.
Only a small portion of Republicans HATE our freedoms. But most of them want to curtail them in some way or other.

To Grady, Socialism is not intrinsically restrictive of freedoms. Imposing Socialism on people that don't want it inevitably leads to restrictions of freedoms and choices

Many [read most] Republicans want to impose their arbitrary moral values on all Americans. This ALSO will lead to restrictions of freedoms and choices.

A lot of Democrats want to impose their social order of how things should be on everyone, this TOO will lead to restrictions of freedoms and choices.

Anyone catch a theme here?

What i think would be ideal would be an economically and socially libertarian order, but with some regulatory agencies to keep markets honest and keep the collectively shared resouces such as air and water resonably clean.
.

They want control of your life just like the democrats do...

And if you look at their stances of liberty issues, you will see they carry a double standard...

See, I think that the Republicans are more prone to wanting to monitor our lives, telling us what we can and can't do, while the other side is more controlling. A conservative government would believe more in individualism, but probably have rules based on their own morals. They believe in a universal set of morals (or so they taugh me in school ). A liberal government would probably allow things like gay marriage, but be more controlling in our business', and in our lives. Liberals would rather make rules that would restrict some of our freedoms, but keep us safer. Conservatives would rather leave us alone, and if we F- up, that's our problem.

We are truely seeing only one "ism" at play within any of the major parties, and that is FASCISM within the Republican party.
Absolute reversals of all the things ( states rights, small Fed gov., socialist trade tariffs ) once typically adhered to the GOP have occurred right in front of your faces, yet you espouse these well worn cliches.
Face it already, 8 years of "Clintonomics" took our country to a level of financial strength only dreamed about in 16 years of the Reagan/Bush cabal.
As for the article, it's spot on; tell me that you can look at John Ashkroft and not see fear/loathing/hate/moral superiority seeping out of every pore? Tell me that you watched the RNC Hate & Fear - O - Rama and were firmly convinced that George Bush was a solution? ( ssssshhh, not fair to point out that he started the problems that he's the supposed solution to!! )

Hmmm, Bushies say republicans offer us more freedom and its the democrats that are evil. Democrats say republicans are evil and that they offer us more freedom.

What is true? Well, both want our freedoms, but which one does it for good? Republicans want our freedoms so we can be slaves, dems want our freedoms so we can be happy. Reps want our freedoms so we will be brainwashed and worship Bush. Dems want our freedoms so we will not be responsible for money, healthcare, so forth.

I like what someone said earlier, Dems want to control us to make us better. Reps, well, look at the patriot act. Look at Bush&Co.

I think the partisan politics game has warped the vision of many people. The vitriol between the Big Two has come to a culmination in this election, leaving abject thoughts and over-simplified statements.

The fact of the matter, is that no, Republicans don't hate our freedom (although I am no longer on myself). But here's the reason. The problem with the views of the GOP is not the platform, it's the leadership and candidates (and their approved handlers - Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc).

The main portion of Republican PEOPLE, is the problem most people run into when it comes to truth. It's just to much effort (much like voting, staying married, speaking out, learning, truely evaluating problems).

They dislike what the party has become (as many in the Democrats are doing now), but can't do anything about it (they think) so they vote for them because at least they aren't "fill-in-the-blank".

Huge portions of the Republican party want change, and are NOT voting for Bush. So the next time you say Republican, and call them right hating, bigoted, bible thumping, bastards, think about this.

Who is in power in the party is in power of the direction by which their elected officials go (if not, they replace them when they can by choosing particular candidates).

The next time you conservative bomb throwers say Democrats are Pinko peaceniks, gay, long haired hippy (need I go on); think about this.

Who is in power in the party is in power of the direction by which their elected officials go (if not, they replace them when they can by choosing particular candidates).

And finally, whoever is out there wishing for some real and lasting change, not the products of the Big Two, come check out a third party.

Deep down they want more $$$ all for themselves.

This morning on C-SPAN a lady called in who supported Bush and said "Nothing else matters in the U.S. right now except stopping terrorism. Not health care, civil liberties or social security." Now I'm hoping she's not saying that she's willing to give up her freedoms just to be safe but it sounded to me like she only cared about seeing terrorism defeated. I would have to strongly disagree with her. Their are more improtant things in my life right now besides worrying about terrorism. I have bills to pay and a job to keep.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Hmmm, Bushies say republicans offer us more freedom and its the democrats that are evil. Democrats say republicans are evil and that they offer us more freedom.

What is true? Well, both want our freedoms, but which one does it for good? Republicans want our freedoms so we can be slaves, dems want our freedoms so we can be happy. Reps want our freedoms so we will be brainwashed and worship Bush. Dems want our freedoms so we will not be responsible for money, healthcare, so forth.

I like what someone said earlier, Dems want to control us to make us better. Reps, well, look at the patriot act. Look at Bush&Co.

I'm seeing more of that ignorance we're supposed to be denying. Clearly you people are pissed off about something, maybe the success of the RNC and all these new facts about the lies of John Kerry. I don't know, but I'm not checking up on this thread anymore. You can find similarities between any two types of government. There WILL ALWAYS BE similarities; it doesn't mean we're leaning towards that govt.

Good God, some people...

[Edited on 8-9-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by Bout Time

Where I strongly disagree is this: Bush has proven to be easily swayed by virtue of the NeCons usurping the presidency; thus, what warrants him to get a second chance to MAYBE right his wrongs and get back to "Conservative Values"? Do you really think they can, or even WANT, to cut the NECON CANCER from power!?!?

No, that's entirely my point. I seriously would like some imput from you Rant on what you think Kerry will change in this country. If you like, we can take it to a new forum (although let's keep the posts from becoming bulky monoliths in lieu of more frequent posts.

I'm very much interested in multiple parties, as I am not a Democrat or Republican. However, 3rd parties serve the role of mercenary soldiers right now, and the only army that can displace the mad emperor right now are the Democrats.
So may Beejeebus grant Badnarik 50% of the Republican vote!!!

I revert you back to my previous proposal, as I am very much in favor of having (finally) a reasonable and intellegent conversation on some of these topics. You are one of the good ones to choose (still sad CF is gone).

Thanks,
KJ

Sure, start another thread & I'll be happy to list my reasons for being pro JFK.

I know that was your point too; it was more a ranting against Republicans who are voting for Bush while holding their nose....they've bought into the "fear" packaged perception that the Neocons are selling.

Who's CF?

Originally posted by mrmulder
This morning on C-SPAN a lady called in who supported Bush and said "Nothing else matters in the U.S. right now except stopping terrorism. Not health care, civil liberties or social security." Now I'm hoping she's not saying that she's willing to give up her freedoms just to be safe but it sounded to me like she only cared about seeing terrorism defeated. I would have to strongly disagree with her. Their are more improtant things in my life right now besides worrying about terrorism. I have bills to pay and a job to keep.

i suppose being scared of terror is understandable, but why do people feel Bush is the best bet to stop terror? Kerry has a proven record as a sound investigator, someone capable of finding culprits, people who matter. not fall-guys like saddam. he also has a vast understanding of international relations and the world outside america. Bush, on the other hand, has wrapped up the bulk of our resources and money fighting a war completely unrelated to terror.

maybe people just like to see pictures of tanks and guns on the tv because it helps maintain the illusion that we are doing something.

-koji K.

Originally posted by Bout Time
Sure, start another thread & I'll be happy to list my reasons for being pro JFK.

I know that was your point too; it was more a ranting against Republicans who are voting for Bush while holding their nose....they've bought into the "fear" packaged perception that the Neocons are selling.

Who's CF?

I was thinking more of a debate club match (after the current debate tournie is over of course). That would be more civilized.

CF = Colonel

Jethro

I really dont think the rank and file of either party wants the united states in slavery

BUT

I am starting to seriously wonder about the leaders of BOTH parties, if that MIGHT be what there goal is.

Or maybe its just gross incompentance

Originally posted by Amuk
Jethro

I really dont think the rank and file of either party wants the united states in slavery

BUT

I am starting to seriously wonder about the leaders of BOTH parties, if that MIGHT be what there goal is.

Or maybe its just gross incompetence

I agree, maybe not in so many words, but the effect is certainly there. The goal is to play within the bounds, or to increase the bounds. By playing within the bounds, the direction of the country is that our liberties are being taken bit by little bit in an effort to nit pick everything because the big things "can't be changed" (according to the people) and are "boat rockers" to the party heads.

This in effect can not possibly stop the proliferation of government waste, spending, and red tape.

This leads to the end, gross incompetence due to the fact that they have played the game so long; the game is all that is done. We tack on more laws to bog down the system; we spend more regardless of tax increase or decrease, debt gets higher, parties get swallowed, etc.

I think Mike Badnarik said it best when he said

“But the reason that we can not see a connection between the Constitution and our current government is because there is none. I find that unconscionable and totally unacceptable.”