Where am I politically?

[Toymented]

UT, if democrats are cats and republicans are dogs, what are Libertarians? Toads?

Where did you find this? I can't make out the dot com.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by Toymented

Where did you find this? I can't make out the dot com.

http://www.kirktoons.com/

(499!)

[wolf]

Originally Posted by yesman065

It is not accurate to say that republican = "everyone following your version of morality."

Does that then mean Democrat="Everyone following your version of immorality?"

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by wolf

yesman065 It is not accurate to say that republican = "everyone following your version of morality."

Does that then mean Democrat="Everyone following your version of immorality?"

I wold say that the NOT is the key there wolf. Therefore the same would hold true of your statement
Democrat does NOT="Everyone following your version of immorality?

[piercehawkeye45]

Republicans tend to favor more civil control and less economic control. Democrats will tend to favor more economic control and less civil control. Either way you still get an agenda pushed on you. The only way to avoid it is to go Libertarian or Anarchist.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Personally, I respect your right in America to burn our flag, but I also will kick your ass for doing it. That flag represents a lot of my family members who gave their fuckin lives so that you can live within the freedoms you have. Your generation has NO CONCEPT of what sacrifices went into creating and preserving the rights you have.

You mean rights like being able turn burn the American flag?

BTW, if you try to kick ass, (A) yours may be the one to get kicked or you may get set on fire with a burning flag, and (B) that's called assault and battery, and is illegal, where flag burning is not. Did someone fight for the right to kick the ass of someone who is not beaking the law?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

snip~
The majority view is supposed to be the prevailing view, and STATE legislation is supposed to support this. ~snip

No, no, no, no, no, absolutely no. That's what makes us, and U.S., different from every other country.
The Bill Of Rights was specifically written to prevent the "prevailing view" being passed into law and forced on people with a minority view. I'm allowed to worship square manhole covers. I'm allowed to not turn on the lights after dark(except in the car for safety). I'm allowed to be different.
Majority rules, may work with Robert's Rules of Order, but it's as unamerican as Borscht.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by yesman065

The unborn child is murdered - I think thats "harming someone"?

There are no "unborn children". Birth is a requirement in order to be a child. Before birth, you're merely a fetus.

Note: I'm saying this while my wife is pregnant with the fetus that she will hopefully allow become my child. Abortion is not murder. In fact the only human lives who have ever been lost due to abortion are those of women who got back alley abortions with rusty tools from butchers when one group tried to force their religious beliefs onto others by making abortions illegal.

We each have sole dominion over our body and all the organisms within that body. We alone choose life or death for any of those organisms regardless of what they are or how they got there. For all intents and purposes, we are the GOD of our body and our decisions are not to be questioned by any other person or group of people regardless of their number.

Let's not make this an abortion thread. She asked where her views were politically, and I told her. She has thanked me because I was correct and pointed her in the right direction based on her expressed beliefs.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Can you provide scripture references for this please?

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/403a.htm

http://www.biblegateway.com

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The unborn child didn't asked to be made, nor is it "willing" to be killed via acid, saw or knife. This is where my fundamental views and yours differ. (Nor do I wish to start an abortion debate here.)

There is no such thing as an unborn child anymore than their is an unbaked cake. It doesn't become a cake until it's baked. Before that it's just batter. You don't have a baby until it's born. Before that it's a fetus and a POTENTIAL baby just like the fetus inside my wife right now.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

"We the people" are the ones that make laws. Or, excuse me, that's how it's supposed to work. "We the people" DON'T make laws anymore, nor do our elected representatives vote on laws according to their constituency's majority view, nor does the Electoral College vote the way the people in their states do.

We the people do make the laws, and which laws we the people can make are limited. We the people don't have the authority to make any laws we wish over the lives of other people.

While the powers of government are derived from "We the people", those powers are limited by what powers we have as individuals to grant to that government. It's good to keep in mind that "We the people" are individuals, not a collective. We are each born with unalienable rights. For instance the right to defend ourselves when attacked. We are not born with the right to tell other people what foods they will or won't eat, what medicines or medical procedures they will or won't have, or what they can or can't do with their own body or property.

This means we can grant legitimate power to government to protect us, but we may not legitimately grant power to government to prevent or punish abortions, make drugs illegal, etc.

How can you give a power to government that you don't have as an individual? If you personally don't have such a power, neither do a million of you, or a hundred million of you.

If you were on an island of people without a government, you would have absolutely no legitimate right to prevent someone else on the island from getting an abortion. This means you can't grant this power to a government.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The majority view is supposed to be the prevailing view, and STATE legislation is supposed to support this.

Majority rule is mob rule. Just because the majority wants something doesn't make it right. There are some things that are not up for a vote, and not up for a debate. The rights of a single person are more important than the desires of millions.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I don't think Libertarianism is "not for me", I think that like the rest of the parties perviously discussed, there are some things I like, and fewer things I don't.

Trust me, libertarianism is not for you.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Thanks, I'll look into that.


edit: after reading in a few pages, I'm so far agreeing with most of this Contitution Party Platform. Thanks, radar!

Points of disagreement: that women connot be in combat.

I figured you'd fit like a glove. If that's the only area you've found where you disagree, I'd say this is the party for you.

[tw]

A commentary by Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago’s Divinity School at The Great Pumpkin Goes to Washington

I don’t care a fig about our next president’s personal religious views. The candidate can worship the Great Pumpkin, for all I care, as long as he or she doesn’t assume that the rest of us do too, and that the Great Pumpkin told him to do things such as, to take a case at random, invade Iraq.

Is it a sin? I don't care and have no opinion because it is his sin; not mine. However when he uses his definition of sin to attack or manipulate me - that is civil war (or a trip to the courts).

Why does a discussion that started on religion then move to politics? Is life sacred? That only applies to you and your god - no one else. Is it legal to kill? That is a question asked and answered completely devoid of religion.

Religion is a relationship between you and your god. Even your church is nothing more than a consultant. Your church can advise. But only you own your religion. And that religion is never imposed on another. Even the Great Pumpkin did not condemn Charlie Brown's friends for not believing.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by tw

Why does a discussion that started on religion then move to politics?

Actually, I think this discussion started on politics and moved to religion. Which makes perfect sense, because politics and religion are inextricably intertwined, so much so that I dare say they are virtually the same thing.

Religion is about control. Politics is about control. Law is often born from religion and politics, and not from a genuine desire to protect.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by grant

Religion is about control. Politics is about control. Law is often born from religion and politics, and not from a genuine desire to protect.

roger that

[tw]

Originally Posted by grant

Which makes perfect sense, because politics and religion are inextricably intertwined, so much so that I dare say they are virtually the same thing.

I daresay that when religion (that is fully based only in emotional perceptions) is intertwined with politics, then we have the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and "Mission Accomplished". In each case, nothing logical and nothing based in what religion is supposed to be, instead, resulted in an adverse conclusion.

Politics is a relationship of the many. Religion is a relationship between one man and his god(s). Where do these two intertwine? They don't and they must not. Once these two do intertwine, then the naive start thinking in terms of 'good and evil'. As George Jr demonstrated - as has been repeatedly proven in history - when conclusions are made in 'black and white'; 'good and evil'; 'them and us' ... then we get racism, ethnic cleansing, the holocaust, 11 September, the 30 Years War, Vietnam, and "Mission Accomplished".

At what point do we learn from history; learn using logic rather than do things for the glory of god?

When religion becomes more than a relationship between one and his gods, then (if you believe in 'good and evil') evil abounds. The 'good' therefore become the 'evil'. Anytime religion becomes intertwined with politics or religion is used to justify actions against another, then the purpose of religion has been perverted.

Religion can only serve its strategic objective when it remains a relationship between one man and his gods. To intertwine religion with politics only perverts and destroys what religion was created to promote. Scary are those who cannot keep religion where it belongs for they are the ones who have made the world so dangerous for all Americans.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Religion is a relationship between one man and his god(s).

I disagree. What you have described is belief. Religion is when two or more people feel they have the same relationship with the same God(s), ie belief and want to band together for mutual whatever.

I think too many people don't know the difference, because the look to the religion to tell them what their belief should be, rather than having their belief dictate what religion they should be.

I don't want to get into a semantics thing, just make a distinction between the two situations. The belief that I described will most certainly enter into an individuals political bent, but his religion should not.

[Radar]

I think Bruce is correct in that the word religion suggests some form of fellowship with like-minded others.