections as people who "choose" to be religious in the work place, and generally accepts people within its ranks who have all but advocated the death penalty for those who commit sodomy. Because of this, I am generally referred to as a "single issue voter."
During the Civil Rights Era, there was a major party shift in the southern states from Democratic to Republican directly because of a single issue. Southerners did not approve of social justice when it had to be applied to black people as well. The history is there, starting with Strom Thurmond's party shift from Dem to Dixiecrat (racist Democrat) and finally to Republican.
So, given my view of the importance of this "single issue" of civil rights that the Republicans insist on putting up for a majority vote, who can explain to me the gay Republican framed against the Civil Rights Era black Republican?
|
|
|
|
|
May 11, 2008 11:42 PM GMT
Quote
What have the democrats done to advance your gay rights in the past?
When I vote down here in Oz One votes Liberal. Liberal = Republican. Because when I vote I give my vote to the better of Oz, and put my own selfish wants and needs last. I put the advancement of OZ first.
So if One had a vote in the US of A I would do the same, for the same reasons.
Oh One is 6 generations born to OZ, and it drives me nuts that new Australian's, children of new Australians, even grandchildren of new Australians, get rights One does not. A White indigenous Aussie.
Anyone can be an Australian, may it be a new one, or just an Australian. But.....not an Aussie, as we are not One, or One Nation.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:02 AM GMT
Quote
Pattison saidWhat have the democrats done to advance your gay rights in the past?
When I vote down here in Oz One votes Liberal. Liberal = Republican. Because when I vote I give my vote to the better of Oz, and put my own selfish wants and needs last. I put the advancement of OZ first.
So if One had a vote in the US of A I would do the same, for the same reasons.
Oh One is 6 generations born to OZ, and it drives me nuts that new Australian's, children of new Australians, even grandchildren of new Australians, get rights One does not. A White indigenous Aussie.
Anyone can be an Australian, may it be a new one, or just an Australian. But.....not an Aussie, as we are not One, or One Nation. There are indeed few Democrats who 'embrace' gay rights, that being the political equivelant of toxic waste, not that that's any excuse. Human rights are human rights. Republicans have made it pretty clear if they had their way we'd all be on the express train one-way to Auschwitz. Oh, yeah, and they blamed US for 9/11 and hurricane Katrina. Y'see, in OUR country, being gay invites 'God's Wrath'. Yeah, Republicans here actually believe that and vote that. Don't take my word for it, just hit google and see for yourself. |
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:07 AM GMT
Quote
I vote republican for the candidate, not because of the party. Carter, Clinton, give me a break? Course W is not a hero, too. For the most part I thing all political guys aren't worth a shit. I try to carry on without their BS. I hate politics, or could you tell?
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:25 AM GMT
Quote
Colbert nation. One is well aware of what the right wing Adventist think on gay issues. We get them down here to trying to invade Oz, with their lifestyle choice.
Soon we will even have that evil pope down here for some youth rally, a pedophiles Paradise. When is it going to sink into his head, that the catholic Church is no more a supper power, and it's rule does not belong outside of Vat City, or in protestant Oz. Yet many democrats, labour voters support this evil interfusions rule, and anti homosexual stance.
So left is no better than right.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:27 AM GMT
Quote
The bottom line is people belief what they want to believe. You can't convince them they're wrong, just like no one can convince you you're wrong. If you truly want to educate yourself regarding the rationale of gay republicans (and not just pick a fight on a blog) attend a local Log Cabin meeting.  Further, I find it very interesting that people who so desperately want to be tolerated are so intolerant of others who don't think like they do. Just like there are many types of heterosexuals with varying political opinions, why must all homosexuals have the same political views. Is it narcissism, arrogance or insecurity that fosters this rigid view? At the very least, it's hypocritical and a total turn-off.  |
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:31 AM GMT
Quote
i'm a registered independant and i've voted for both parties (and 3rd parties). the "gay republican" appeal only applies to gay-friendly republicans -- who are plentiful in the northeast. you really don't find social conservative politicians here, it's nothing like the south and midwest.
for me the dicier issue is national politics -- i fear the well-intentioned but clumsy efforts of dems in the
past: don't ask/don't tell, DOMA. no thanks - we'd be better off if they'd done nothing.
while pres bush SAID he supported a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage (while running for reelection and needing to engage his base) he never actually tried to achieve it. AND he quietly appointed openly gay staff and tripled HIV/AIDS research funding. his VP has an out lesbian daughter and when his wife was asked if they have gay friends she said, "well, yes, everybody does." i believe her.
so, i don't care if they're dems or republicans, i try to focus on their goals and track record of results. I don't think gays should disregard republicans because of the national platform's avowed homophobia -- we don't have enough choices in the first place.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:32 AM GMT
Quote
Pattison saidColbert nation. One is well aware of what the right wing Adventist think on gay issues. We get them down here to trying to invade Oz, with their lifestyle choice.
Soon we will even have that evil pope dawn here for some youth rally, a pedophiles Paradise. When is it going to sink into his head, that the catholic Church is no more a supper power, and it's rule does not belong outside of Vat City, or in protestant Oz. Yet many democrats, labour voters support this evil interfusions rule, and anti homosexual stance.
So left is no better than right. Pattison ;) You're blowing my idealized concept of Oz as a paradise where everyone plays rugby, drinks beer and runs around naked all the time  . Last election here, right-wingers were MORE concerned about the 'horror' of gay marriage then they were about 'minor' issues like the economy and the occupation of Iraq! It's not to be believed! It's like the lunatics have taken over! Run! Save yourself!!!  |
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:34 AM GMT
Quote
I tend to swing to the right - but I dont consider myself a republican. Just who I am. However, none of the candidates appeal to me for the 08 election.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:37 AM GMT
Quote
I am a liberal (and damn proud of it), but am confused by the perception that much of the gay community has about the right being anti-gay. Allowing gay marriage CAN fit into a right-wing ideology, and better yet should. If the gay community shows itself as a important voting block in the Republican Party, the party would have to soften its stance. Thus, as a "coastal liberal elitist" I applaud the Log Cabin folks!
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:50 AM GMT
Quote
Colbert Nation: Thats what it is, an idealised concept of Oz as a Paradise.
AFL Rules not Rugby.
The beer is great!
We don't all run around naked (thank god), yet I live in shorts all year round.
Political correctness, is ruining our Aussie culture, of being forthright, str8 to the point. Yet the beer is still good.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:51 AM GMT
Quote
Pattison saidWhat have the democrats done to advance your gay rights in the past?
Well, for starters, Democrats made up 200 of the 235 representatives in the House who passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in November 2007. I don't know about you, but protecting gay people from employment discrimination is even more important to me than gay marriage initiatives. We may not all get gay-married, but almost all of us have got to work. With 159 Republicans voting no on ENDA, left is clearly way better than right. I admit, there are Republicans who sponsor and support gay-friendly legislation, but they are the minority in their party. And there are Democrats who oppose it, but again, they're in the minority. So you won't convince me that there is no difference and they're all equally bad. This may be an interesting question for the Gay Democrats: Imagine, if you will, a bizzaro world: What if the Democratic and Republican parties exchanged policies on gay-rights only, so that the Democratic Party was the party of social programs, the anti-war movement, and the defense of the American family, while the Republican party was the party of less social spending, military solutions to foreign policy problems, and equal rights for gay people? Would you become a Republican? Or would you hold your nose and keep voting Democratic? |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
May 12, 2008 1:07 AM GMT
Quote
Pattison saidWhat have the democrats done to advance your gay rights in the past?
I think the better question would be "what have democrats done for gays that wasn't done only to capture the gay vote."People are quick to label republicans as anti-social progress. While that's certainly true for the right wing christians who hijacked the party we can always hope that influence wanes someday soon. I guess in answer to the OP I'd call myself conservative because I want smaller, not bigger government, less pro immigration policy, less involvement in the UN and world affairs, and I don't support universal healthcare or many other federally run agencies. I'm only registered as republican because it was required to vote for RP in the CT primaries. The # 1 reason I say I'm conservative thou centers around the fact I think the individual is more important than society as a whole. That may sound selfish but it's the notion the nation was founded on. Certain rights and freedoms able to be exercised by all citizens with limited government to prevent a majority attempt to restrict those rights for the "benefit" of the masses. |
|
|
May 12, 2008 1:13 AM GMT
Quote
I'm an old Cold Warrior, the Democrats did everything they could to lose to the Soviet Union. The Democratic party is doing the same thing with terrorism and the war in Iraq. I will always oppose the Democratic party.
I'll have you know that if it weren't for the Republican party the civil rights amendment and the voting rights amendment wouldn't have passed. Just because Strom Thurmond joined the Republican party doesn't make us racists. We're still the party of Lincoln and will always be so. Opposition to Affirmative Action doesn't make us racist, it is part of our liberalism.
The Republican party must make some concessions to maintain support of the base constituencies. I'm not happy with the Christian Taliban wing of the party but
they vote Republican. If more gay and lesbians were actively Republican the party would be supportive of us.
You oppose going to war but support a strong military,
what were you thinking when you wrote that?
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 1:22 AM GMT
Quote
I should preface this with the fact that I'm not actually a Republican. I'm an independent, who will at times vote Republican and at times Democratic (and other times for third party candidates (most often Libertarian).
You seem annoyed by the label of single issue voter, but from what you said, it's an accurate one. You will only vote for someone based upon a single issue. If you feel that that one issue is so much more important than everything else, that makes sense, and you're free to decide that way; you don't need to defend your choices. A label is not necessarily a value judgment.
The wording of statements like "Unfortunately, I cannot conscience voting for a party that..." indicates that you're viewing your vote as for a party, not for an individual. I find that problematic, as we're not in a parliamentary system. Politicians, whether Democrats of Republicans, are individuals who do not all think the same way and who do not all vote in lockstep. This is true even on big-ticket political issues; I can give you lists of pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, for example. A political affiliation does not equate to a monolithic view on everything.
This actually ties into one of my biggest beefs with current notions of diversity. If you mention diversity, people will immediately think you're talking about visible characteristics: skin color, ethnic origin, sex, and gender identity. Maybe they'll also toss in religious affiliation. People rarely think about diversity in terms of policy views, education, philosophy, and the like. Personally, I think there's more true diversity in a group of people that look the same but think differently than there is in a group that look different but think the same. That's an opinion, of course, and you're free to disagree.
At the poll, I base my votes on who I feel is the best candidate for the given office. Given my stances on several issues of importance to me, it's unlikely I'll ever find a candidate I complete agree with, so I make the best with what options are given to me. I'd be unlikely to vote for a rabidly-anti-homosexual candidate, but I don't feel it's fair to call all Republicans this.
I've also heard the argument before that it's much easier to create change from the inside rather than the outside. There are gay men and women who agree with more stances from the Republicans than from the Democrats, and feel they're better off trying to change the party from within rather than from outside. If everyone who supported gay rights left the Republican party...the Republicans would therefore by requirement only ever offer up anti-gay-rights candidates, and voters who otherwise agreed primarily with the Republican platform on issues like affirmative action, or abortion, or tax policy, or illegal immigration, or whatever else you want to pick would be stuck having to make awful choices.
There's also the question of what will actually get done. The rhetoric of the far right is bad; the actual legal results of a Republican presidency haven't been that different from a Democratic one in terms of gay rights. As was mentioned previously, regardless of Bush's statements about gay marriage, he's made no serious effort to get an amendment through on it, and HIV funding has been increased substantially. The abomination known as the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Clinton, one of the champions of the Democratic party. That same Clinton also signed in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military policy that has resulted in such insanities as a number of Arabic translators in the past few years being ousted from the Pentagon because they're gay. For some of the more pragmatic among us, the rhetoric isn't as important as what actually happens.
As far as I'm concerned, in the struggle for civil rights time is clearly on our side. The younger generations are far more open to gays, both in terms of tolerance and actual acceptance. Culture shifts less from people changing their minds than it does from the previous generations being replaced by the younger ones, who have different views. Sure, it would be great if we were another generation or two further along, but it's still so much better than it was a few generations ago. There are a number of other issues I think are more likely to have a larger impact immediately, and a larger impact in the long-run, than gay rights. Of course, I'm more likely to vote for a candidate who has a record on gay rights that I agree with, but it's just not all-or-nothing issue for me.
Just my $0.02
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 4:28 AM GMT
Quote
Bravo, MSUBioNerd.
PERFECTLY STATED.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 4:38 AM GMT
Quote
crispro said
Bravo, MSUBioNerd.
PERFECTLY STATED.
Down in Oz. Teenage boys, and to some degree girls too, are still very homophobic. |
|
|
May 12, 2008 4:48 AM GMT
Quote
I'm with JustJohn on this one.
The parties are NOT equal. The Republican party, besides its troglodyte views on sexuality, has done nothing worth noting since freeing the slaves. On every social issue, they have been wrong. On every economic issue, they have been beyond wrong. Bush's policies may be short-sighted and stupid, but they are a rerun of the 1920s, another Republican era. They are the party of yesterday--a fake idealized yesterday at that--smallness of spirit, selfishness and general ugliness. If you don't believe me, read the platform of the Texas Republican party. Even if you ignore the religious aspects, it is a repulsive document.
And as for that often-repeated crap about how we were founded as an individualist nation, I'd like to point out that if that were really true, the thirteen colonies would have each elected to go it alone. And they nearly did. But it was decided that there would be a strong FEDERAL government, because there are some things that the states can't be relied upon to do uniformly or well.
"States' rights" is just the watch-cry of the racists. Always has been, always will be.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 6:41 AM GMT
Quote
Some well thought out posts here fellas. Also a few that are not so much, but I expected that.
I've actually never declared a party affiliation until this year. South Carolina has open primaries but for the expatriate delegates, the only option was voting in the Democratic primary. I'd also failed to consider some of the Northern and Western states where social attitudes can be somewhat different. Having grown up in South Carolina, we still still have the legacy of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and their ilk. To be a Republican here really does qualify you for membership in a very narrow mindset. I never realized just how much so until I was talking to a friend of a friend in his driveway in Columbia, SC. The discussion was classic cars and he had bought his cream puff from "a dealer who had bought it for his faggot boyfriend." This led to some of his ideological beliefs including the very direct statement "I'm a conservative, so that means I don't like fags." I'd never really heard it so explicitly put before, but there it is.
Maybe the disclaimer should be Southern Republicans instead. Now we've got Linsay Graham (closeted) and Jim DeMint (rabid). I've actually given up writing any issue letters to DeMint because its more or less like trying to douse a blast furnace by shooting spitballs.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 6:45 AM GMT
Quote
I wish more people voted as Pattison does; for the greater good.
I'm not registered to vote. I never have and never will vote. I'm a seperatist; I'm a malcontent; I'm a subversive, and give you leave to loathe me.
If I did a kneejerk vote, I would vote Republican. Why? Firearms legislation. I doubt must people know why so many rally around firearms. It's far too easy to simply apply a demeaning label on those whom don't agree with you, and it is so convenient to despise than to understand. I know some of those Many, while I do not share their passion, I do understand, and agree.
You're gay: die painfully. You're a Republican: burn in hell. It's all the same. There's no difference when someone wears the mantel of religion, ethnicity, nationalism or rights to sow the seeds of their own bitter hate.
I have no use for religion, politics or nationalism. It's a cloak small people can drape themselves in to find strength that they lack, to find courage in the face of their own morality; to find in a uniform or symbol a sufficient passion to carry themselves past their own sense of right and wrong, and thus be excused from responsibility.
I am bitter and tired because I am hated, and I will not reciprocate; hating people is a tiring affair. So I stand aside, seperate. I hold my own naive, laughable wish for the world, but not so naive or arrogant as to think that one person can change the world. The world will have as it will: the bosom-clutched fear for the things they would not sacrifice for others.
I will never soil myself in politics. To me it is nothing but a path seeking difference, of finding reason to hate another, and to proclaim your desires greater than all other's.
INDIFFERENCE! You cry. No, I say. I am not so great a fool as to believe that I can change the world a whit. I will not CHOOSE to seek cause to despise another for the promise of power, or acceptance. The world will have as it will; and I will not have the world.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 6:59 AM GMT
Quote
John43620 saidI'm an old Cold Warrior, the Democrats did everything they could to lose to the Soviet Union. The Democratic party is doing the same thing with terrorism and the war in Iraq. I will always oppose the Democratic party.
I'll have you know that if it weren't for the Republican party the civil rights amendment and the voting rights amendment wouldn't have passed. Just because Strom Thurmond joined the Republican party doesn't make us racists. We're still the party of Lincoln and will always be so. Opposition to Affirmative Action doesn't make us racist, it is part of our liberalism.
The Republican party must make some concessions to maintain support of the base constituencies. I'm not happy with the Christian Taliban wing of the party but
they vote Republican. If more gay and lesbians were actively Republican the party would be supportive of us.
You oppose going to war but support a strong military,
what were you thinking when you wrote that?
WOWOWOWOOWOWOWOWO I can't DISagree more!
YES most Rebugs are selfstated racists, and NO the Democrats are NOT trying to "lose" the war on terrorism JUST THE OPPOSITE! they are going about it in a way that will WORK, not encourage MORE people to become terrorsts and hate America for our terrible failed forign ploicies!
Is THIS the kind of absurd logic that drives gay people to vote republican?
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 7:15 AM GMT
Quote
I have two right winger gay republican friends. I find that it's just easier not to talk politics with them because everything I say just makes them foam at the mouth. Who knew saying that Rush Limbaugh is hypocritical drug addicted sensationalist hack or that Dick Cheney drinks babies' blood and sodomizes their dead carcasses could be inflammatory? I think they're crazy and they think I'm psychotic so it's easier just to agree to disagree and never speak of it under any circumstances and especially not at dinner parties.
|
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
May 12, 2008 7:58 AM GMT
Quote
There gay and there republicans...I don't see how they can't get anymore indepth...maby if they were, gay VIMPIRE republicans. then Id be like...But there vimpires...so, not cool.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 8:24 AM GMT
Quote
John43620 saidYou oppose going to war but support a strong military,
what were you thinking when you wrote that?
I was thinking I'd pick out one douche for a direct response on a policy issue rather than the philosophical question of political affialtion being more important than civil liberties. I own several guns, by your logic I should go out and preemptively shoot violent criminals before they attack me personally. Sound like a familiar national defense policy? Even Reagan, the first credit card Republican, had the sense not to engage the Soviets. He outspent them by driving our strong economy into ever-increasing debt. |
|
|
May 12, 2008 10:27 AM GMT
Quote
We are reaching the pit here in America after a long road of republican leadership
We're in a war we know we shouldn't have gone into
The Middle east is on fire because of our hands off policy
The economic policies of Corporate welfare...offshore tax shelters...tax give backs to the wealthiest Americans
due to the insane Reagan led policy of trickle down economics have led directly to this recession we're suffering through now
and The Guns God and Gays campaign to use us as pawns in local and National elections to get republicans elected is a page right out of the Rove school of Republican dirty tricks
You like being used as a propaganda tool?
You like being lied about and told how we are an abomination to god and after little children?...because that's what the republican party thinks of you
So you can say .... Clinton voted for DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell..which was a compromise after he tried to put an end to the ban on gays in the military
You are an absolute fool if you think the republicans will do anything positive for gay rights at any time at all
McCain won't moderate Republican platform's anti-gay plank
Friday April 11
Topix.net
The McCain president campaign doesn't plan to try to moderate planned Republican platform planks calling for constitutional amendments to ban abortion and to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
http://www.topix.com/news/gay/2008/04/mccain-wont-moderate-republican-platforms-anti-gay-plank
|
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
May 12, 2008 3:06 PM GMT
Quote
jprichva saidI'm with JustJohn on this one.
The parties are NOT equal. The Republican party, besides its troglodyte views on sexuality, has done nothing worth noting since freeing the slaves. On every social issue, they have been wrong. On every economic issue, they have been beyond wrong. State republicans alongside the slim democrat majority decided to grant same sex couples in CT access to state benefits, just like anyone else. The Republican governor at the time signed that into existence. And as for that often-repeated crap about how we were founded as an individualist nation, I'd like to point out that if that were really true, the thirteen colonies would have each elected to go it alone. And they nearly did. But it was decided that there would be a strong FEDERAL government, because there are some things that the states can't be relied upon to do uniformly or well.No, they wanted a LIMITED government. Read any writings from Jefferson to learn about his fears of too strong a government or the influence of a nation based off a single faith. Only specific powers, leaving all else to the states.
"certain inalienable rights." - The government can't create them but can violate them. I agree with Jefferson on that. Modern democrats seem to be more fans of claiming to "create" rights for some while denying liberties to others claiming its for the greater good. "States' rights" is just the watch-cry of the racists. Always has been, always will beJust as universal healthcare and democracy is the battle cry of modern socialists  |
|
|
May 12, 2008 3:23 PM GMT
Quote
Most politically informed homosexuals that I know choose not to vote based on one issue.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 3:42 PM GMT
Quote
I have a great example of the treason of the Democratic party, my own Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur.
She introduced a House Resolution to Congress that would block a Free Trade Agreement with Colombia.
She cites human rights violations as her reasoning. So if adopted, it signals support for the FARC guerrillas in Colombia. It supports the illegal narcotics trade FARC and their Venezuelan allies use to fund their revolution.
This directly hits home here in Toledo. Our crack dealers are very open here. They have curb service.
Not only does she support communists she supports the illegal narcotics trade.
Just chalk it up to a typical Democrat.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 3:44 PM GMT
Quote
Concerning issues, a few years ago, I went to the library to look up my birth announcement (1974) on the newspaper microfiche files. While perusing through the papers to find the date of my birth announcement, I couldn't help notice the feature story headline subjects:
Abortion rights
Gay rights
Gas prices
War
the Economy
Taxes
Natural Disasters
Big Business
White Collar Crimes
Scandals
Fastforward 34 years and it's all the same with new characters. Does anything really change? I believe that the polarization that exists between the Democrats and the Republicans is fully intended to keep the same issues alive in order to keep a business going in the name of government. Unless efficiency, equity, accountability standards and real responsibility is fully implemented and upheld into our government, don't expect anything to realistically change.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 3:47 PM GMT
Quote
John43620 said...Not only does she support communists she supports the illegal narcotics trade. Just chalk it up to a typical Democrat.
HA! And what about the Bush Administration's blind eye to the massive opium trade in Afghanistan? Just chalk it up to a typical Republican. |
|
|
May 12, 2008 4:06 PM GMT
Quote
One of the many things I have learned since joining this site is the unimaginable political diversity of the gay community. After coming out in 1981, my entire experience has been either with big-city screaming liberal gay people, or deeply closeted, secretive small-town folks. Until my exposure to LCR in Washington DC in the 90's, I had assumed that all gay people were unrepentant Democrats. Indeed, the very idea of a gay Republican was oxymoronic. How could anyone support a political party so unambiguously opposed to their own interests?
Not so, it seems. There are gay men here that are deeply, deeply conservative, which is shocking to me. Some folks that are raised conservative don't change their philosphy just because they are gay, although that is what happened to me. I knew I could never be a Republican by the time I realized I was gay at fourteen, even though publicly I was a little right winger up until college.
I guess if other shamefully disenfranchised persons (blacks, poor people, etc.) can be Republican when it is clearly not in their own economic interest to do so, then we can also.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 4:21 PM GMT
Quote
The way I vote has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything gay. I don't buy into this whole notion that Republicans hate gays -- that's so utterly ridiculous that it's laughable. Dick Cheney's own daughter is gay, and I have no doubt that they are far more tolerant on such matter than many might think. As for gay marriage, it's not the politicians keeping this from happening, it's the American people. It's been voted down time and time again by most states. Since I personally have no desire what so ever to ever marry another man, for me personally it is a non-issue. Granted, and I certainly understand why it's an issue to others, but it's not something that is important to me.
Regardless, I vote for the candidate, not the party. If the Democrats were to put up someone that truly had the credentials, experience, and the ideas that I felt would take this country into a direction it needed to go, I would vote for that person whole-heartedly if they seemed like a stronger candidate than the Republican nominee. Fact of the matter is, the dems haven't really managed to do that. They play "grasp at straws" politics and, more importantly "Bitch and Complain" politics. They don't offer anything all that ground breaking or inspirational at all that could even remotely persuade me to not vote for McCain who has spent a lifetime serving this country, 25 years in the Senate, a War Hero, and in my opinion has the judgement and experience to be given such an enormous responsibility during these very difficult, not to mention dangerous, times. Hillary simply isn't trust-worthy. Obama simply doesn't have the credentials or the experience. For me, voting for McCain is a no-brainer.
|
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
May 12, 2008 4:28 PM GMT
Quote
once...
there was this guy...
and he put milk in his cereal...
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 5:05 PM GMT
Quote
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 5:15 PM GMT
Quote
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 5:24 PM GMT
Quote
Yes I do vote for party over person. Straight Democratic ticket always, every time. If the Dem candidate us unacceptable to me, I leave the space blank.
One party has as an organizing principle the philosophy that we are second class citizens, unworthy of the same effing legal protections as everyone else. This party has among it's most prominent members a bunch of old white people that get up every Sunday morning and tell people that we are sick, twisted and after their children. The other party does not.
It's pretty clear to me. Once gay people are completely enfranchised and enjoy all protections under the 14th Amendment, then perhaps I will be able to look more objectively at some other particulars of the Republican Party. Until then I can't pay attention to other matters since I am still fighting for the right to exist.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 5:56 PM GMT
Quote
Republicans, especially conservative ones, leverage fear. Democrats, especially progressive ones, leverage hope.
I know my choice, and I'll reap the rewards. For I have balls.
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 6:29 PM GMT
Quote
I have voted for Republicans before. A New York state Republican is nothing like a Mississippi Republican. Republicans. There are a few national Republicans who have pretty good records on gay rights. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, and Susan Collins are all GOP senators but their rating by the Human Rights Campaign is way better than that of Democrat Robert Byrd. That said, they are not a dominate voice in the GOP. The last two decades have been all about religious theocracy of Rick Santorum or the authoritarianism of Dick Cheney. |
|
|
May 12, 2008 7:30 PM GMT
Quote
CuriousJockAZ saidThe way I vote has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything gay. I don't buy into this whole notion that Republicans hate gays -- that's so utterly ridiculous that it's laughable. Dick Cheney's own daughter is gay, and I have no doubt that they are far more tolerant on such matter than many might think. As for gay marriage, it's not the politicians keeping this from happening, it's the American people. This seems rather counterintuitive to me. Though it is clear that some individuals within the Repblican party have close associations with gays, there can be no doubt that continued repression of gay rights is part of the party platform. Yes, Dick Cheney's daughter is gay and she enjoys an abundance of wealth that allows her to function above a need for basic family laws. The rest of us are not so fortunate. Still, when I hear about most gays within the Republican structure, it is more along the lines of "look, he even hired one" rather than what has been advocated for legal protections. To me, this is analogous to saying, "yes, we even eat dinner at the same table, just in the kitchen." I will not deny that there are personal examples of individual stellar behavior towards gays within the Republican party, but offering us legal rights and protections equivalent to straight people is something I have not even seen them attempt rhetoric on. |
|
|
May 12, 2008 7:36 PM GMT
Quote
Nice tag, and to a large extent I would agree. However, is this still the case when it applies to civil rights? I do not have figures at hand at the moment but I wonder, were there black Republicas during the Civil Rights Era? Same goes for Nazi Germany. The Nazis were slowly voted into power, after which they began to consolidate. How many Jews had Nazi party affiliation? Much like we are today, these groups were actively blocked from employment and citizenship protections. The core question I was originally interested in is the rationale of siding with a group that deliberately seeks to repress you. asupas saidMost politically informed homosexuals that I know choose not to vote based on one issue. |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
May 12, 2008 7:40 PM GMT
Quote
coolarmydude said
Fastforward 34 years and it's all the same with new characters. Does anything really change? I believe that the polarization that exists between the Democrats and the Republicans is fully intended to keep the same issues alive in order to keep a business going in the name of government. Unless efficiency, equity, accountability standards and real responsibility is fully implemented and upheld into our government, don't expect anything to realistically change. Pretty funny how the cycle goes on and on huh Of course we all have the ability to vote third party but how many ever will. The majority of American's will never even know who any other candidate is other than the ones the leashed media portrays on the 5PM news. |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
May 12, 2008 7:45 PM GMT
Quote
JustJohn saidNice tag, and to a large extent I would agree. However, is this still the case when it applies to civil rights?
I do not have figures at hand at the moment but I wonder, were there black Republicas during the Civil Rights Era? Same goes for Nazi Germany. The Nazis were slowly voted into power, after which they began to consolidate. How many Jews had Nazi party affiliation? Much like we are today, these groups were actively blocked from employment and citizenship protections. The core question I was originally interested in is the rationale of siding with a group that deliberately seeks to repress you. That assumes that oppressing gays is a core value of the republican party rather than the value imposed on it by right wing christians inside the party. Ending oppression comes after a long road of changing people's attitudes and ending the religious fervor found in parts of the nation. Simply voting in a democratic majority and adding laws doesn't change anything. Opponents will simply find new and secretive ways to continue oppression outside of areas of federal control. And then the democrats will continue to extend their power to every corner of society. In the end its trying to change the world by handing everything over to the Fed on a silver platter. While yes, I'd say republicans in power oppress gays in many parts of the country it's still a much better world than one where we only have rights and freedoms due to enforced laws and lorded over by an all to powerful central government. |
|
|
May 12, 2008 7:52 PM GMT
Quote
You know I asked my parents why they voted republican and they said they always had, and their parents had before them and you never know what any of the other parties might do if they got into power...
I had to the same conversation with a girl(gay) I know in front of me at the polls...her response was
"I think I'd prefer to vote for one of the other candidates but Me mammy would kill me if I voted for anyone other than a republican"
|
|
|
May 12, 2008 8:31 PM GMT
Quote
JustJohn, Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.
|
|
|
May 13, 2008 3:59 AM GMT
Quote
|
|
|
May 13, 2008 5:27 AM GMT
Quote
XRuggerATX saidRepublicans, especially conservative ones, leverage fear. Democrats, especially progressive ones, leverage hope.
I know my choice, and I'll reap the rewards. For I have balls. You also have an emotional and overly simplified view of politics. Hope and fear? Humans should resist the natural urge to "emotionalize" complex issues. Doing so distorts objectivity, not to mention reality. Emotional rhetoric obscures sound judgement. It's well known that emotional decisions are usually poor decisions. Hope and fear? It should be so simple. Republican ideals foster empowerment and achievement by creating opportunity and independance, while Democratic ideals foster populism, socialism and dependency on external entities - rather than the individual himself. These are 2 different approaches to addressing social issues. Both are imperfect. Both have positives. Both have negatives. Pick your poison. |
|
|
May 13, 2008 1:06 PM GMT
Quote
crispro said[quote][cite]XRuggerATX said[/cite]Republicans, especially conservative ones, leverage fear. Democrats, especially progressive ones, leverage hope.
I know my choice, and I'll reap the rewards. For I have balls. You also have an emotional and overly simplified view of politics. Hope and fear? Humans should resist the natural urge to "emotionalize" complex issues. Doing so distorts objectivity, not to mention reality. Emotional rhetoric obscures sound judgement. It's well known that emotional decisions are usually poor decisions. Hope and fear? It should be so simple. Republican ideals foster empowerment and achievement by creating opportunity and independance, while Democratic ideals foster populism, socialism and dependency on external entities - rather than the individual himself. These are 2 different approaches to addressing social issues. Both are imperfect. Both have positives. Both have negatives. Pick your poison. [/quote] You're speaking of each party's approach if this were the founding days of each party. Neither is what they once were. Welfare reform and the community reinvestment act happened on Clinton's watch. Corporate welfare and pumping billions into the military to "protect us" both thrived under the Bushes and Reagan. Talk about fostering dependence (and corruption). But tell me with a straight face (umm...yeah) that republicans don't leverage fear to get what they want. What rock have you been under these past eight years? And guess what...emotion plays a big part in all this whether that's noble or not. Politicians recognize the undeniable human component. It is used to bring people to action...or voting for x or y. It's why political ads are such a huge industry. It's why so many people seem to vote based on who they'd rather drink a beer with (not good, mind you). If you love your country, and are truly a patriot, then politics is easily emotional. |
|
|
May 13, 2008 1:55 PM GMT
Quote
XRuggerATX, You mistake fostering fear for prudence.
Never in the twentieth century has an enemy been able to inflict such an attack on the United States as the attacks of 9/11. When you look at it objectively, it could have been far worse had the terrorists been smarter.
|
|
|
May 13, 2008 7:09 PM GMT
Quote
Oh for Christ's sake keep your paranoid PTSD to yourself, or at least save it for the couch of a qualified professional. You are quite literally one of the last to still be yapping about 9/11. You help accomplish what bin Laden set out to do...change our culture to one of polarization and fear. Some patriot you are. It takes more than swinging a dick, toting a gun, and spouting thinly veiled racism to be a real patriot.
And I'm not trying to discount what happened on 9/11/2001 (I love how people leave out the year as though that one day will be forever allocated to bin Laden). It was one of the upper five tragedies I have been alive to witness. But to hang on to it is to wear it like some badge with bin Laden's face on it. Every time some misguided fool utters 9/11 bin Laden gets another ego boost.
We have to leap beyond this BS, not get sucked into the game he and al Qaeda want us to play.
|
|
|
May 13, 2008 8:01 PM GMT
Quote
This part I would also agree with. We have traded an alleged safety from The Terrorists for more than a few of our privacy protections and civil liberties, which neatly steers back to my question of party affiliation over rights. A few post 9/11 examples: Guantanamo, it is a disgrace for a so-called Christian nation and Geneva Convention signee to be operating this pit. The philosophy of anything goes to achieve the ends is what blew up two towers in the first place and sets a degenerate moral example. If I call my partner from Europe, the call can be monitored by the US government without a warrant because I, the caller, am outside the US. When I travel, I sign a document indicating that I am an EU resident because search and siezure rights are more restrictive than in the US. Pre-9/11 Reagan-era policies: It is illegal to drug test for employment in the EU. They consider it an invasion of privacy. I can buy just about any gun over here I want with one catch, I need a good reason like belonging to a shooting club and have to take lessons before I can purchase it. It's a little observed fact, but every single able-bodied (or previously able bodied) male in Switzerland is issued a NATO automatic rifle that gets taken home after military service. All they have to do is pass out ammunition to arm every household in the nation, yet no terrorism and negligible violent crime. Sorry, but a government that prods you to give them ever increasing authority so you can have them to hide behind is enabling cowardice and breeding a herd of sheep to do it's bidding. XRuggerATX saidOh for Christ's sake keep your paranoid PTSD to yourself, or at least save it for the couch of a qualified professional. You are quite literally one of the last to still be yapping about 9/11. You help accomplish what bin Laden set out to do...change our culture to one of polarization and fear. Some patriot you are. It takes more than swinging a dick, toting a gun, and spouting thinly veiled racism to be a real patriot.
And I'm not trying to discount what happened on 9/11/2001 (I love how people leave out the year as though that one day will be forever allocated to bin Laden). It was one of the upper five tragedies I have been alive to witness. But to hang on to it is to wear it like some badge with bin Laden's face on it. Every time some misguided fool utters 9/11 bin Laden gets another ego boost.
We have to leap beyond this BS, not get sucked into the game he and al Quaeda want us to play. |
|
|
May 13, 2008 8:25 PM GMT
Quote
I wish it made sense to register as libertarian. That's what I am and what I believe. The government has no right in our social lives, nor should it act as a monopoly in industry or economics (as we know monopolies in industry lead to inefficiencies and consumers paying more than they should - and monopolies in government are better known as Communism and Totalitarianism). The government's role is in maintaining the rule of law and establishing and enforcing common law. Whichever candidate is closest to this belief is the one I vote for (well... long as he/she's a real contender and not some whack-job 3rd party candidate).
But you're right in the original post... The Republican party is going to have to change or it will shrivel up and all that will be left are the right wing religious wackos. I know a lot of people (republicans) who are very dissatisfied with how things are going ala: This is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility. To boot, they want to regulate social affairs and put in place a more liberal view of the Establishment Clause (separation of church and state).
|
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
May 13, 2008 8:29 PM GMT
Quote
JustJohn saidWith all due respect, you few gay Republicans are the minorities' minority and I am curious what drives it. Before diving straight for the small, efficient government, lower taxes line, here is my confusion:
I have several conservative-aligned values. I am a gun owner, believe our government is wasteful and inefficient, think individual states should take it upon themselves to regulate within their own borders, believe in a strong national defense (without going to war), and that individuals should shoulder a great deal more personal responsibility than they seem to today.
Unfortunately, I cannot conscience voting for a party that actively campaigns against the right for me to visit my partner in the hospital, will not allow us equal inheritance rights, actively denies me the same job protections as people who "choose" to be religious in the work place, and generally accepts people within its ranks who have all but advocated the death penalty for those who commit sodomy. Because of this, I am generally referred to as a "single issue voter."
During the Civil Rights Era, there was a major party shift in the southern states from Democratic to Republican directly because of a single issue. Southerners did not approve of social justice when it had to be applied to black people as well. The history is there, starting with Strom Thurmond's party shift from Dem to Dixiecrat (racist Democrat) and finally to Republican.
So, given my view of the importance of this "single issue" of civil rights that the Republicans insist on putting up for a majority vote, who can explain to me the gay Republican framed against the Civil Rights Era black Republican?
I LOVE the way you think! |
|
|
May 13, 2008 8:50 PM GMT
Quote
John43620 saidXRuggerATX, You mistake fostering fear for prudence.
Never in the twentieth century has an enemy been able to inflict such an attack on the United States as the attacks of 9/11. When you look at it objectively, it could have been far worse had the terrorists been smarter.
John, you never fail to disappoint. What's the quote I'm trying to think of? A people that gives up freedom for security ends up with neither? I would rather be free than safe any day of my life. That's what separates conservatives from liberals I guess. |
|
|
May 14, 2008 2:53 AM GMT
Quote
javaman9999 saidI wish it made sense to register as libertarian. That's what I am and what I believe. The libertarians are even more massively full of crap than the two major parties. They claim to want government out of your business, so the libertarians are reflexively anti-tax, any kind of tax. They believe that the government's main duty is to fund police protection. But, er, it doesn't add up. Violent crime, yes, because it affects all of us. But why should my tax dollars pay for a police force to protect your property, which may be worth many times the value of mine? Isn't that a kind of subsidy? If you're really so rich that a crime of property will be significant (art theft, jewel theft, car theft) shouldn't you pay for a private security force, rather than sponging off of me, since I don't acquire expensive status symbols? But the libertarian doesn't understand this to be an issue. This is why libertarians are really just Republicans without the social-issue crazy streak, and why Ron Paul can switch back and forth between the Libs and the Repubs without any real cognitive dissonance. And while we're at it, aren't there other things that affect us all that government only can solve? Like roadways and bridges. Libertarians are all for privatizing roadways. But needing to be on a road is a fact of life. Why should some private firm be permitted to profiteer off somebody's basic need to go to work and the supermarket? Libertarianism is a cheap, nasty shell game. |
|
|
May 14, 2008 5:11 AM GMT
Quote
Man some of u people are just wacked. I mean opposing socialized medicine even though u and your fellow gays have higher risk of STDs,inc HIV, sluts getting u're misinformation from FOX and NewsMax (how can anybody watch that sh--t), rejecting the history of the left of the past 100 years and its support for gay righs in favor of people who hang out with religious Nazis? Wow. To top it all off I bet that many right wing gays aren't even rich, at least then you would have a selfish reason. Man if you are rich then I guess that you could always live under the assumption that u could buy your way outta any fix, however that didnt work for the rich jews and homos under the germans in the 1930s.
F--k I didnt know many gays but I always though that gays were just a little smarter than hetero just b/c they had to be, man was I wrong.
Man, I KNOW I aint smart the best I can do is be no fool.
|
|
|
May 14, 2008 5:37 AM GMT
Quote
Case in point.
|
|
|
May 15, 2008 12:18 PM GMT
Quote
jarhead5536 said[quote][cite]John43620 said[/cite]XRuggerATX, You mistake fostering fear for prudence.
Never in the twentieth century has an enemy been able to inflict such an attack on the United States as the attacks of 9/11. When you look at it objectively, it could have been far worse had the terrorists been smarter.
A people that gives up freedom for security ends up with neither? I would rather be free than safe any day of my life. That's what separates conservatives from liberals I guess.[/quote] Ummm, that's what XRugger has been saying. Give him the credit. He said that Republicans have used fear to wedge people into believing they need to depend on government to take care of their security and in doing so, give up some of their freedoms. It's like the illegal wiretaps on US citizens for no reason or without a warrant, for example. It was all in the name of terrorism, but there is no oversight from the Judicial Branch. This is a fundamental breach of the Constitution and the right to due process. Props to XRugger. |
|
|
May 15, 2008 1:19 PM GMT
Quote
jprichva said
The libertarians are even more massively full of crap than the two major parties.
They claim to want government out of your business, so the libertarians are reflexively anti-tax, any kind of tax. They believe that the government's main duty is to fund police protection.
But, er, it doesn't add up. Violent crime, yes, because it affects all of us. But why should my tax dollars pay for a police force to protect your property, which may be worth many times the value of mine? Isn't that a kind of subsidy? If you're really so rich that a crime of property will be significant (art theft, jewel theft, car theft) shouldn't you pay for a private security force, rather than sponging off of me, since I don't acquire expensive status symbols?
But the libertarian doesn't understand this to be an issue. This is why libertarians are really just Republicans without the social-issue crazy streak, and why Ron Paul can switch back and forth between the Libs and the Repubs without any real cognitive dissonance.
And while we're at it, aren't there other things that affect us all that government only can solve? Like roadways and bridges. Libertarians are all for privatizing roadways. But needing to be on a road is a fact of life. Why should some private firm be permitted to profiteer off somebody's basic need to go to work and the supermarket?
Libertarianism is a cheap, nasty shell game. I love the oversimplification. Additionally, your socialistic desire for a redistribution of wealth comes through your post as well. Would you really endorse a government that chose which laws to protect based on the wealth of the person who was offended? Sounds arbitrary to me. Libertarian as I understand it includes the enforcement of common law and rule of law (both of which I mentioned in my post). There's a lot of things government as an entity with power and money can do. That doesn't mean it should do these things. I'll use the post office as an example. The Constitution establishes a federally government run post office. We pay taxes to subsidize and keep it running against competition from the private sector (DHL and FedEx). Why not just close it up? If there were a rating for efficiency where do you think the USPS would rank? People claim they are afraid that they need a reliable system of parcel delivery (even though the cost will be orders of magnitude higher than the private sector). I point to the fact that contracts between a bankrupt entity are enforced, so it's not like a company is not going to deliver the letter of package they promised (or health insurance package) http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2007/09/articles/business-bankruptcy-issues/are-termination-on-bankruptcy-contract-clauses-enforceable/ So it's not like you're not going to get your services. Additionally, the wonder of capitalism is that when a company goes out, the system adjusts instantaneously: another company is generally there to pick up the slack. Imagine if we only had one entity (i.e. the government) in a field. It wouldn't go bankrupt... but you might, since it gets its money from you. (extend the analogy to whatever you like, healthcare for example) jprichva, I'm not going to try and convince you, I know that's pointless. I know that people have their hearts set on certain philosophies -- often because of emotional reasons rather than a dispassionate analysis of the facts. But I do think this is a useful discussion for people who don't know as much about different systems of government. |
|
|
May 15, 2008 4:06 PM GMT
Quote
javaman9999 said, "I love the oversimplification. Additionally, your socialistic desire for a redistribution of wealth comes through your post as well. Would you really endorse a government that chose which laws to protect based on the wealth of the person who was offended? Sounds arbitrary to me.
Libertarian as I understand it includes the enforcement of common law and rule of law (both of which I mentioned in my post).
There's a lot of things government as an entity with power and money can do. That doesn't mean it should do these things. I'll use the post office as an example. The Constitution establishes a federally government run post office. We pay taxes to subsidize and keep it running against competition from the private sector (DHL and FedEx). Why not just close it up? If there were a rating for efficiency where do you think the USPS would rank?
People claim they are afraid that they need a reliable system of parcel delivery (even though the cost will be orders of magnitude higher than the private sector). I point to the fact that contracts between a bankrupt entity are enforced, so it's not like a company is not going to deliver the letter of package they promised (or health insurance package)
http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2007/09/articles/business-bankruptcy-issues/are-termination-on-bankruptcy-contract-clauses-enforceable/
So it's not like you're not going to get your services. Additionally, the wonder of capitalism is that when a company goes out, the system adjusts instantaneously: another company is generally there to pick up the slack. Imagine if we only had one entity (i.e. the government) in a field. It wouldn't go bankrupt... but you might, since it gets its money from you.
(extend the analogy to whatever you like, healthcare for example)
jprichva, I'm not going to try and convince you, I know that's pointless. I know that people have their hearts set on certain philosophies -- often because of emotional reasons rather than a dispassionate analysis of the facts. But I do think this is a useful discussion for people who don't know as much about different systems of government."
Well, to answer your points, as I'm not in favor of Libertarianism is as such:
The Postal Service was created out of necessity starting with the Pony Express. It grew into what it is today, a basic service for delivering goods and correspondence. The other parcel carriers came along for whatever reasons, but the main reason the USPS stays in business is to keep the industry costs down. If the USPS closed shop, you would see the commercial parcel service carriers increase costs to the consumers. I wondered about this very question about 10 years ago.
Also, one criticism I have of Libertarians is their idea of open borders. It was in 2000 when I heard Libertarians argue for open borders and the free movement of people, regardless of nationality and this was months after the foiled LAX New Year's terrorist plot that border security intervened and prevented along the Canadian border. AMAZING! Your theories are too far-fetching and don't fit in with reality.
|
|
|
May 15, 2008 4:47 PM GMT
Quote
Being an aspiring overseas journalist I chose political science as my minor. International relations and comparative government were my focus but I did take a 200 and 400 level course on journalism and politics. I was never better acquainted with the US Constitution until then.
It says in Article 1 of the Constitution that the Congress will establish and regulate a national post office.
I look at political labels as numbers on the kinsey scale.
Libertarians being a 1, Anarchists. no control over
anything
Right Wing Republicans being 2, insane Liberals
Normal Republicans, Being 3, Sane normal Liberals
Normal Democrats, being 4, Sane normal Liberals with
some marxist ideas exerting
more control than normal
Republicans
Left wing Democrats, being 5, insane Marxists wanting
to control as much as they
can but not everything
Communists being a 6, total control over everything
freaks
|
|
|
May 15, 2008 5:11 PM GMT
Quote
John43620 saidI look at political labels as numbers on the kinsey scale.
Libertarians being a 1, Anarchists. no control over
anything Are you saying Libertarians are breeders? |
|
|
May 15, 2008 7:12 PM GMT
Quote
I think in order to have any productive discourse we should probably all agree on the definitions for the terms we're using. Libertarians aren't anarchists.
WIKI:
Libertarianism is a broad spectrum of political philosophies, each sharing the common overall priority of maximum limitation of government combined with optimum possible individual liberty. Its goals, though often varied in detail, prioritize freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of association, freedom to bear arms, freedom of and from religion, Press freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of ownership. It rejects the compulsions of socialism and communism so far as to uphold, at one end of the spectrum, private property, whether held on an individual or group basis. It promotes personal responsibility and self-organized charity, as opposed to a welfare state.
Coolarmydude
"The Postal Service was created out of necessity starting with the Pony Express. It grew into what it is today, a basic service for delivering goods and correspondence. The other parcel carriers came along for whatever reasons, but the main reason the USPS stays in business is to keep the industry costs down. If the USPS closed shop, you would see the commercial parcel service carriers increase costs to the consumers. I wondered about this very question about 10 years ago."
I'm not even sure where to begin with that. First off, it was not created with the Pony Express. As I said in my original post, it was written into the US Constitution. The Pony Express started 1860, and if my memory serves, the Constitution was written almost a century before that.
Your view of economics is very static. To play with your hypothetical scenario, let's say the USPS closed its doors. Yes, immediately, the existing parcel companies probably couldn't handle the demand. But that's the great thing about capitalism. Here's a market where there's too much demand and not enough supply of the service. Enter a new company/business/entrepreneur - or technology - to fill that void.
As an aside: Most mail is not personal correspondence. Who sends letters anymore (except for weddings and stuff)? It's mostly bulk mail, bills, ads. The companies would have to make a choice to change where they are going to advertise. And you can pay your bills online or through your phone.
There's a reason people don't send telegraphs anymore, the technology is obsolete and it doesn't make sense, just call someone or send an email or txt message. If you need to send an object, use a parcel service.
anyway, my original point isn't about the USPS itself. I was using a specific example that could be applied to other aspects of government involvement in economics or social issues.
ok i'm done... flame on
|
|
|
May 15, 2008 9:02 PM GMT
Quote
Since I don't define myself by my sexuality alone, nor do I define myself by my politics alone, I merely offer the phrase I gave my mother when coming out to her: "I am who I am".
|
|
|
May 16, 2008 1:33 AM GMT
Quote
John43620 saidXRuggerATX, You mistake fostering fear for prudence.
Never in the twentieth century has an enemy been able to inflict such an attack on the United States as the attacks of 9/11. When you look at it objectively, it could have been far worse had the terrorists been smarter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh MY GOD John !!!! the bushies have gotten away with murdering thousands due to his unnecessarry war, taking away many a constitutional right of both Americans and his (conveniently labeled)enemy combatant prisoners, breaking time honored laws of the world powers/treaties, and our own laws for their sham "WAR ON TERROR". your word prudence fits right into neocon bushies finding it prudent to use 9-11 to accomplish their stated goals having to do with the above. Its also become quite evident that 9-11 could have and would have been stopped if inside assistance hadn't been interferring. Its been proven that Cheney was playing war games with our airforce defences the morning of 9-11, he had them well away from NYC and DC, and they couldn't respond because of it. QUITE A COINCIDENSE WASN'T IT. Don't take my word for it, look up on the net where our airforce emergency crew/planes were the morning of 9-11. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In this day and time there are far too many obvious reasons why I cannot and will not support what republicans represent in actuality. we cannot go by their founding ideals, we have to go by what policies/actions they are actually promoting/doing, which right now is taking our country, its economy and its citizens down into a pit. Dems aren't progressive like their stated Ideals are either, but they are far closer than the thugs running washington now, thats for damn sure !!! |
|
|
May 16, 2008 1:55 AM GMT
Quote
Wow, thats got to be one of the most far fetched conspiracy theories even you have professed. Here is what I found on popular mechanics:
"No Stand-Down Order
Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."
FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them. "
|
|
|
May 16, 2008 2:09 AM GMT
Quote
javaman9999 said I love the oversimplification. Additionally, your socialistic desire for a redistribution of wealth comes through your post as well. Would you really endorse a government that chose which laws to protect based on the wealth of the person who was offended? Sounds arbitrary to me. Are you serious? For one thing, crying "socialism" is the first thing someone does when they prefer not to use their brains. Secondly, it is you--the libertarians--who have your hands in MY pockets, wanting me to fund police protection for your expensive properties. If you're such a rugged individualist, pay for it your own damn self. Who's the real "socialist" here? But libertarians don't think things through, nor do they encourage anyone else to do so, lest people see through their three-card monte politics. |
|
Hidden/Deleted Member
|
May 16, 2008 2:13 AM GMT
Quote
Did someone forget the a policy of most libertarians is against a police state? And against expanding the power of local and federal agents? Last I checked an expanded police force as paid for my all taxpayers was a more of a liberal socialist kind of thing  I think someone's going to have to explain about how using your brain leads to socialism too. I'm not seeing the connection nor can I think of any recent examples of near 300 million people in a nation benefiting from socialism. |
|
|
May 16, 2008 4:01 AM GMT
Quote
Let me explain this for the last time.
There. Is. No. Socialism.
You people use that word to mean "any political policy that pisses you off."
But that doesn't make it true, not for all your foot-stamping and holding your breath until you turn blue.
|
|
|
May 16, 2008 4:26 AM GMT
Quote
jprichva saidLet me explain this for the last time.
There. Is. No. Socialism.
You people use that word to mean "any political policy that pisses you off."
But that doesn't make it true, not for all your foot-stamping and holding your breath until you turn blue. I image you saying "There is no socialism" and clicking your ruby slippers together. Socialism to me is: concentrating economic decisions and authority with a single government entity. It is anathema to capitalism. "Central planners (gov't) could never match the overall information inherent in the decision-making throughout a market economy." The market economy makes adjustments instantaneously for supply and demand changes that a government would be too slow to do (and uninformed). Setting the price of goods artificially is a mistake. Socialist policies most certainly exist today, and should be combated. |
|
|
May 16, 2008 4:33 AM GMT
|
