Political Parties: Support or Defend Your Political Affiliations

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by JugBR

nice post daniel !

i also believe in high taxes, but the rich should pay more than poors and middle class.

i also agree with you, about statecontrol, the strategic areas should be property of the people and administrated by state. but isnt that dangerous politics administrating enterprises sometimes ?

i defend the righ of abortion also, but first, the anti-conceprional methods to prevent pregnacy and aids.the soceiety should be a very informed and conscient about that. light drugs ? since alcohol and cigars are legalized, why dont allow people smoke pot ? the only restricyion is about the age.

Thanks

Regarding taxes: I agree - roughly speaking the incometax here is divided into 3 groups:
low income:42%
middle income:50%
high income:60%

(as mentioned this is rough numbers that do not take tax-deductables into account)

As for the dangers of statecontroled enterprize. IMO it is only dangerous when it inhibits the free markets functions. And with a free press this will not happen unnoticed.

Regarding the drugs I just wrote my opinion in the above post

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by freebird

Great Post Marcel, I am much in agreement, the extremes are not healthy.


What is your opinion on the legalization of soft drugs & prostitution? Holland has both, so it would be nice to hear your thoughts.

It is a misconception if you say softdrug are legal here in the Netherlands. They are not. According to the law the possession and creation of the drugs are forbidden. In practise, possesion of small amounts are allowed by the law enforcing organisations. They creation however is not! The only drug that can legally be sold is Marihuana, in so called coffee shops. Again it's not really legal, but it is allowed. But when there's is the slightest provocation, they can be closed by the police at any time.

I think the policy is working somehow. A lot of young people like to experiment and this way can do so in a somewhat controlled manner and not having to go into criminal surroundings. Some claim that the policy causes more drugs abuse, but this is not so, as the amount of softdrugs abuse in the NL is lower than in the surrounding countries like France, UK and Germany. There are also people who claimed there would be more harddrugs abuse by former softdrugs users. This also doesn't appear to be the case.
I also firmly believe that this policy also brings in a lot of money as we get a lot of drugs tourists, not only from Germany and France, but from all over the world.

About the legal prostitution, this policy is partly working. Prostitutes can do their "job" in safe areas and also reasonably protected. Still the policy is not a total success as we still have our fair share of problems with illegal prostitution and trade in women.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by freebird

You're Welcome! Everything you need to know in life you learn in Kindergarten.

You can smoke Marlboro's to ruin your lungs, and drink Jack Daniels until you can't stand up - no problem. But if you want to smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home - they will come and bust down the door!

marlboro´s are from phillip morris an giant enterprise that pays many campaigns of many politicians around the world. so they buy their right to kill people with cancer every year.

if pot was produced by a giant industry, people would be smoking pot legally everywhere. but pot can be planted in everywhere, whos pothead would buy a "jamaican" marlboro i he can grow and smoke his own.

im not making apology of drugs, but talking about so big and powerfull enterprises, that can influenciate governments, politicians, paying campaings making lobbys, etc...

its a bit like the same with warfare industry whats gonna be the budget for defense when all the wars and conflicts ends and world reach a global peace ? would the executives jump from 60th floor or they want to make a lobby to start a war ?

[Milos Sijacki]

I'm up for any party that doesn't use nationalism, the extreme one I mean, as their driving force. My people suffered and are still suffering from the few who are still living in dreams.

I'm for progress, not for isolation. I'm also against the use of force and military in order to accomplish ones goals, there is always a way to talk out of some situation.

[renrich]

Jug, did you mean to say that you believe in high taxes? If you did mean that, I believe you are the only person I have ever heard say that unless you are saying you believe in high taxes for other people. FB ,I doubt if Bush even knows anything about the lawsuit you are speaking of. My guess is that the suit was brought because a local law conflicts with some federal statute.

[ccheese]

Nice Siggy, Mon Ami... I like it...

Charles

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by freebird

A noble idea TO, but could you really vote for a Democrat?

And I know that quite a few Republican leaning regulars here {who I know & like! } have stated they have "Judeo-Christian" beliefs, does that include the Christian ideas of "Morality"? Or is that a personal choice?

I'm pretty much aligned to TO as a conservative independent. While I tend to vote Republican I did vote for Perot, I would vote for Lieberman easily if the choice was Chuck Hegel - I would vote for Jesse Ventura over Repub Coleman or (???) Franken. Having said that there are so very few in the Domocratic Party in the past 30 years that have any fresh ideas about reducing the number of laws on the books, reducing the size of bureaucrats, reducing the tax burden, cutting thier ties to Lawyers, or care about lessons of personal responsibility and accountability.

This last batch of Republican Congressmen failed to pursue the ideas that Gingrich focused on and became spending, pork barrel Demlicans or Repubocrats.

We are headed for welfare state, complete crash of economy and possibly revolution unless the two parties quit looking at their checking accounds, PAC funds and bribes and start asking themselves "what Can I personally do today that improves job opportunities, enforces higher standards in Educational achievement, provide for the national defense, improves conservation and ecological balance, and roll back Nanny Government regs designed to keep one safe all his or her life - and don't really work..

I could describe myself as a Jeffersonian Democrat and make some of you look it up. His framework of ideas best describe what I believe to be valuable.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Milos Sijacki

I'm up for any party that doesn't use nationalism, the extreme one I mean, as their driving force. My people suffered and are still suffering from the few who are still living in dreams.

I'm for progress, not for isolation. I'm also against the use of force and military in order to accomplish ones goals, there is always a way to talk out of some situation.

Milos - in all fairness talking to Hitler didn't work. Talking to USSR without the backing of US military did not work post WWII.

Like it or not, the only alternative to the use of force Sometimes, is to die quietly and silently.

[Learstang]

Matt308, I just saw the Maxine Waters video that you had a link to in one of your posts. Do you really think that Maxine Waters is representative of ALL Democrats? If that's so, I guess then I can think that newly indicted Ted Stevens (R), Senator from Alaska, is representative of ALL Republicans, and all Republicans are lying crooks. Doesn't make much sense, does it. If you really think that the extremely Liberal Maxine Waters if truly representative of all or most Democrats, you are sadly mistaken. I have to admit, I wish there were more Democrats like her, but there aren't. If the Democrats and the Democratic leadership were really all such leftwing extremists, why the Hell haven't they impeached Bush? Why did they vote to continue war-funding for Iraq? Whey did the cave in on FISA? And please don't tell me it's because those are all good things - if the Democrats were all really the socialistic idealogues you think they are, these things wouldn't have happened (or in the case of impeaching Bush, they would have happened, and not withstanding Rep. Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment, that's not going to happen, because the Democratic leadership [Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, et al.] OPPOSE impeachment).

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by freebird

Ok Renrich, you opened up this can of worms!!


The Republicans dogma is "Personal Choice" and "Keep Government out of the preople's business", yet they try to tell people what they can and can't do? Hypocracy?

The better choice of words to describe social conservatives is "Personal Choice within framework of Law" and no harm to others" and that Government which governs least, governs best" is quite a different interpretation?

You can smoke Marlboro's to ruin your lungs, and drink Jack Daniels until you can't stand up - no problem. But if you want to smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home - they will come and bust down the door!

That would be equal opportunity left and right wing law enforcement officers laboring under their oath to enforce laws made by stupid and smart people" - It is extremely rare to see a Republican party official (or Dem) suit up, arm up and go bust the doors down.

How can one be just fine and the other a horrendous crime? Please explain.

I personally have no problem legalizing most drugs - cut the price and drown out the dealers - tax it and use the funds for education and rehabilitation - but disallow financial help for drug addiction

The Bush administration sued California in Federal Court to prevent them from allowing terminal cancer patients from eating or smoking Mary J {to alleviate nausea}, which was voted & approved by the people in a referendum.

You want to bake hash brownies? Off to the slammer you go!

So what, really FB - it was just another dodge to evade the law with respect to consumption. The only way to make it clear is to have a nationwide referendum and abide by the results - across all states and municipalities - then make them go to Federal Court to litigate for restrictions.



Where is the respect for "States Rights"? Please point out to me where in the US constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to rgulate what people eat or smoke?

It doesn't but it might be instructive for you to see when the primary laws were passed and under which administrations and/or control of Congress?

?erhaps they should just ban all "drugs" & "intoxicants"? Caffeine, Pot, Alcohol, Nicotine, ban 'em all!

Nah - legalize them all, tax it, and reserve left overs for medical rehabilitation and/or social programs for illegal immigrants - none left? no benefits.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Learstang

If the Democrats and the Democratic leadership were really all such leftwing extremists, why the Hell haven't they impeached Bush?

Because they have no real charges to bring against him and the most left of the democratic party knows it!!!!

You're right though, Waters doesn't represent the whole of the democratic party and thank god - at least there is some hope that the party that was at one time the true party of the middle class hasn't been totally over run by a bunch of socialists - but unfortunate too, because if I was to call someone like Waters that I would be considered a racist, etc., but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.......

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Freebird

I disagree here because I do not see an unborn infant up to the 1st trimester as being a thinking entity. But there is not much to discuss here as there is just fundamental difference in our paradigms.

Daniel I mentioned that I thought Roe was a "reasonable compromise", in case you don't know, {as it's a US law} it allows abortion in the first 4 or 5 months, but is not allowed in months 6 - 9 except in extreme cases.

The reason I say abortion is the "worst possible option", is because it can damage the woman even if done properly.

Originally Posted by drgondog

I'm pretty much aligned to TO as a conservative independent. While I tend to vote Republican I did vote for Perot, I would vote for Lieberman easily if the choice was Chuck Hegel - I would vote for Jesse Ventura over Repub Coleman or (???) Franken. Having said that there are so very few in the Domocratic Party in the past 30 years that have any fresh ideas about reducing the number of laws on the books, reducing the size of bureaucrats, reducing the tax burden, cutting thier ties to Lawyers, or care about lessons of personal responsibility and accountability.

This last batch of Republican Congressmen failed to pursue the ideas that Gingrich focused on and became spending, pork barrel Demlicans or Repubocrats.


I could describe myself as a Jeffersonian Democrat and make some of you look it up. His framework of ideas best describe what I believe to be valuable.

Originally Posted by drgondog

Nah - legalize them all, tax it, and reserve left overs for medical rehabilitation and/or social programs for illegal immigrants - none left? no benefits.

I' sure that we don't disagree on very much either Bill, tax the stuff & start paying off the national debt.

Ren & Bill, the suit against California was brought by the Federal Justice dept. I'm sure that Bush was aware. They used the "Interstate Commerce" clause to regulate it which is a ridiculous argument, there is no "Interstate Commerce" in a substance that cannot be legally sold. It is an egregious power grab on an area that is the "Jurisdiction of the States". If the citizens of California voted for it, why the heck are the Feds butting in?

Why would it be a nationwide referendum? It is quite clearly a state power.

[Learstang]

Next time your gone. Read the rules on page 1.

Have a nice day.

Matt

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Learstang

I think that about does it for a start. By the way Flyboyj, 12,688 posts? That is impressive!

Peace,
Learstang

Bla, bla, bla......

Gee Dennis - I didn't know you had an interest in aircraft!

Ya know, I'm a moderator who will actually let the left of center be heard but by the last part of your post you have just shown you're too stupid to be here so my "12,689" posts boot is kicking you in your ignorant pansy ass - goodbye!!!!

Evidently you didn't read the first page of this thread and BTW is ole Maxi your tail gunner???

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by renrich

Jug, did you mean to say that you believe in high taxes? If you did mean that, I believe you are the only person I have ever heard say that unless you are saying you believe in high taxes for other people. FB ,I doubt if Bush even knows anything about the lawsuit you are speaking of. My guess is that the suit was brought because a local law conflicts with some federal statute.

reirich, what i read in internet, the democrats wants to upper the taxes and fix the health system and social protection failures and also protect the american industries. the republicans think is better lower the taxes to incentivate the grow of economy.

you cant have the both, lower taxes and fix the problems, you have to choose betwen one or another.