I always thought the republican platform was supposed to be based on limited government, states rights, and a non-interventionist foreign policy! But that all changed over the last 50 years! That helps illustrate my point. Starting a war to spread freedom and democracy is a spectacularly liberal thing to do. Nation building is another thing conservatives supposedly opposed! But when a republican president proposed these options, all the conservatives jumped right in line, blindly accepting it! Then liberals who have supported this type of thing before, had to jump in line denouncing it! Why is that? It is like a form of brainwashing! It is like in 1984 when they change who they are fighting in the middle of a war rally, and no one seems to mind they hate the new enemy just as strongly!

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!



Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?



"Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine

I'm an independant. This means I will vote for any candidate that shares my views and has a shot at winning (there may be candidate I agree with more than the main three, but I figure I'd waste my vote unless I support somebody who has a shot; it's sad, but true).

Here are an example of a independant's (who is socially liberal) views:
1) I support the right to own a firearm to protect your home and family from intruders, and my Ruger 9mm has had many rounds go through it (I'll school most GOP supports in a target shooting contest).

2) I believe that while it hasn't been proven that humans are affecting the climate, it's much wiser to be stay on the side of caution, and cut down on the release of gases that are still toxic, even if they aren't changing our climate.

3) While I believe abortion should not be done in haste, that it is a personal decision which the government should stay the hell out of (especially since in some cases, a woman may be risking her own life if she attempts to give birth).

4) I'd like to point out that rejecting organized religion does not make you an "athiest", but simply shows the wisdom to understand that spirituality is personal, and never meant to be organized. But I do support local churches that bring neighbors together to pray and spread the love, no matter which religion they fall under (all religion is the basically the same: you have a soul, there is a higher power, yada yada yada....The varying religions simply represent different ways to visualize the basic truths of the spirit and universe).

5) I see the GOPs failure (and the democrats, to a lesser extent) to field a diverse group of presidential candidates shows how far we have to go to achieve racial equality.

6) While I'm not convinced whether or not invading Iraq will yield security dividends, it's clear (if you've read any objective literature on the planning of this war) that the administration's arrogance and poor planning doomed the outcome from the beginning. And while we should NOT evacuate without ensuring stability, Obama is right in making it a priority to get the hell out of there (since tying all our resources in a far-off land puts out own soil at greater risk).

7) I believe that corporations should not be taxed (since dividends payed to individuals are already taxed), but at the same time, they need to be held accountable to social responsibilities, such as preserving the environment and being transparent about their accounting practices. Corporations should also be banned from the political process, and not be allowed to buy politicians.

That's just a sampling of my views. I'll be most likely voting for Obama (unless something major comes out that makes me believe he will be a worse choice than a 70 year old war lover with no charisma).

__________________
YES WE CAN BABY! (THIS VIDEO GETS BETTER WITH EACH VIEWING)

Good point. I would be voting for the GOP every time if they actually followed the principles of their rhetoric. But once elected, they expand the power of federal government more than the "liberals" they criticize for being "socialist" (and socialism is all about doing what the GOP has done for the last eight years: expanding government power).

It's time for us to ask the money question: who are the REAL socialists? Under Bush, the federal government began tapping our phone conversations and internet messaging while trying to kill the democratic process: that sounds more like the former U.S.S.R. than any policy of Bill Clinton (the so-called liberal, but more fiscally conservative than most self-proclaimed conservative politicians).

Bill Clinton signed the largest exemption for property-based capital gains (Tax Payer Relief Act of 1997), which allows you to keep up to $250,000 in profit ($500,000 for couples), if you sell your house that you've lived for a period of time. So again, perceptions about Democrats and socialism tend to be WAY off base if you do a bit of fact checking.

__________________
YES WE CAN BABY! (THIS VIDEO GETS BETTER WITH EACH VIEWING)

Ah the old right and the new left

It's a long discussion but over the history of politics what parties have stood for has changed a number of times. And much confusion exists as a result of political groups having the annoying habit of picking names that are actual things and not necessarily in line with their views. This leads to annoying things like Conservatives technically backing economic liberalism

Boo at "Progressives" not officially becoming the Bull Moose Party and the general and rampant abuse of the term since.

Anyway the point is that over time parties evolve. It isn't a 1984 type scenario because it occurs over time, often in response to reality (Pearl Harbor slapped the Non-interventionalist out of a lotta people and Viet Nam, especially the draft, had a massive impact on the aformentioned values of college students.).

I think I understand with your help the difference between a Conservative Republican and a Republican.

One is like a bottle of Tequila with a worm in it, the other has no worm, but in excess both drive me to drink!

Tell that to a Libertarian....



Ah that comes down to a difference between THE environment and the outdoors as is relevant to them.
http://www.nrahq.org/hunting/echo.asp

Let Billybob sport hunt humpback whales and things might be different.

Also remember Republicans aren't like some freakish Harkonnens or something where they want to destroy the environment. They even push environmental regulations(I.e. Bush's Blue Skies program). They just aren't as environmental as the Democrats claim to be and believe in working with industry in the process.

Yes, I agree that the things the parties stood for have changed many times! But throughout american history, we almost always had one party that was for limited national government and states rights! And another party that was for an expanded national government, in order to fight the many ills of the day! We also almost always had one group who were pragmatists, and one group who were starry eyed and thought we could make the world into a spectacular place just by using the right policies! The parties always complimented each other well. The modern political parties do not compliment each other well any more IMO! Now we have 2 parties who want large national governments, they just want the huge government to do different things!

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!



Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?



"Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine

As far as I know, the only time an unaffiliated voter can't vote is in the party primaries ( technically Independents belong to the Independent party).

__________________
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson

If we've got GOP voters registering as democrats to vote for Clinton, then why can't an independant register as either party for the purpose of participating?

__________________
YES WE CAN BABY! (THIS VIDEO GETS BETTER WITH EACH VIEWING)

They could. Though that tends to be stepping into moderate territory doesn't it?

Bit of symantics I guess

@Frodly I'm not so sure states rights, or especially big goverment, were ever the real core issues. Rather they were means to an end. If you need a different method to achieve your goals you switch. For example Republicans are pushing against States rights because they oppose gay marriage. And letting states decide means you'll have some blue states where everyone will be getting married.

Of course throught history there have been third parties of varying importance. You're swinging Libertarian yes?