Ok, broad reaching generalizing statement obviously.  But think about it.  How many times have you seen democrats, the ‘intellectual elite’ say that the American people are stupid – too stupid to make a decision (any decision it seems) by themselves and the democrats therefore self anoint themselves as the savior of the great unwashed.

If you want to debate them on ideas, they tend to shout you down and bring up stuff to try to stifle dissent.  Do you think we should tighten our borders? well then you are anti-Hispanic since illegal aliens only come here for opportunity & by and large are Hispanic.  Favor welfare reform?  Then you are a bigot & hate blacks, ‘cause gee everybody knows that welfare reform will disproportionaly affect blacks.  The list could go on.  Why do they do this?  I don't know apart from saying that emotionally they think that what they propose truley is the best course of action and make decisions based not on reason or fact, but simple pure raw (and often wrong) emotion.

But for argument’s sake let’s say that the populace is stupid.  What gives the left the right to decide for those that aren’t as informed?  When I vote for someone, I vote for them because I feel that their view most closely mirror my own – not because I feel that my neighbors are too stupid to make decisions for themselves & that I should elect someone that will ‘take care’ of them.

To extend the argument a little further, let’s continue to assume people are stupid & should have someone to take care of them since they are incapable of making decisions on their own….. where does one draw the line?  When does making decisions for someone become too intrusive into someone’s life?  Certainly if any one were given a choice between a free society and a Gorge Orwellian or THX 1138 type of environment, the choice is obvious.  However, it’s a matter of degrees, shades of grey isn’t it?  What happens over the passage of time when you start to surrender your freedoms to the state to make the decisions for you?  Do I think we will ever be in an Orwellian type of state, certainly not in my or my kid’s lifetime, but in my opinion it’s a slippery slope.  We have already gone farther in 200 years than the founders envisioned.  (read the federalist papers if you disagree)  Once you start to surrender your freedom it becomes that much easier to make the next leap and surrender a little more.  Where will it stop?

Reemocrats want to limit our choices in life.

Whereas Republicans want to limit our choices in life.

I think you just lose a lot of arguments because you are out of touch with the true tenor of events.  So you blame it on the opposition, never thinking that their arguments have any validity.

Welfare reform- for every person who is genuinely interested in reform, there seem to be several who are trying to do way with any safety net AT ALL- and Dems who feel like guardians of the poor CUZ NO-BODY ELSE IS tend to be sceptical.  Make a good argument and you will have listeners.  Buy into a GOP code word and you will be properly dissed.

Immigration?  Well, I think like a lot of people that some tightening would be in order.  But unless you plan on enlarging the INS by several times to do the job properly (lots of good Gov't jobs there- a no-no to a lot of GOP), you probably are arguing for some quick fix that will target dark people.  So dems get their wind up and point out your covert racism.

GOPers (especially here) tend to like quick and cheap fixes, NOT systemic changes.  Cheap fixes tend to rely on tactics that make them open to racist or classist charges.  Systemic changes tend to be expensive for a long time before they get cheaper.  GOPers are often business based, so tied to the lame American trait of the quarterly evaluation, NOT the decade long or longer evaluation that such ideas and programs actually need.

And no-one has attacked freedoms like the prsent admin (well maybe lincoln), so your point is basically left unproven.

If you want to see a free society- got to Holland- and you will see that the real responsiblities that xome with it are expensive.  Freedom is not cheap.

I'd rather see a free sociaty with higher taxes   that supported real services and programs, but that is not the GOP way right now.  What you seem to want is a society where YOU are free to do what you want, and who cares about the rest.  Dems only point out that we are all responsible for all of us, and thus need to account for all, to all.

"I want whatever I can get- fuck y'all"- the present GOP platform in its most basic form, just seems a little too simple to those of us with a conciense, that's all.  And it clearly does not work for everyone.

Big government bad.  Me want freedom.

By implication, you are calling Dems racist.  

A country where almost 50% don't vote IS filled with stupid people.

You are a true Terry McAuliffe neophyte.   All those old old old lefty talking points.  But I have faith in you Sully! Break free!!! You WILL SEE THE LIGHT. WALK INTO THE LIGHT SULLY, SEE THE LIGHT AND WALK INTO THE LIGHT.  Walk into---- the REPUBLICAN light.  

Holland sucks!!!!   You get fined if you try to fix anything on your house in Holland.  You have to hire an official painter, plumber, capenter, electrician etc.  It's horrible!!  

YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE (LET ME SAY IT AGAIN) ONE BATHROOM PER HOUSE IN HOLLAND!!!!!!   It's just not fair for some people to have more than one bathroom while others do not.  THIS IS A REAL LAW IN HOLLAND!!!! It's crazy!  Holland is lala land.

Monster % of population in HOLLAND ON THE DOLE!!!!  They are going broke.

Republicans are no more racist than Democrats.  I would say quite a bit less so.

Sully, history is being made!!!!! Bush is gonna get over 60% of the Jewish vote.  Don't be in that bottom 40% that are the last to learn!
Terry McAuliffe is nothing but a snot nosed weasel.

When Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer retire, we want you to run for Senate ... tell us where you want me to send the first check!

Reemocrats want to limit our choices in life.

I am probably one of 50 million out there who favors neither Bush or Kerry. Most of us are socially moderate, but fiscally conservative, which means government is not the answer to everybody's problem. I have attached the definition of being liberal below. Looking at it, I would say that I am Liberal, but not in the view of Democrats.


The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.

The key words that are compelling are "the autonomy of the individual". I don't want any party to be the protector of the collective well being, which means government is the answer to address most of our problems. A few posted comments that Americans are stupid. Look at the Republican proposal to privatize a portion (25%) of someone's Social Security, and I might add the decision would be voluntary. In addition, you can opt for a conversative investment, not invest in stocks. Why would the Democrats be afraid of this. The proverbial social safety net. Don't they trust Americans w/a portion of their own money?

How about the words "protection from arbitrary authority". Look at the intrusion of govt in our every day life. Look at the myriad of social programs (and not all of them are bad, just too many), to rent control, smoking restrictions, etc..etc...etc. At what point is the average citizen responsible for their own well-being? I am not against helping those that need help. Unfortunately we have gone overboard. What is the government portion of GDP....35%?

P.S. I realize its a dated definition, i.e. Gold Standard, but free trade, laissez-faire, autonomy of the individual, and protection from arbitrary authority sound good to me. Unfortunately the Dems & Republicans can't own up to the definition. Maybe the Libertarians can. IMO

for rec or med reasons.
It's been at least 15 years simce I made a spectical of myself bringing this up in public meetings but the reactions I got will shock you.  
Democratic people, who I thought would be receptive and at least listen, were the ones that were brutes on both topics.  They just ridiculed me and ostracized. They told me to get out. I was humiliated.

At a community type meeting, at a church!!!!! (full of republicans I think) in a small (7 people) group.  I brought up marijuana first and as they all listened politely I got up the courage to suggest prostitution should be legalized too.  They disagreed on both but everyone was polite to me and let me have my say.

It's crazy!!!!! But true!  Republicans are civilized and Democrats are Demigog brutes.

Boxer and Feinstein are assholes that would shout someone down.

When Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer retire, we want you to run for Senate ... tell us where you want me to send the first check!



Well Boxer and Feinstein are about the worst senators california could have.
As much as it pains me to say, I would be willing to take a chance with Sully over those two. He seems somewhat reasonable about the Israel\republican marriage, and the wars we are fighting for that wretched country.
Sully's anti-war stance is a refreshing breath of air. Nothing could change my opinion of jews quicker, than if one came out 100% America first, instead of the usual- Israel first at all costs- jews that run our government currently.

Reemocrats want to limit our choices in life.

I swear, If Klingons invaded our country and ate our children and kicked puppies in the face and we tried to stop them the liberals would say.... you`re only targeting Klingons.

Dude- I WAS a GOPer- I SAW THE LIGHT when Ronnie pops was using my money to kill people in south America for US Business interests and Fascist politicos!

... some really interesting stuff.  What is the role of government.?

Probably nobody on this board is so much of an Anarchist that they believe no government is the correct way to go.  

Probably everyone here agrees that government should "provide for the common defense".  All of us would probably agree that government having a police force is a good idea to keep the general order.   Where we disagree is on the extent of the "promote the general welfare" idea.  Most of us like the idea of roads, food inspections, the FAA, most of the FDA, (fill in your choices).  We could get into an argument about SSA, laws restricting behavior, tax laws, laws restricting property usage, (fill in your choices).

Both parties pander to constituiencies that want to restrict freedom in various ways.  The question is, which is the least bad of the two alternatives.  

Currently I'm picking Mr Kerry because I believe Mr Bush fucked up his fundamental agreed role about providing for the common defense (Iraq).  You don't re-elect a man that screwed up his job.

Harry

Actually that has always been a dividing line among jews- if the US fought Israel who would you fight for?  Among the people I know who are Americans- almost 100% say the US of course!  

We might try like hell not to let the relationship sour that much, but I am an American- like any other dude!

gotta get Sully back in too.  The GOP is a big tent!

Sully you are just wrong: Reemocrats want to limit our choices in life.

You say..... "I'd rather see a free sociaty with higher taxes"
You have also made very clear that you feel that most Americans are idiots.

Ok, no problem, we agree to disagree.  However  let me say we see the premise of goverment differntly.....

I feel that people are better able to make choises for themselves not some governmental agency.  hell, I work for a Fed. Govt. agency & we are toally incompetent at makeing even the most rudementary decisions.  That's the norm not the rule.  (and given that my agency is one of the few that can & does turn a profit it's the only one that I could work for).

People on the left seem to feel that they know what is best for an individual.  That the individual is incapable of rendering a thoughtfull well thought out decision.   I disagree, but for the sake of argument let's suppose you & others who feel the same way are right so I ask:

What gives you & others of your ilk the right to make decisons for someone else?  Do you feel that the American populace are merely kids & need to be 'taken care of'... and if so where do you draw the line?  Think about it, it's a slippery slope isn't it.  When does governmetnal assistance cross the line to become too intrusive?

Given the choise between a free society and a George Orwellian existance nobody would choose to live the life of fewer choises.  However it's not that simple - once you give up certian freedoms of choise it's all the more simpler to continue down that path to continue to surrender personal freedoms for the 'greater good'.

We have come farther in the last few decades in becomming dependent upon the Government than I am sure the Founding Fathers had ever envisioned.  The role of government is to stay out of our lives, to keep things fair & allow us to run our own lives, not run our lives for us.