Last week during the explosion of angry Republicans, I had lots to blog about, but decided to refrain in my magnanimous attempt to not stir the kettle of crazy.
I'll just summarize here: I was "unfriended" on Facebook by some Republicans who mistook me for an Obama supporter. I saw a respected Libertarian post something so vile and repulsive that it caused me to change political parties. I'm now a Democrat with intentions to bring small, efficient government views to a liberal organization. We can be liberal without breaking the bank. I've been doing it for a few decades now!
Before Democrat haters start in on me, I would rather be independent, but as I get older I realize independence is a pretty powerless political stance. If I can get the Democrats to believe me, I think I can create an efficient organization that doesn't believe in blaming our apparent lack of religion on everything. Or at least aim them in that direction. Democrats are more apt to discuss ideas rather than beliefs. You can't argue beliefs. Trust me, I've tried.
This change in stance and in Facebook friends was brought about, in some small part, by my favorite quote of the circus. Basically, taking an old Thomas Jefferson quote and altering it to correspond with the utter lack of intelligence that was being splattered across my innocent Facebook wall time and time again. Here it is now; edited to protect the innocent.
"I have never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friendship." But stupidity will make me drop you like a hot potato.
You changed political parties based upon one person's posting on facebook? What about core principals? What about promotion of personal liberties? How can you go completely idealogically opposite from one vile posting? I don't think you understand just what liberalism is or what the history is, but I would really recommend you do some research. Let's start with an example... Name one social program, introduced by liberals of either party, that has achieved the goals it was presented with, has come in under budget, and was dismantled when it's stated goal was reached... Just one... After the crickets stop chirpping you'll realize that "small, efficient government... without breaking the bank" just doesn't happen. Once you give a politician power, you'll never get it back...
ReplyDeleteThe changing of parties excuse was more of a "last straw" kind of deal.
ReplyDeletePersonal liberties is exactly why I don't ever vote Republican.
I'm not opposed to social programs if done correctly. However, I'm convinced the US Government will never be able to do one correctly in its current incarnation.
My number one goal is personal freedom.
Republicans will never do that because they believe we should be governed by their God and their interpretations of the Bible.
Libertarians will never do it because they'll never get elected.
Democrats seem to be on the bandwagon and they are already in power.
"Governed by their God?" That's a specious argument if I ever heard one. The only limitations Republicans put on freedom, as a party, is on abortions.
ReplyDelete"Democrats seem to be on the bandwagon and they are already in power." Sounds like something a dim-witted Polish jew would have said about Hitler in 1940.
Democrats gave us the NDAA law last year, the biggest affront to personal liberty in American history.
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-should-be-outraged-about-the-ruling-to-keep-the-national-defense-authorization-in-effect-2012-10[/url]
If you think attempts or desires to limit abortions is worse than a government with unlimited ability to detain a citizen indefinitely without cause I think you should re-evaluate your thoughts.
I don't trust politicians of any stripe and giving them unlimited powers, which is undeniably the path we're on, is simply insanity.
Go here: http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf.
ReplyDeleteIt's the platform of 2012 Republicans. See how many times they mention, God, religion and Christian beliefs.
A large number of Americans have 0 "God-given" rights, because they don't believe in God. Why would they vote for a party that guarantees their "God-given rights"?
Only abortion? Do you just hear what you want to hear? Even abortion is a very personal decision that only a pregnant woman can make. I've never been pregnant so I have no idea what it's like.
Richard Nixon passed the federal law making recreational drugs illegal. Which party did he belong to? Oh yeah. He was republican.
Which party tried to change the constitution to make marriage between a man and a woman? Oh yeah, that was the republicans too.
Which party cut off all funding for drug companies attempting to cure diabetes with stem cells? Oh yeah, that was the republicans too.
Get religion and your brand of morality out of politics and focus on a small, less powerful government and I'm all republican. As long as they keep passing laws to try and make me as moral as they are and I'm all democrat.
Your NDAA thing is just a reiteration of the AUMF which your Republican President G.W. signed in 2001. It's nothing new. In politics, you have to take the good with the bad to get something passed. If I remember right, in 2011, it was a Republican controlled congress. Why veto a bill which repeats something passed in 2001?
If your rights aren't "God given" then you are mearly granted them by government. The whole point of that is that we, as humans, are born with certain rights that the government cannot interfere upon. I think you're using that as a cop-out, nobody is forcing you to do anything under that platform. Beleive or don't believe what you will, I don't think you've thought through the ramifications of all of your rights being granted by government. Also, our constitution is like that of most any free republic in that it is based of the 10 commandments. Don't attach larger meaning to basic concepts that are reflective of Christian beliefs. Again, nobody in the republican party wants to drag you to church on Sunday.
ReplyDeleteOn abortion, I'm with you all the way. I would like to see a lot fewer of them and I certainly don't feel taxpayers should pay for them, but banning a practice that 2 generations of women see as a right won't happen.
Nixon wasn't the first president to outlaw drugs, he only created the DEA to establish a costly law enforcement agency. It's an abject failure, the forfeture laws have perverted our police nationwide, and it needs to end.
Marriage between man and woman? Marriage should have nothing to do with the government so both sides are wrong on that one.
I think you're wrong on the stem cell issue. The government won't fund stem cell research when the cells have been harvested from fetuses. Again, the real issue is the viability of the research as adult stem cells have proven time and time again that they work but some researchers have yet to prove the fetal cells do anything more than adult cells. It's theory, and billions have gone into the research with no real results.
The AUMF did NOT allow for American citizens to be detained, without cause, for indefinite detention. The NDAA explicitly allows that and I don't care which party wrote and/or passed it. It is onerous and quite dangerous to our Bill Of Rights.
Dropping the Libertarian party and going to the republican party I can almost understand. Going from Libertarian to Democratic party, I just don't see how you can justify that and your religion argument is just silly...
Best Libertarian bumper sticker I ever saw?
ReplyDeleteKeep the Democrats out of my wallet and the Republicans out of my bedroom.
I'd rather have less money and more freedoms than have less freedoms and more money.
Obviously, the Libertarian Party wants both, but they come across as half organized anarchy.
If your God "creates" someone with diabetes, cancer or some other lifetime illness, what kind of rights do you have then? Shouldn't healthcare be a right?
We're the greatest country in the world. We should take care of ill Americans.
If this is still online, take the test. I'm curious where you'd end up.
Me? I was equal parts Democrat and Libertarian. Apparently, I'm not the only one who can see where someone might be a Democrat and a Libertarian.
AUMF: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
NDAA: The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including U.S. citizens) "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]".