Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2015, 06:29 AM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
(27-10-2015 04:05 PM)epronovost Wrote:  That's a problem of a two party system. There is also people at the other end of the spectrum who are socially conservative, but also socialist. There is also people who have more extrem political ideas that the both party fail to represent correctly. I guess that short of joining an organisation that can act as a lobby, there isn't much you can do... Compromising is necessary to live in society peacefully.

Yeah, first past the post systems are a pain with this. I read about Austrailia's preferential voting system (link is to a comic explaining it), and I like a lot of the basis of it.

That being said, I'm liberal enough that I don't feel like the Christians are forcing me to vote for Democrats, although I'd love a system where I could place my first vote for Sanders and my second for Clinton in the general election. I don't see a system like this as solving all of our problems, but it would be nice to cut through the red vs blue rhetoric a bit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 08:22 AM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
RinChi,

Some libertarianism and anarchism came across until your comment about Sanders. I think you should seriously consider not voting. To me, there is no more freeing feeling than to ignore the stage show called American politics.

You recently registered, so you missed this post from a year ago. Spend a little time reading Richard Nickoley. You will not agree with everything he says (he can be a little rough on my Catholic wife). The biggest problem this anarchist/libertarian/atheist/nonvoter would have at this site is that he has equally harsh words for both religious and secular authoritarians (a consistent atheist, Praise Jesus!).

Here is that post again.

http://freetheanimal.com/2014/11/erectio...l#comments

I recall getting fooled once. It was 20 years ago, the 1994 midterms where, I think it was the first time in like 40 years where the Republicans held the majority of both houses. And they were really going to clean up shipshape like. Right...

In 1994 the national debt was about 4.5 Trillion. Clinton held the big spending Republicans in check for six years. When Bush the inferior took office in 2000, the debt had only climbed to 5.5 Trillion. I didn't get fooled twice. By 2008—when Bush stopped being stupid in public—the debt had almost doubled to 10 Trillion; and for a lot of that time, America "enjoyed" a Republican president and a majority in both houses. Carte Blanche.

But they're liars, whores and reprobates, as are they all.
Now the debt is over 16 Trillion.

Fuck Republicans. And Fuck the Paul's too. I don't want to hear about it. They should go back to the honest work of delivering babies and fixing eyes. I prefer Democrats. At least I know what I'm getting (a commie). They're actually more honest (this is why they win erections). They tell you they're going to tax you and spend it. It's better information if you're a realist—and not a doG & cunt-ry fucktard fanatic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 04:39 PM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
Republicans and Democrats: a plague on both their houses. I've voted 3rd party for years. It's my own personal protest.

For congress, I always vote against the incumbent.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 06:33 PM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
(28-10-2015 06:17 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  You're voting for lizards.

A common misunderstanding. While everything is, naturally and as we all know, run by our glorious Reptiloid overseers, the puppets candidates are often enough actual human beings.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 06:36 PM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
Genuine question, though: can anyone actually give a brief, coherent definition of "small government" or "fiscal conservative"? They're popular slogans, to be sure, but absent any examples of actual policy positions... I have never in all my experience encountered anyone advocating government entities be unnecessarily large or wilfully profligate. So you end up with a vague enough slogan that it sounds good to nearly everyone (cf "freedom is the primary right", say) but the clarifications necessary to define it end up encompassing the whole variety of the human experience.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
(28-10-2015 05:41 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I'm voting Gwynnies.

Yay Gwynnies! Heart

Yeah, that's all I've got. Undecided

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 07:30 PM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
(28-10-2015 03:29 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  I won't elaborate much, since this isn't a debate and I'm not interested in debating..but my stance is that limiting/prohibiting certain substances and activities is a good thing. I also think imposing rules and regulations on business conduct is a good thing (just to clarify that I'm not just speaking of freedom in the "I can do whatever I want" type of way.)

When it comes to limiting substances, I always look back at prohibition. It failed. If people want something like alcohol for instance, they'll find a way. And it's usually illegal and involves gangs of some sort.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
29-10-2015, 07:52 PM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
(29-10-2015 07:30 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 03:29 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  I won't elaborate much, since this isn't a debate and I'm not interested in debating..but my stance is that limiting/prohibiting certain substances and activities is a good thing. I also think imposing rules and regulations on business conduct is a good thing (just to clarify that I'm not just speaking of freedom in the "I can do whatever I want" type of way.)

When it comes to limiting substances, I always look back at prohibition. It failed. If people want something like alcohol for instance, they'll find a way. And it's usually illegal and involves gangs of some sort.

That is, indeed, a point that is very often brought up. But I don't know that many of those who allude to it actually understand what the various historical alcohol prohibition regimes really entailed (there were, of course, many, in different times and places). For example, private production and consumption remained generally legal throughout in the US and Canada, as did medicinal use (or rather, "medicinal" use). In fact here in Ontario the local Temperance Act gave an explicit exception to all production "for export" and all "native wines" period. In other words: alcohol prohibition was less strict than many modern drug laws.

What is much less often mentioned is that in the aftermath of alcohol prohibition there was (and is) a lot of variety in retail laws, serving laws, underage laws, content laws. In other words: the experience of prohibition did not drive any but the most diehard straw libertarian to say, "well, then, let's just have no laws whatsoever".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 07:52 PM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
(29-10-2015 06:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Genuine question, though: can anyone actually give a brief, coherent definition of "small government" or "fiscal conservative"? They're popular slogans, to be sure, but absent any examples of actual policy positions... I have never in all my experience encountered anyone advocating government entities be unnecessarily large or wilfully profligate. So you end up with a vague enough slogan that it sounds good to nearly everyone (cf "freedom is the primary right", say) but the clarifications necessary to define it end up encompassing the whole variety of the human experience.

I summed it up briefly in an earlier post I believe, but I can try to explain it better, from my point of view at least.
To me the idea of "small government" is to have a government that serves it's function while refraining from interfering with individuals liberties as much as possible. Infrastructure, entitlements, public education, healthcare, national parks, and of course the enforcement of law are all things the government can do without infringing on individual's rights. I gave the example of the smoking laws in an earlier post, another great example is the EPA. Telling me that I can't build something on my own property because there's some Red Breasted Boobies or whatever nesting there and happen to be rare in the area, even though they are common elsewhere, I would argue is completely unnecessary and run contrary to the spirit of the country's constitution. But these kinds of things are all too common nowadays. So much money is wasted on these useless laws. Both parties do this! Hence the thread. The democrats tend to do it worse, but the republicans are certainly guilty of it too, again, mainly because of the religious infection they suffer from. The tax code is another great example, the current tax law is a mangled, bloated biased mess. It's not just complicated and obese though, it also incentivizes certain life choices that the government wants to promote, namely marriage, and home ownership among others.

Many conservatives will tell you that they want the government to all but disappear, not only is this unreasonable, It's counterproductive and even dangerous. There are obvious reasons why a government is necessary. But there are also things that should be off limits to government in a secular, "free" country. Anything that attempts to influence your life choices, anything that regulates what you do with your own body, anything that tells you what to do with your own property, and especially anything that attempts to restrict free speech or expression. There are obvious caveats here, crime is still crime, your rights to any actions stop when they infringe on another human's to be physically safe and healthy. But you need some real solid backing that something is doing harm to others to suspend any of these things, real harm, not just offending sensibilities, actual physical harm.

I could probably go on, but I think you get the gist.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. -David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 08:17 PM
RE: Forced to vote Democrat: Christianity's Stranglehold on the Right
(29-10-2015 07:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-10-2015 07:30 PM)Banjo Wrote:  When it comes to limiting substances, I always look back at prohibition. It failed. If people want something like alcohol for instance, they'll find a way. And it's usually illegal and involves gangs of some sort.

That is, indeed, a point that is very often brought up. But I don't know that many of those who allude to it actually understand what the various historical alcohol prohibition regimes really entailed (there were, of course, many, in different times and places). For example, private production and consumption remained generally legal throughout in the US and Canada, as did medicinal use (or rather, "medicinal" use). In fact here in Ontario the local Temperance Act gave an explicit exception to all production "for export" and all "native wines" period. In other words: alcohol prohibition was less strict than many modern drug laws.

What is much less often mentioned is that in the aftermath of alcohol prohibition there was (and is) a lot of variety in retail laws, serving laws, underage laws, content laws. In other words: the experience of prohibition did not drive any but the most diehard straw libertarian to say, "well, then, let's just have no laws whatsoever".

I guess we are going back to drug law, not only are they patronizing and insulting, essentially telling people that they don't know what's good for themselves, but they also don't work. They haven't decreased usage rates for adults or minors, they haven't decreased the supply on the streets, and they most certainly haven't lowered crime rates. In fact they have achieved the opposite effect in many cases. The solution here isn't legislation, it's education. People aren't morons, of course some will screw up and destroy thier lives (just as they currently do with alcohol), but most wont. Most will learn and understand the risks of putting terrible shit into thier bodies and will avoid it. I don't understand why it's even an argument at this point, it's become nothing more that a sound byte, a shameless pander by politicians to the "family values"(another fallacy) nuts.

The only thing these laws have accomplished is the creation and expansion of huge criminal enterprise, just as it did with prohibition of alcohol no matter to what extent it was enforced, and the absolute stuffing to the gills of a newly minted private prison system with non-violent and possibly otherwise productive members of society. I'm all for learning from mistakes, as I think most rational people are, but for some reason we just don't learn this lesson. What do they say about the definition of insanity?...

Personally at this point, I'm betting the insistence on having these laws has much more to do with the profitability of those prisons I mentioned than any public good.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. -David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: