Would you ever vote Democrat?
- Thread starter jnojr
- Start date
- Status
TCB in TN
Member
Not to sure, but Hillary care certainly smacks of socialism. High taxes, huge amounts of Government regulation for both business and personal lives. A completely different set of rules for the "Ruling Class" (armed gaurds, big houses, etc. while asking for the Peasants, I mean citizens to be willing to reduce their life stype) no that doesn't sound like Socialist, or Commie or anything.....
Don't know about Obama being trained anywhere, but from what I've seen he and most of the D party would certainly sacrifice a lot, Including much of our National Soverienty, (look to the UN and the demands that we listen to the "Will of the World!") to maintain and grow their own power!
This implies a great deal of misunderstanding about JFK, Ted Kennedy and the Democratic Party as a whole. From Reconstruction onward, the Democrats have been an uneasy coalition - progressives and reactionaries, civil rights and Dixiecrats, today unions and free-traders. When he was President, they were never "the party of JFK."
I mean, honestly, you realize that the Democrats were electing folks like Ralph Yarborough and Fred Harris in Oklahoma and Texas 35 years ago? Both men make Ted Kennedy look like a weak-willed neo-con schoolgirl. Whereas the comparatively mild Kennedy (who was in the solid middle of the non-southern Party in JFK's time) is considered a 'radical' in today's Congressional ranks.
The Democrats are undoubtedly still the party of John Kennedy - probably moreso now than in the past, as it has shed the racist Dixiecrats who opposed and feared him, moved right fiscally and continues to be hawkish but restrained in terms of the military budget and usage.
Er... "weapons of mass destruction" and "ties to al-Qaeda."
She supports a 'progressive income tax.' This is capitalism. "Socialism" means she's nationalizing the steel industry and seizing capital. 'Government regulation of private industry' (etc.) has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. If it were socialism, 'twouldn't be 'private industry' now would there?
When people make these bizarre claims, do they realize that Hillary was a big Randroid in her youth? That the greatest scandal related to the Clintons was about a crooked land deal (and what's more capitalist than TRYING TO GET RICH)?
Hillary, with a couple of minor changes in her life, spends the eighties like every other yuppie dirtbag - coked out of her mind and overpaying for Manhattan real estate.
She's rich (that funky capitalist thing rears its head). She has a big house. George Bush has a ranch, doesn't he? I don't have a ranch.
I don't recall anyone, from any party, asking me to "reduce [my] life style."
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
When one considers that editorials in "mainstream" newspapers start with the assertion, for one minor example,
I hardly think that my assertion is neither bizarre nor innacurate.
The premise that taxation is a method of inequality management is found NOWHERE in our founding documents.
It is, however, found squarely as plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt)
That such an assertion is common, and not commonly recognized for its nature (and casually dismissed when it is) is indicative of an overal shift of the center, in that the accepted and expansive role of government in areas such as healthcare, retirement planning, poverty moderation, etc ad nauseum is largely taken for granted, and placed beyond question.
It is also indicative of our post Enlightenment age.
Our founding documents were Enlightenment (as in, the Age of Reason) documents, adopted after widespread due deliberation, which required a certain minimum ante of thought and background knowledge.
We are no longer in an age of Reason.
We are in the age of advertising, of blipvert soundbite, and the value, or even a rudimentary understanding of the Lockean axioms upon which our Republic is based simply can't be mapped to a 5 second multimedia extravaganza.
"Free Stuff", the great grandaddy of all advertising messages, does fit neatly into the blipvert format, however, and when coupled with emotional appeals to the oppressed and downtrodden, it is damned near irrestable, especially by those who haven't studied their history.
I could go on at length, but I won't. Look into the DNC, and you'll find all manner of class and race baiting, redistributionist policies, and a general, widespread belief that government is the panacea for all ills.
Um, the income tax itself is "found NOWHERE in our founding documents." What things are and are not "found in our founding documents" is not and has never been the entirety of our legal and legislative system.
But more to the point - you're citing a single editorial. Not a widespread belief - not even, so far as you've shown, the belief of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party.
The income tax exists to fund the federal government. The progressive tax claims to do so in the most equitable and just manner. It "mitigates inequality" in taxation.
Kind of. The other part of the Communist plank is that the collected income would be redistributed wholesale. Outside of the EIC (which Dubya has, I believe, supported) no such system exists in the US.
The Communist income tax seeks to deprive the capitalist class of their moneys. The capitalist income tax seeks to fund the government (which provides the backing of the capitalist system with its police and its armies and its banking laws). See a difference?
(And so, if we find a plank with wording common to the GOP (or federal government) and its supporters and Nazi Germany, might we make the assertion...?)
trapperjohn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 567
In what twisted universe would one consider a progressive income tax "more equal". That is ludicrous. An equal tax would be where each person pays the same amount, not the same percent the same amount!
our progressive system is just like if wallmart had a different price structure for groceries depending on a persons income. Not to mention the fact that many of the tax dollars collected from sucsessfull people are simply given to the less sucsessful.
ANYBODY who supports such an abomination is no friend of freedom
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
And one more thing, that I nearly missed.
Excuse me.
I do believe you've just publicly called me a racist, and white supremacist, and I'm calling you on it.
Your apology may or may not be accepted.
Either way, we're done.
Excuse me.
I do believe you've just publicly called me a racist, and white supremacist, and I'm calling you on it.
Your apology may or may not be accepted.
Either way, we're done.
rbernie
Contributing Member
I'll make you a deal, Wooderson. When you find a modern-era Democrat who believes and demonstrates that the income tax should only fund the 'backing of the capitalist system', I'll vote for 'em.
Of course, I'd say the same thing to the Republicans, too...
Phil Gramm was a switching 'Dixiecrat,' and neither a racist nor a white supremacist to my knowledge. Nor were most of the other late-switchers - they were culturally conservative (abortion, gay rights) but not the virulent reactionaries of earlier times.
You assume that everyone receives the same share of services from the government.
And, of course, the idea that 'same amount' is "equitable" is no more or less of a subjective claim than (as I described them) the claims of progressive income tax proponents.
The state, in its entirety (and at every level from federal down) is the backbone of and inextricably linked with our capitalism.
Be it armies or police or education or even welfare, they're all a function of and related to the constant lubing of American capitalism (friction hurts profits and growth).
I'm trying to come up with any socialist leaders that didn't live a far more luxurious life than that of those they ruled and I'm having a hard time doing it. One can certainly support the forced redistribution of wealth while not immersing themselves personally in that philosophy.
I'm certainly not one to say that all Democrats are socialists, but I don't think you have to go so far as to say you need nationization of industy to say you see socialist ideology in the democratic platform. There's a broad spectrum of socialism and I don't think it all has to be communist style. Certainly the call of some Democrats for socialized medicine is not capitalistic in spirit.
I would never vote for a Democrat-- regardless of the gun control issue.
As a Libertarian, I am thouroughly fed up with people who want to control me, and people who want to tax me to death. I'm sick of it.
Right now, in the state of Vermont, and in the country as a whole, the Democrats want to control me and overtax me more than the Republicans want to. This much is apparent.
If I keep hearing "for the common good" I will soon vomit.
God help all liberty lovers in 2008.
As a Libertarian, I am thouroughly fed up with people who want to control me, and people who want to tax me to death. I'm sick of it.
Right now, in the state of Vermont, and in the country as a whole, the Democrats want to control me and overtax me more than the Republicans want to. This much is apparent.
If I keep hearing "for the common good" I will soon vomit.
God help all liberty lovers in 2008.
Those are called dictators. They tend to play by different rules regardless of their claimed ideology. Nor do they have anything to do, broadly, with socialism and its American adherents. (But, let's all be honest: all heads of state play by different rules, dictator or Democrat - that's one of the perks.)
There is a broad spectrum of socialism - but all forms are, at root, focused on "the means of production" being held by the nation as a people (or small autonomous groups if you're into syndicalism). That's not "communist style," that's just what socialism is.
That's the litmus test - if a politician is urging progressive taxation and expanded social welfare and so on, but doing so entirely within the framework of a market economy where capital is ultimately private that person is a capitalist. For better or worse.
National healthcare is absolutely capitalistic in spirit - when it comes to America, it will be at the behest of business. The Wal-Marts and GMs of the world are less competitive because of health care costs - private and public. An Italian plant or a Canadian store doesn't have to foot the bill for its workers' care - that comes from the taxes already paid (which don't, unlike the US, go to 'defense').
The healthcare system in America is economically irrational: it costs us all money. Lack of preventative care leads to the emergency room (often unpaid), if not death, leads to longer recovery periods (taking people out of the economy). The HMO/insurance scam creates a great class of middlemen taking their bite out of the pie, without offering anything of value to producer or consumer.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Representation
I didn't answer the survey.
It's just not possible. I'll probably go back and answer NO later.
I thought about it. Is it possible that the Democrats will ever represent what I hold dear? Very unlikely.
But then, I have yet to find a party that, in practice, does. Or even comes close.
Back in May of last year, things got stupider than even I imagined they could.
Here's what I wrote back then:
http://noisyroom.net/blog/?p=5985
Excerpted:
I'm not sure I could vote for anybody currently in the mix on the Democrat side. Heck, I have problems enough trying to find someone on the Republican side.
The biggest problem Democrats have is that they would have to betray the party platform to represent me. I guess that pretty much makes that a non-starter.
Libertarians don't seem to be able to do anything cohesive, so a vote there gets very lonely. Never mind that they actually stand for something that INDIVIDUALLY would resonate with most of America. Great. All we have to do is make sure group think is eliminated and we're home free.
I didn't answer the survey.
It's just not possible. I'll probably go back and answer NO later.
I thought about it. Is it possible that the Democrats will ever represent what I hold dear? Very unlikely.
But then, I have yet to find a party that, in practice, does. Or even comes close.
Back in May of last year, things got stupider than even I imagined they could.
Here's what I wrote back then:
http://noisyroom.net/blog/?p=5985
Excerpted:
I'm not sure I could vote for anybody currently in the mix on the Democrat side. Heck, I have problems enough trying to find someone on the Republican side.
The biggest problem Democrats have is that they would have to betray the party platform to represent me. I guess that pretty much makes that a non-starter.
Libertarians don't seem to be able to do anything cohesive, so a vote there gets very lonely. Never mind that they actually stand for something that INDIVIDUALLY would resonate with most of America. Great. All we have to do is make sure group think is eliminated and we're home free.
Zen21Tao
Member
NO... Dems are still liberal on the other issues. As a party they stand for big government, social wealth redistribution, paternalism, Hedonism without reponsability and are weak on military and foriegn policy.
There are always going to be RINOs and DINOs. I personally think it is a mistake to think these polititions out of touch with their party represent the party. This is especially true for those that think a single pro-gun Dem is going to jump up to his feet to go against his party leaders and champion gun rights.
JP1954
Member
Really? JFK proposed across the board tax cuts to stimulate the economy and increase tax revenues. Tell me the last time Teddy or ANY Democrat has suggested that. JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Teddy, on the other hand, has legislated as if he believes...... ask not what you can do for your country, tell us what kind of entitlement programs you want in exchange for your votes.
You should warn people before you associate Democrats with fiscal conservatism. If someone is eating when they read it they may likely choke! Unless you consider raising taxes fiscal conservatism, I cannot possibly imagine what you are talking about. Fiscal conservatism in politics means minimizing government spending.
It means smaller government. This is not what the Democratic party represents...
1) Weapons of mass destruction were found albeit not in large quantities. British, French, German, Jordanian, and Russian intelligence agencies, to name a few, in addition to our CIA all believed he had them. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and many more prominent Democrats publicly stated he had them.
He probably in fact did have them, but all the months of wasting time with the United Scoundrels aka United Nations, gave him more than ample time to hide them or move them out of country. And we can thank our so-called allies France and Germany for all the wasted time at the UN trying to get their support. Seems the liberal press of ours underreported the fact that both Germany and France, in violation of the terms of the oil for food program, were heavy business partners of Saddam. That is the reason they would not join the coalition. They knew if he was toppled, they would lose billions. But all this aside, you still have not raised ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE that the president KNEW we would not find more WMD. WITHOUT AN INTENT TO DECEIVE, YOU DO NOT HAVE A LIE. The accusation that he lied is simply libel and slander and would not have been reported publicly if it were not for the fact that a sitting president is barred from suing for libel and slander. As for Al Qaeda, ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda are so well established, it does not warrant serious debate....put down the kool aid and do some research.
I am going to hazard a guess that you have never taken an economics course. Income tax, progressive or not, is not capitalism. Capitalism is privately (as opposed to publicy) owned commerce which when combined with free enterprise produces goods and services regulated by free market supply and demand forces. It is the best system ever devised to date as evidenced by the superior standard of living enjoyed by the nations that employ it. " Progressive income tax" sounds so honorable. What it is though is simply not just taking more absolute dollars the more you make, but taking a higher percentage of what you make as your income increases. The Dems think this is great. What they don't tell you though is how they avoid the progressive tax by hiring skilled accountants and tax lawyers to utilize several tax loopholes which they had a part of writing into law. Filthy rich Demos like Kerry and Feinstein can utilize lots and lots of tax shelters. Another scam of the Demos is the Estate Tax. When Bush was trying to eliminate it they cried this will only help the rich. Wanna talk about LYING? This sure sounds like lying to me. People in the financial world know that the filthy rich like Kerry, Feinstein, Pelosi, Edwards, etc. pay little or no estate tax when they die. They have lawyers and accountants set up trusts to avoid this tax. It is the middle and upper middle class who get reemed by estate taxes. Just another misrepresentation brought to you by our limosine liberal friends. Socialism in theory is a great system. Basically it operates like a marriage in a sense. Husband and wife both work and the money goes into one pot that they share equally. Works well (hopefully) in a marriage. Does not work well in a nation. The concept of everybody throwing their earnings in a pot to share equally will not motivate people to work to their maximum potential. It will motivate them to do as little as they need to do. If they are paid the same either way, why put out extra effort? For that matter, why work at all? Let the others carry you. That is why Socialism is inferior to Capitalism. Redistribution of wealth through taxation is a degree of socialism.
I could go on here but it is getting late. If you ever find some verifiable evidence that Bush lied to get us to invade Iraq, send it to Dan Rather ok?
Don't Tread On Me
Member
This thread is completely and utterly bogus and a waste of bytes as the Democratic Party will NEVER drop the gun-ban platform.
It is bad enough trying to get the GOP to stay in line and not agree to gun bans or gun control...it is absurd to believe the Democrats are reformable.
Sorry, I'm not being very sensitive or High Road, but it is time the truth starts being told around here.
The Republicans actually brought back our situation to a better point than it was in the past. Up until 1994, it was ban after ban or abuse. We didn't make these improvements, although small, through the Democratic Party. That's for sure. Critics cannot point to a single issue the GOP mistreated us on in respect to the Second Amendment during their control of Congress.
Your choices are simple, GOP with their minor problems (at least that party is workable), or the Democrats who will systematically dismantle the Second Amendment. That's your choices. Forget 3rd parties, forget the other childish immature nonsense. That's reality, right there in your face. Anyone who disagrees simply doesn't remember any time earlier than the 1995....
But that's fine, masses will be as-es ...I guess humanity is animal like, in that it takes a good whipping to get to them on track. A nice juicy gun ban will send people running full speed toward the GOP in the coming years. Mark my words.
It is bad enough trying to get the GOP to stay in line and not agree to gun bans or gun control...it is absurd to believe the Democrats are reformable.
Sorry, I'm not being very sensitive or High Road, but it is time the truth starts being told around here.
The Republicans actually brought back our situation to a better point than it was in the past. Up until 1994, it was ban after ban or abuse. We didn't make these improvements, although small, through the Democratic Party. That's for sure. Critics cannot point to a single issue the GOP mistreated us on in respect to the Second Amendment during their control of Congress.
Your choices are simple, GOP with their minor problems (at least that party is workable), or the Democrats who will systematically dismantle the Second Amendment. That's your choices. Forget 3rd parties, forget the other childish immature nonsense. That's reality, right there in your face. Anyone who disagrees simply doesn't remember any time earlier than the 1995....
But that's fine, masses will be as-es ...I guess humanity is animal like, in that it takes a good whipping to get to them on track. A nice juicy gun ban will send people running full speed toward the GOP in the coming years. Mark my words.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Oh an another thing....all throughout late 2005 and 2006, THR was a big cess pool of GOP bashing. Nothing wrong with that IF IF IF it is from a RKBA perspective.
This is the moderators fault for not controlling the closet-Democrats from undermining the more pro-RKBA GOP with their immigration, Iraq, other threads almost on daily basis.
Want proof? Look at this thread - nearly 50% of the people would vote for the Democrats who are no allies of the RKBA. So there are plenty of people who were interested in throwing out the RKBA from this election due to their anti-Bush political agendas. You people know it too, that it is an almost universal characteristic of Democrats to easily declare the RKBA "safe" and put it on the back burner in lieu of other issues. That's fine, that's their Right...but don't poison the pro-RKBA discussion here on THR.
I thought this was suppose to be a Pro-RKBA forum? Not a Pro-RKBA only IF Bush behaves on other issues that are completely and totally irrelevant to the Second Amendment! That is nonsense.
That type of discussion should be deleted from this forum, and repeat offenders banned as sabotuers of pro-RKBA discussion. And please, no straw man attacks on me. By all means be a Bush hater, and believe what you want. I don't post on this forum to discuss non-RKBA issues. This place is for the advancement of the RKBA.
Does anyone see it like this? Or am I some whacko radical?
This is the moderators fault for not controlling the closet-Democrats from undermining the more pro-RKBA GOP with their immigration, Iraq, other threads almost on daily basis.
Want proof? Look at this thread - nearly 50% of the people would vote for the Democrats who are no allies of the RKBA. So there are plenty of people who were interested in throwing out the RKBA from this election due to their anti-Bush political agendas. You people know it too, that it is an almost universal characteristic of Democrats to easily declare the RKBA "safe" and put it on the back burner in lieu of other issues. That's fine, that's their Right...but don't poison the pro-RKBA discussion here on THR.
I thought this was suppose to be a Pro-RKBA forum? Not a Pro-RKBA only IF Bush behaves on other issues that are completely and totally irrelevant to the Second Amendment! That is nonsense.
That type of discussion should be deleted from this forum, and repeat offenders banned as sabotuers of pro-RKBA discussion. And please, no straw man attacks on me. By all means be a Bush hater, and believe what you want. I don't post on this forum to discuss non-RKBA issues. This place is for the advancement of the RKBA.
Does anyone see it like this? Or am I some whacko radical?
alucard0822
Member
preach it brother +1
cbsbyte
Member
Stuck in the Middle.
First of all I am a registered Independent (Undecided in Mass)since I really don't care for either party because of the fringe groups that now control both parties. I don't like the very far left Democrats that run Mass. Since, I am fed up with the Republicans because of their support for the "war" on Terrorism, I would vote for a Conservative pro gun Democrat like Richardson, or Webb over any anti-freedom Republican. But, I would never vote for my two senators Kerry, or Kennedy even if my life depended on it. Their are some very pro gun conservatives Dems legislators in Mass, but non on the Federal level.
First of all I am a registered Independent (Undecided in Mass)since I really don't care for either party because of the fringe groups that now control both parties. I don't like the very far left Democrats that run Mass. Since, I am fed up with the Republicans because of their support for the "war" on Terrorism, I would vote for a Conservative pro gun Democrat like Richardson, or Webb over any anti-freedom Republican. But, I would never vote for my two senators Kerry, or Kennedy even if my life depended on it. Their are some very pro gun conservatives Dems legislators in Mass, but non on the Federal level.
I can only speak for myself but my problems with the GOP aren't minor at all. They support less social programs than the Democrats but certainly are no longer a party of thrift or small government. Trying to ban flag burning shows they don't respect my 1st amendment rights. The constant push of religious values gets old and does not follow my view of government's responsibility. I'm not a fan of everything being terrorist this terrorist that. I'm not a supporter of the war on drugs. They stand for freedom no more than the Democrats do, they just walk on it in different ways. The fact that nearly 50% of people on a pro-firearms forum voted the way they did should show you how many people think the gop has more than small problems.
Luckily THR thrives on intellectual discussion and the owner/moderators don't close threads that have thoughts they might disagree with. This is a forum for firearms enthusiasts, not republicans. If you desire only pro-republican talk there are forums like that out there, but here I think its only fair to expect pro-firearms talk.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Job retraining programs? Agreed. Government-sponsored work programs? Probably not, but maybe useful to Capitalism if properly implemented. But basic welfare payola as a lubricant of Capitalism? Utter hogwash. Taking the fruits of productivity and using it to reward non-productivity cannot by definition be construed as an enablement to Capitalism, no matter how you may try to cloak the act.
Welfare is the basest form of mandatory wealth redistribution, plain and simple. While the money redistributed is re-spent again, the act of forcibly taking wealth from a productive source on its very face acts as a dampener to the CREATION of wealth.
Granting largess from the public coffers to buy fealty is not my idea of leadership, no matter how noble the concept that you use to disguise the act. Which is part of why Democrats (and increasingly, Republicans/RINOS) will not get my vote regardless of their stance on the RKBA.
SWMAN
Member
Only if Governor Bill Richardson of NM becomes a Presidential candidate. Antigunners like McCain, Guiliani, and Romney can kiss my vote goodbye
- Status
