This is why I'm an Independent. Politically speaking, any of these arguments could be twisted and turned to be bad for the opposing party and good for the favored party. I must say, that on a purely theoretical level, I agree with Republicans alot more than Democrats. Don't think I grew up rich either, and as a college student - I am surely not rich now either. I feel that perhaps Republicans go to war to often (not that I disagree with the War on Terror), but yet Democrats aren't willing enough to go to war (Clinton not doing jacksh*t when the Taliban attacked us the first two times - although not on American soil). The Republicans probably give to much power & go to easy on big corporations hoping they will make the right decisions for us, while the Democrats take to much from the rich & large corporations to fund far too many programs. Welfare along with many other Democrat ideas sound good on paper, but don't work the way they are supposed to in real life (much like communism, not to say Democrats are communists). For instance, when the idea of welfare was thought up, could they have fathomed that entire generations of families in the ghetto would live off it and never in their lives know what it meant to work - except to sell crack on the corner of course. But what do I know, I'm just a college freshman.
Jetstorm, you are simply a liar and a right wing propagandist. No one said any of those three things you accuse people of, but you have never let facts get in the way of your idiotic posts so far, so why start now?
Martin, there is a such thing as common law marriages and people can be considered married by the state in hearings, legal disputes and custody cases, so what jet was saying is NOT that ridiculous. check out common law marriages. One more thing, not necessarily about martin, but some of you people post without ever checking a law book, which is fine I guess because it's a forum, but whatever happened to researching something for truth? I don't mean the national enquirer either.
Not me. I keep a team of lawyers on retainer just to check everything out before I make a post on the inernet. "If the post don't fit you must aquit."
my guess is i know far far more about the law than you, specifically common law marriage, which does only happen in 14 states, and LA is not one of them. i was responding to this: one fact that we can never overlook is this: if you say you believe that the government will force straight men to marry each other against their will because they share the rent, then you are an idiot, or possibly a liar. now go study your law books.
yunno, it is interesting how the social freedoms of the democrats somehow agrees with the lack of economic freedoms of the party. and similarly how the religious restriction of social freedoms integrates with the economic freedom (in theory at least) policy of the republicans. it would be neat if the four possible stances on those two issues created four real parties that worked, instead of 2. like we would have: 1. the populist reformers like M.O.M., who is for big government as well as religious social controls. 2. normal republicans like dallastigers and jetstorm, who like religion as well as the free market. 3 normal democrats like cottonbowl66 who dislike economic freedom but favor social freedom. 4 libertarians like me and colonel hapablap (simpsons reference from air show episode) who favor freedom from economic as well as social/religious regulation. the point is, i would like to see how an election would go if we had 4 viable candidates, from thoise parties. but i guess i know the answer, the republicans and democrats would destroy, even though it seems that i know alot of people who are idealogically aligned with the two other "fringe" parties i mentioned. maybe these people who would vote for these other two parties exist in higher amounts than we realize, but we never vote that way because we dont think we have a real chance, or don't think about it much. i know i am guilty of this. i know if i was a nader supporter, i might not vote for him because i would dislike bush so much, just as i am a bit scared to vote for harry browne now for fear of a democrat. maybe the smart thing to do is just forget the short-term consequences and really vote third or fourth party.
martin, of all the wackos that post here, libertarians are the wackiest. You people are not even faintly rooted in reality. Hope the view from the asylum if good today.
The part that amuses me is that people who run as Republican 'moderates' (meaning I love the free market, but stay out of my bedroom too) usually win in overwhelming landslides. I'm amazed that neither party has made an effort to woo the vote of the group of us that seem (at least to me) to be a huge majority of the American public. Most people that I talk to on both political sides tend to be very libertarian, but hate 'the other party' for the freedoms that said party tries to take away. One day one of the parties is going to nominate a libertarian in another party's clothing and that party is going to be dominant for many years to come.
