Originally Posted By patrickegan I’m a left cost conservative, how many times do you think I had to pull my Bush Cheney sign out of the garbage during the 2004 cycle?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<how many times do you think I had to pull my Bush Cheney sign out of the garbage during the 2004 cycle?>> It's always refreshing to read about that good ole fashioned liberal tolerance we always hear about.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Road Trip the liberal voted for Bush this last election because I said libs suck and France sucks 20,000 times. Or he might have voted for Bush for other reasons. By the way, my favorite liberal on LP is Gadzuux. He is always on the left, total tin foil hat moonbat positons, yet never waivers. He also never tries to shut people up because he truly thinks free speech is a good thing. Dabob also gets a vote for the libs because he argues his case with passion, is very informed, only to get bit*h slapped by Douglas. LOL Most irritating lib for me is Elkay. Most confused libs are Tom Sawyer and cmpaley. Biggest drive by cheap shot poster is Bruiser. Best lib who says they are a Republican is.... forget it..
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I met Gabe Kaplan at the World Poker Tour a few months back. Nice guy.
Originally Posted By patrickegan That’s great and all but I wanted to guess who the last lib is/was-
Originally Posted By patrickegan Wait a minute I’m not so sure. Do his religious beliefs make his political leanings/ideals sound hypocritical?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I'm not going to say because I like the person Beau's talking about and I don't want it to look like a cheapshot against this person. In other words I don't want to be a Democrat.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Do his religious beliefs make his political leanings/ideals sound hypocritical?<< Gee...I wonder. Let's take a look at some things, shall we? Jesus tells us in Matthew 25 that He will be judged us, as a nation and as individuals, by how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison. We are also told in Sacred Scripture that it is a sin to commit murder as well as instructions on how are to live sexually moral lives. On those issues alone, let's look at the differences between the two parties: First, I must say that I believe that the purpose of the State is to promote the common good, that is to say, that the State must act to ensure that the most number of people will benefit by its actions or, at worst, the least number of people will be harmed by its actions or failure to act. That being said... The Democrats are "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion. The Repblicans are nominally "pro-life" on the same issue. I say nominally because when presented with this issue in the life of a family member, the Republican suddenly becomes "pro-choice" all of a sudden. Myself, I follow the teachings of my Church and the Bible on this and fall on the side of being AGAINST abortion in pretty much all cases (the only exception would be if it is a certainty that the mother will die if the baby is carried to term...I would still insist that all reasonable measures be taken to save the life of both). On the issue of euthanasia, unjust wars and the death penalty, I fall on the side of life in every case. I was saddened by the use by both parties of the Schiavo case. I was sicked by the use of her dying and dead corpse by the rabid-right as a means to beat up their opposition. I pretty much stayed out of the fray mostly because I believe what was being done by both sides was sickening. Yes, I did comment here and there, but I was careful in what I said. On the issue of unjust wars and the death penalty, I find the Republican view atrocious and worthy of all disdain. First, I will say that if the country were attacked in a military action by another country, I would do what I could to defend her. After 9/11, I was ready to see some action taken to defend the country, but what did I see? After we went to war and changed the regime in a country that WAS involved, we went to war in a country that WASN'T involved. Now, is that to say that I think that Hussein is a good man and should be in power today? God forbid! Frankly, I wish we had taken him out in the first Gulf War where there WAS a just war. As to the death penalty, I've said time and again that I believe that a dangerous criminal should be permanently and totally separated from society. If and ONLY if all attempts at such separation fail, then it would be a moral option to execute a dangerous criminal if it is proven to a certainty that the person being executed is guilty of the crime they are being executed for. I don't like reading about cases like Ruben Cantu in Texas...the killingest state in the country. On the issue of "gay marriage," as a prospective Catholic Christian, I am against the concept of a "gay marriage" primarily because marriage is a Sacrament of the Church and I don't believe that the State has any business confecting sacraments. On a purely secular level, I believe that if two adult humans not related by blood want to enter into a mutually binding contract, I would say that it is their business, but don't call it marriage. It harms no one and helps those who would make use of it. As a same-sex attracted person (there's your disclosure), I try to live in accord with the teachings of the Church...sometimes successfully and sometimes, not as much as I'd like. As to the final judgemnet, let's take a look at how we're supposed to treat the "least of these." We are to feed the hungry. We are to give the thirsty something to drink. We are to welcome the stranger. We are to clothe the naked. We are to visit the sick. We are to go to those in prison. Let's see...the Democrats have implemented anti-poverty plans to work towards feeding the hungry, giving the thirsty to drink, and clothing the naked. The Republicans have spent much their time and energy cutting those anti-poverty plans with nothing to replace the cuts. Neither party does well on the "welcome the stranger." This country has ALWAYS been very anti-immigrant. The right is the more ardent anti-immigrant side of the aisle with their anger and fear based "get tough" approach to all immigration issues. Some even want to close off immigration completely. I support The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act which would accomplish the goal of "welcoming the stranger" in a logical and orderly fashion. The Democrats have time and again proposed ways of "visiting the sick" by providing treatment to those in need. Republicans, once again, try to cut the existing programs without any method of accomplishing the same goal or even actively working to prevent any new program that helps the sick without any plan for accomplishing the same goal. Finally, neither party really does well in the "I was in prison and you came to Me" part. The Republicans think that Jesus meant something rather sick (considering the gross homoerotic stuff being done at Gitmo and Abu Graib...I think you can get the idea...), but I think He meant something holy and sacred...like ministering to the spiritual needs of those in prison. Personally, when it comes to the way we do these things, I don't care HOW its done, just as long as our society DOES to these things somehow: Feed the hungry Give the thirsty to drink Welcome the stranger Clothe the naked Visit those sick and in prison The right says, "the market can take care of that." Oh, right. The market where a person can be working two or three jobs and STILL be going hungry. Uh huh. Get real. The thing is, Jesus didn't give us ANY outs. He said that we are to DO these things. Further, St. James tells us in his epistle, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." See...that sounds so much like so many of the right. Cut programs that provide food and clothing, don't do anything otherwise to do this, then turn around and tell the, "be fed and clothed." And I'm called a hypocrite.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Well, the only other person I can think of would be TomSawyer and I think that he'd be pretty much in agreement with my post except, perhaps, on the gay issue.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Let's see...the Democrats have implemented anti-poverty plans to work towards feeding the hungry, giving the thirsty to drink, and clothing the naked. >> Want to see what happens when the democrats get to put their " ideas " into action? You get the welfare state that is known as New Orleans and Detroit. Both places are hell holes.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You get the welfare state that is known as New Orleans and Detroit. Both places are hell holes.>> I can't speak to Detroit or New Orleans because I have no experience with either city. But I do know that Minnesota ranks close to the top in spending on social programs. We are also generally rank in the top five (many times 1st) when it comes to quality of life, average income, safety, health, education, etc. I admit I'm just guessing here, but if you checked the facts I think you might find that the social programs in Detroit and New Orleans are nowhere near as generous as you assume.
Originally Posted By RC Collins >>Self cancelling phrase - how can you be for a 'limited govt' and have a 'libertarian bent' and then in the same breath endorse governmental restrictions on access to an abortion, not to mention what bush "has done" for the world?<< The Federal government should be limited to doing what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say it should. Protecting innocent human life from those who would kill it is a legitimate function of government, because there is a right to life. Waging war against enemies of the U.S. is a Constitutionally-mandated function of the Federal government. >>That individual states shall not be impeded from forming 'militias'?<< Do you believe it is the individual states that have the right to free speech? Have you noticed what the rest of the first ten Amendments say? Why would someone interpret the Second Amendment to be the only one that doesn't apply to individuals? Without the right to individually protect ourselves, we really don't have the individual right to free speech. >>>I recognize that marriage is a unique kind of contract that involves both sexes,<<< >>"Unique" meaning that rights extended to heterosexual partners shall not be extended to same sex partners. Got it.<< Who said anything about heterosexuals? Neither I nor the current laws distinguish between heterosexual or homosexuals. But the law does recognize that a man is not a bride and a woman is not a groom, and that both a groom and a bride are needed for a real marriage. >>>Federal government should stick to what the Constitution says it exists to do, and not get involved in such things as eduction or many other things in which it has gotten involved;<<< >>I'm guessing that you're not actually against federal 'standards' within education, but how do you ensure any kind of parity otherwise?<< There is no need for Federal standards. We didn't have Federal standards or involvement in education for much of our history. Nowhere in the Constitution does it assign to Congress the responsibility to get involved in education. Bush has been horrible on education in the sense that he has spent way too much on it, increasing the funding way too much when he should have disbanded the Department of Education, at least as a Federal government agency. >>Perhaps standards of equality under the law aren't important to you - maybe you're a middle class white american male who isn't the one who needs some protection of their rights.<< There are plenty of people who aren't 'white males' who agree that people should be able to rent to whom they want, and hire and promote whom they want. If someone won't rent to you because of your skin pigmentation, they lose because your money, which would be just as useful as the money from anyone else, goes to another landlord. If you don't get hired because of your gender and you take what you have to offer to the competition, the original employer loses. Instead of spending so much time and money trying to FORCE people by gunpoint (government power) to treat everyone equally when it comes to their own private resources, how about let the market work and let people vote with their dollars and their feet. I wouldn't want to give money to a business that wouldn't hire a good worker just because of their skin pigmentation. I'm thinking there are a lot of other people who think like me on this. >>>I believe that the human race is one race and that people who act differently are foolish but entitled to do so with their own business.<<< >>"Differently"? From who - you?<< People who treat people differently based solely on their skin pigmentation are foolish (unless, of course, they are dermatologists or cosmeticians). My political philosophy isn't all that complicated. People should be able to do whatever they want with what they own insofar as it does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. The government is there to protect persons (no matter how young or small or old or frail) and property from others who would harm them or unjustly acquire them. The Federal government should stick to what it is told to do by the Constitution. The government should be funded by user fees and limited tariffs. If that is neocon, then fine. I figured I'd be pegged as more of a reactionary. I certainly don't want to conserve everything as it is currently, even if we do live in the greatest country in the world.
