NationStates Jolt Archive

The figurative unravelling of any given thread on this forum is usually the complete changing of a subject. You see it in instances like this one:

jesuselephant44:
If you look at the culture of victimhood created by the welfare state you'll see that certain people are made weaker by Bush's so-called "soft bigotry of low expectations"

---and then someone else of a completely different idealogy replies to a comment about the economy with something irrelevent. Observe:

doobiedude420:
Man, you're just a part of the machine of racism and hate that illegalized marijuana in the early 1930's with the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act of 1932.

---
One can see how two people have walked away from a discussion with only the crudest caricatures of each other in their heads (conservative, liberal, democrat, republican, whatever) and they both ignored discussion of the issues they care about, like welfare or marijuana reform.
So this forum is about that tendency, instead of once specific issue per se.
Certainly, there are issues with whatever party we voted for that we disagree upon, yet we compromise our principles for the sake of the issue(s) most important to each of us.

POSSIBLE, BUT NOT AT ALL ALL, TALKING POINTS:
In the modern American Republican party, how did religiosity become so closely partnered with economic deregulation?
In the Democratic party, how did gun control become mixed up in a party in some ways so bent on individual liberties?

I ask everyone in this post to stray away from arguing theology with policy. It seems like even once two Christians start going off on this, they basically become really indignant and cease to be thoughtful.
There has been a lot of talk about the supposed blue and red americas. Let's get down to this one, too. Let's tear down these stereotypes. If you feel that you're extremely conservative or liberal, I would like you to report your stereotypes of the "other side" . . . so that they can immediately be shot down.
If America's political parties can be so divided in values, there must be something in the parties' two natures that speaks to the very essence of the American. Let's figure it out.

The Republican party would prefer religious and moral doctrine over personal freedoms and responsibilities.

Republicans are generally extremely self-conscious and more worried about securing their own rights than the rights of the entire nation.

There's a couple of stereotypes to shoot down. And remember I understand that not all Republicans are like this.

Gun control is an idealogically authoritarian value. However, I think Democrats support it because they feel that preventing Columbine-type massacres is more valuable than a person's right to own guns.

In the Democratic party, how did gun control become mixed up in a party in some ways so bent on individual liberties?



Because they are idiots.

Bill Clinton repeatedly tells them to drop it as it costs them elections, but apparently they value Rosie O'Donnell's good opinion more than his advice.

Given that he is their most talented politian in a generation and they choose just to ignore him to impress Susan Sarandon, they deserve to loose.

The Republican party would prefer religious and moral doctrine over personal freedoms and responsibilities.

Makes sense from what I know about the party's platform.

Republicans are generally extremely self-conscious and more worried about securing their own rights than the rights of the entire nation.

Well, actually Republicans sometimes work to counter their own rights. For example, Jeb Bush is famously against euthenasia. Former Republican Virginia governor, Jim Gilmore, made semester suspensions mandatory for all marijuana offenses in state-sponsored Universities. (Believe me, I would know.) Bush highly supports tort reform which does limit one's ability to collect damages from one's doctor.

There's a couple of stereotypes to shoot down. And remember I understand that not all Republicans are like this.

Exactly.

Given that [Bill Clinton] is their most talented politian in a generation and they choose just to ignore him to impress Susan Sarandon, they deserve to loose.

Yeah, what's up with that? Now maybe this is a whole other topic, but artists feeling absolutely obligated to side with the Dems universally? It's really bizarre. Maybe they think the academia constituency is not good P.R.

Yeah, what's up with that? Now maybe this is a whole other topic, but artists feeling absolutely obligated to side with the Dems universally? It's really bizarre. Maybe they think the academia constituency is not good P.R.

What I find more troubling is that they take Rosie O'Donell's advice over Bill Clintons. I mean, WTF.

Definitely deserve to loose.

The reason isn't complex, or hard to understand. The reason is simple. Voting blocs. The parties saw groups that they could nail down with a single issue (and there are a lot of single issue voters out there) and they went right at it. As such, that's what occurs.

Noo! It isn't that simple!

How does one reconcile being pro-life and for the death penalty?
How does one reconcile being pro-choice and against the death penalty?
Why is an adult monkey, capable of speaking sign language, worth less than a 4 month year old fetus that doesn't know its anus from its mouth?
How does the Democratic party advertise personal responsibility and the rights of consenting adults to engage in anything except Capitalism?

As a libertarian, I feel very torn.

Gun control is an idealogically authoritarian value. However, I think Democrats support it because .... Reading you...i get the Impresion that all Democrats support Gun control...
how about Death Penalty?....how about Gay mariage....Have we become totally polarized?

Because they are idiots.

Bill Clinton repeatedly tells them to drop it as it costs them elections, but apparently they value Rosie O'Donnell's good opinion more than his advice.

Given that he is their most talented politian in a generation and they choose just to ignore him to impress Susan Sarandon, they deserve to loose.

here here *raises glass*

Because they are idiots.

Bill Clinton repeatedly tells them to drop it as it costs them elections, but apparently they value Rosie O'Donnell's good opinion more than his advice.
Well...That is going to teach them.

Gun control is an idealogically authoritarian value. However, I think Democrats support it because they feel that preventing Columbine-type massacres is more valuable than a person's right to own guns.

Democrats support gun control because their political adversaries are largely gun owners while their supporters are not. "Only police and military should have guns" is a one-way street to an oppressive government. It's difficult to oppress armed people, so the people shouldn't have them. You have to disarm them before you can make them do things your way. That's my opinion of the Democrat's position.

As a libertarian, I feel very torn.
I'm libertarian too, but the one thing that I disagree with fellow liberts. is that I am both pro-life AND anti-death penalty.

Only thing about me being pro-life is that I know there are more than enough people who are pro-choice, so me trying to ban abortion would fail miserably.

Democrats support gun control because their political adversaries are largely gun owners while their supporters are not. "Only police and military should have guns" is a one-way street to an oppressive government. It's difficult to oppress armed people, so the people shouldn't have them. You have to disarm them before you can make them do things your way. That's my opinion of the Democrat's position.

While it's certainly true that oppressing an armed populace is much harder than an unarmed one, I don't think the Democrat's are trying to abuse us. Like any smart person would do, they saw a way to secure votes--and they went for it.

"Only police and military should have guns" is a one-way street to an oppressive government. It's difficult to oppress armed people, so the people shouldn't have them. You have to disarm them before you can make them do things your way. That's my opinion of the Democrat's position.
Somehow, I get the feeling that a civilian militia with guns would have slightly less than a snowball's chance in hell at holding off the US Army. The whole "gun laws make it difficult to resist an oppressive government" argument is rather flawed, since the military would have absolutely no problem putting down a civilian revolt. Unless you want to legalize tanks, fighter planes, and nuclear weapons for the civilian populace, drop that argument.

Nah, the Democrats are just removing one right for the protection of a greater one: the right to live.

Which would you rather have, the right to live or the right to have a gun?

Because they are idiots.

Bill Clinton repeatedly tells them to drop it as it costs them elections, but apparently they value Rosie O'Donnell's good opinion more than his advice.

Given that he is their most talented politian in a generation and they choose just to ignore him to impress Susan Sarandon, they deserve to loose.

*applauds*

However, please spell lose correctly! :)

How does one reconcile being pro-choice and against the death penalty?
Actually, this is quite simple. Pro-choice means giving pregnent mothers the opportunity to have an abortion if they so desire. Being against the death penalty means not giving government the opportunity to kill a full-grown criminal. Still slightly contradictory, but not nearly as much as saying every life is precious, and killing oh-so-many people as the governor of Texas. (sorry...I couldn't help myself)