Subject:
|
Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 00:37:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2148 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message <3880E975.C4916B4E@eclipse.net>...
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> >
> > Christopher Weeks wrote:
> > > Most people say the Republican party is for the rich. How so, when I am
> > > considered poor / lower middle class?
> > >
> > > Probably for complex social reasons having more to do with what your
> > > parents believed than what you have reasoned out about the way the • world
> > > works. This is, I believe, why most party afiliation exists.
> >
> > Bzzt. Wrong! No, both of my parents were registered Democrats. I looked
>
> Exactly! So you chose the opposite party.
> > at what the parties stood for, looked at my religious beliefs, and
>
> Sure. I'm not saying that those things have nothing to do with it. You
> obviously give these issues some thought, but I still say that people
> have more hidden baggage behind these kinds of decisions than they
> typically know.
Baggage, hindrance... Yeah, your right, Chris.
> > concluded the Republican party is more to what I believe in. Though I am
> > definitely more to the Libertarian side than to the Rockefeller side.
>
> That would seem to suggest that you think the libertarian side is the
> conservative side. I would strongly disagree. If I had to use that
> silly single dimension to rank them, I'd say that the Libertarians are
> weakly on the side of the Republicans rather than the Democrats, but
> they're certainly not conservative Republicans. That rank is designated
> for whacked out religious fascists.
While there is the similarity of the desire for a small central
government with a limited amount of power in both the Republican and
Libertarian parties, I don't see much similarity beyond that. Well, they
both seem to be anti-communist, too. The problem with those on the far
right side of the Republican party is that they rely on misinformation,
ignorance and censorship just as much as their antagonists, the so called
Liberals. The problem, with the less fanatical members of the GOP (call
them anti-bureaucrats, if you like), for the GOP, is that they are easy
targets for Libertarian conversion. Since the GOP is doing so badly at
combating the so called Liberals, one can only hope they can get their act
together or let the Libertarians do the job. I can't really agree that
there is a Libertarian side to the GOP; Liberals and Libertarians
~supposedly~ have more in common, in the rights department, than the GOP and
the LP do in any area, albeit with a very different interpretation of
"rights". Maybe we agree on this, maybe we don't. But its hard to tell
when you use vague terms like Conservative (a dated term) and whacked out
religious fascists which I, for one, don't use interchangeably.
> > I have seen too many examples of socialism failing, and the Democratic
> > party seems to be the place for leftists, socialists, etc. That is why.
> > I could care less what my parents do, in terms of their voting record.
>
> I believe that you could care less.
This must be contagious.
> Chris
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
