PDA

View Full Version : Why are you a Democrat/Republican/Other?


Quasimodo
07-02-08, 22:40
If we understood where everyone is 'coming from' during our many political debates, maybe there wouldn't be so many temper flare-ups and misunderstandings.

What political affiliation(s) do you consider yourself to belong to?

What about your political affiliation(s) do you think supports your values and beliefs?

Have you ever changed affiliation(s)? Why?

What do you not understand about people who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you? (e.g. Why do so-and-so's like this, why do they want to do that? etc.)

AmericanAssassin
07-02-08, 22:43
I'm a Democrat and I support Hillary Clinton. ;)

I have a political blog at: http://mateoforpresident.blogspot.com/. :)

Eddie Haskell
07-02-08, 22:55
I am a socialist, but for all intents and purposes a democrat. Until the revolution that is...;)

But I respect everyones opinions and philosophies. It doesn't stop me from debating the issues with them. Attempting to alter another's thoughts, philosophies and opinions is something we all should try and do. Debate creates a great opportunity for education.

Reggie
07-02-08, 23:02
Moderate - Slightly left leaning mind you.

I've no idea how it works in the US (call me ignorant if you like) but if there was an election I'd be most likely to vote liberal democrat. :)
Yes, I have changed my affiliations very often and will continue to do so. As a moderate, if I feel the Labour party puts forward a good case, then I'll side with them and likewise with the conservatives. As it stands, the Liberal Democrats, IMO hold all the cards, still even if they used them (which I don't think they will because they're still being too introspective it seems) they'd be doomed to a reputation of being 3rd party. Such is the rigid British political system.

Ward Dragon
07-02-08, 23:05
I'm very conservative concerning economics and the military. I'm somewhat libertarian concerning social issues. I'm not a member of either party, although I usually tend to view the Republicans as the lesser of two evils.

The Republicans usually keep the military strong and oppose things which would harm the economy, like high taxes (tax the rich people enough and they'll just hide their money in another country where we can't get any of it at all...). I don't care as much about social issues, so as long as the candidate isn't supporting some massively expensive social plan I don't mind if their social positions are different from mine. (My general social view is that I don't care what other people do as long as nobody's being hurt and I don't have to pay for it).

I've never changed my affiliation because I never had one to begin with :p I don't change my views on things unless I learn something new about the topic which puts things in a different perspective for me.

What I don't understand about people who support all sorts of entitlement programs is where they think the money will come from to pay for it all.

TombFreak
07-02-08, 23:39
I'm a democrat. I support Obama!

Obama FTW!

oocladableeblah
07-02-08, 23:42
I don't know what I am I don't I'm not into the whole politics thing and I don't fully understand it, whenever I try to learn about something from teachers or parents it goes in through one ear and out the other.

USP
08-02-08, 00:03
I am a libertarian, with a small L because I'm currently registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul.

SamReeves
08-02-08, 00:09
If we understood where everyone is 'coming from' during our many political debates, maybe there wouldn't be so many temper flare-ups and misunderstandings.

Maybe and maybe not. But I guess we'll find out in this thread.

What political affiliation(s) do you consider yourself to belong to?

Conservative most of the time, and sometimes a bit Libertarian. 'Specially when it comes to freedom of the press, and taxes.

What about your political affiliation(s) do you think supports your values and beliefs?

Republicans have always been on the mark with my values. Strong Reagan conservatism of less government, a well built military, low taxes, and good morals are what I like most.

Have you ever changed affiliation(s)? Why?

Not a chance.

What do you not understand about people who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you? (e.g. Why do so-and-so's like this, why do they want to do that? etc.)

I have plenty, but I've given up trying to make sense of it all. We are both quite entrenched in our views, and I don't see much compromise on the horizon. I guess the one thing I don't understand about the Democrats is why they need to continue to take everything on a personal level. Why they need to continue to bash Bush because he is a man of strong faith? I guess the days of Tip O' Neill and Ronald Reagan having a polite disagreement are over. O'Neill dined at the White House at the invitation of Reagan plenty of times, and I don't remember a lot of personal venom coming out of it. That's why most of this country is disgusted with government ATM.

PARANOIA
08-02-08, 01:23
I am a Conservative Libertarian. I hate all liberals regardless of my previous relationship with them, and I will not hesitate to defame or humiliate them. Why? Because I think liberals are stupid and have neither economic nor business sense, and that they want to drag this country down into a modern-day Soviet bloc. Apart from that, see SamReeves' post for the rest of my reasoning.

To see me spill my "hateful diatribe," as Eddie calls it, go here: http://votd-nzn.blogspot.com (http://votd-nzn.blogspot.com/)

USP
08-02-08, 01:26
People should take this quiz. 10 questions.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

PARANOIA
08-02-08, 01:27
People should take this quiz. 10 questions.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

That quiz is biased.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 01:33
That quiz is biased.

It had me as a far left-centrist. I was "on the border".

And by the way, I don't hate you like you hate me... :)

Jensie17
08-02-08, 01:34
Im Democrat and i support miss Clinton.

PARANOIA
08-02-08, 01:36
And by the way, I don't hate you like you hate me... :)

That's okay with me. I'm an antisocial schizophrenic narcissist anyway. I'm not capable of feeling personal tensions from other people when it comes to politics.

USP
08-02-08, 01:40
That quiz is biased.

How?

Draco
08-02-08, 01:47
I'm registered Republican, but that's only because there is only really two parties in the US that matter, and I'm not silly enough to be a Democrat.

myrmaad
08-02-08, 01:50
*chuckles*

CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government
control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on
the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention
and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.
Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,
tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what
they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.
I prefer this quiz (http://typology.people-press.org/typology/).

I hate all liberals regardless of my previous relationship with them, and I will not hesitate to defame or humiliate them.

A lack of character, respect, and compassion isn't the mark of great intelligence. My views are very much in line with the likes of Benjamin Franklin, and the framers of the Constitution.

"Silly" is a matter of perception.

PARANOIA
08-02-08, 01:55
A lack of character, respect, and compassion isn't the mark of great intelligence. My views are very much in line with the likes of Benjamin Franklin, and the framers of the Constitution.

"Silly" is a matter of perception.

My apologies. One tends to become emotional during the hardships of election season.

And it says I'm an Enterpriser.

myrmaad
08-02-08, 01:58
I can forgive that, I understand. It gets easier.

Edit: That seems to fit.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 02:03
*chuckles*

I prefer this quiz (http://typology.people-press.org/typology/).



Your poll has me a liberal:

"Liberal

Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Liberal typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.

Liberals represent 17 percent of the American public, and 19 percent of registered voters.

Basic Description
This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999, Liberals now comprise the largest share of Democrats and is the single largest of the nine Typology groups. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration, issues which are more controversial among Conservative and Disadvantaged Democrats.

Defining Values
Strongest preference for diplomacy over use of military force. Pro-choice, supportive of gay marriage and strongly favor environmental protection. Low participation in religious activities. Most sympathetic of any group to immigrants as well as labor unions, and most opposed to the anti-terrorism Patriot Act.

Who They Are
Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal. Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000).

Lifestyle Notes
Largest group to have been born (or whose parents were born) outside of the U.S. or Canada (20%). Least likely to report having a gun at home (23%) or attending bible study or prayer group meetings (13%).

2004 Election
Bush 2%, Kerry 81%

Party ID
59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)

Media Use
Liberals are second only to Enterprisers in following news about government and public affairs most of the time (60%). Liberals’ use of the internet to get news is the highest among all groups (37%). "

AmericanAssassin
08-02-08, 02:16
My results were exactly the same as yours, Eddie. ;)

Liberal
Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Liberal typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.

Liberals represent 17 percent of the American public, and 19 percent of registered voters.

Basic Description
This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999, Liberals now comprise the largest share of Democrats and is the single largest of the nine Typology groups. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration, issues which are more controversial among Conservative and Disadvantaged Democrats.

Defining Values
Strongest preference for diplomacy over use of military force. Pro-choice, supportive of gay marriage and strongly favor environmental protection. Low participation in religious activities. Most sympathetic of any group to immigrants as well as labor unions, and most opposed to the anti-terrorism Patriot Act.

Who They Are
Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal. Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000).

Lifestyle Notes
Largest group to have been born (or whose parents were born) outside of the U.S. or Canada (20%). Least likely to report having a gun at home (23%) or attending bible study or prayer group meetings (13%).

2004 Election
Bush 2%, Kerry 81%

Party ID
59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)

Media Use
Liberals are second only to Enterprisers in following news about government and public affairs most of the time (60%). Liberals’ use of the internet to get news is the highest among all groups (37%).

I agree with almost all of this, except Republicans are right about guns, illegal immigrants, and taxes. ;)

Twilight
08-02-08, 02:16
i dont kno, i just vote for someone who seems fit for the job & shares similar views.

Ward Dragon
08-02-08, 02:17
The quiz says:

Enterpriser
Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Enterpriser typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.

Enterprisers represent 9 percent of the American public, and 10 percent of registered voters.

Basic Description
As in previous studies conducted in 1987, 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act.

Defining Values
Assertive on foreign policy and patriotic; anti-regulation and pro-business; very little support for government help to the poor; strong belief that individuals are responsible for their own well being. Conservative on social issues such as gay marriage, but not much more religious than the nation as a whole. Very satisfied with personal financial situation.

Who They Are
Predominantly white (91%), male (76%) and financially well-off (62% have household incomes of at least $50,000, compared with 40% nationwide). Nearly half (46%) have a college degree, and 77% are married. Nearly a quarter (23%) are themselves military veterans. Only 10% are under age 30.

Lifestyle Notes
59% report having a gun in their homes; 53% trade stocks and bonds in the stock market, and 30% are small business owners – all of which are the highest percentages among typology groups. 48% attend church weekly; 36% attend bible study or prayer group meetings.

2004 Election
Bush 92%, Kerry 1%. Bush’s most reliable supporters (just 4% of Enterprisers did not vote)

Party ID
81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/LeanRep)

Media Use
Enterprisers follow news about government and politics more closely than any other group, and exhibit the most knowledge about world affairs. The Fox News Channel is their primary source of news (46% cite it as a main source) followed by newspapers (42%) radio (31%) and the internet (26%).

Note: All descriptions and percentages are based on the national sample of adults surveyed by telephone in December. Based on your answers to the survey questions, you most closely resemble survey respondents within this group, even though you may differ significantly on one or more issues or traits.

In the overall typology there is a ninth group called “Bystanders” who are defined as adults who are not registered, who do not follow news about government and public affairs, and who say they rarely or never vote.

It mostly fits. I disagree on the social issues (I don't want to legislate morality). I also am not religious and I do not fit the demographic of "Who They Are" :p

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 02:18
I consider myself a conservative republican realistically, and a quasi-Libertarian ideally. In other words, it'd be great if someone like Ron Paul could win the election, but I'll have to vote for the republican candidate that gets selected by the primaries in the end, because I feel even a poor republican candidate would do a better job of protecting the right to bear arms and reining in government spending than any democrat could.

There are many things that puzzle me about democrats and liberals, etc.

- I do not understand why they feel like it is the government's duty to redistribute the wealth in the nation. I fear this only trains people to expect a handout when times get rough rather than pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. The government should not be a 'Santa Clause'.

- Why are democrats and liberals typically anti-gun/pro gun control? Criminals do not heed laws anyway, they will always find guns - where's the logic in disarming law abiding citizens?

For the quiz Myr posted, I scored as 'Disaffected', though a lot of the description isn't a accurate reflection of me. I read political articles and listen to political talk radio nearly every day, but I believe most politicians these days are more concerned about their own businesses and power rather than the people. Actually, the whole darn thing is inaccurate except for the phrases I've highlighted in bold.

Disaffected

Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Disaffected typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.

Disaffecteds represent 9 percent of the American public, and 10 percent of registered voters.

Basic Description
Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about [illegal] immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.

Defining Values
Despite personal financial strain – and belief that success is mostly beyond a person’s control – Disaffecteds are the only moderate supporters of government welfare and assistance to the poor. Strongly oppose immigration as well as regulatory and environmental policies on the grounds that government is ineffective and such measures cost jobs.

Who They Are
Less educated (70% have attended no college, compared with 49% nationwide) and predominantly male (57%). While a majority (60%) leans Republican, three-in-ten are strict independents, triple the national rate. Disaffecteds live in all parts of the country, though somewhat more are from rural and suburban areas than urban.

Lifestyle Notes
Somewhat higher percentage report having a gun in the home than the national average, and 42% report someone in their house has been unemployed in the past year.

2004 Election
Bush 42%, Kerry 21%. Nearly a quarter (23%) said they didn’t vote in the last election.

Party ID
68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/LeanRep)

Media Use
Disaffecteds have little interest in current events and pay little attention to the news. No single medium or network stands out as a main source.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 02:21
My results were exactly the same as yours, Eddie. ;)

Congratulations, join the club. :D

I guess that makes you:
"Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000)."

Well some of those you'll have to wait a bit for...;)

USP
08-02-08, 02:25
*chuckles*

I prefer this quiz (http://typology.people-press.org/typology/).



A lack of character, respect, and compassion isn't the mark of great intelligence. My views are very much in line with the likes of Benjamin Franklin, and the framers of the Constitution.

"Silly" is a matter of perception.

I got enterpriser which doesn't really describe me too well.
It said enterprisers support military assertiveness.

myrmaad
08-02-08, 02:33
@Quasi: Well I guess I'd be a poor excuse of a person to ask those questions.

First, because as a sociology major I have a great deal of evidence that flies in the face of the common belief that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The law of probability alone proves that that's not the case. Examine the statistics of the number of wealthy people (those who make $1mil a year or more) to the number of people who make the median income which is $40,000 a year. Then factor in the rate of inflation over time vs the rate of salary increase. The US prosperity of the fifties was a direct result of the New Deal policies, and those were a compromise to allow a flourishing middle class. A complete understanding of history from the 1500s helps to flesh this framework out. One of the 'secrets' to the US success has been the amount of upward mobility the common people were able to achieve, and none of it was truly due to any bootstrapping. There is always a cost, and there are always factors that either contribute to or deter prosperity. There is always something that allows it.

More importantly the more people who are able to be prosperous creates a prosperous society, and a prosperous society wields real power in the greater world. This is yet another secret of the US success. Allowing a large class in poverty is tantamount to allowing the US to fall into a third world status. This hardly scratches the surface though.

As far as your second question, I'm a gun owner.


To all: Please don't miss the part where it says:
Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Enterpriser typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.

Ward Dragon
08-02-08, 02:41
First, because as a sociology major I have a great deal of evidence that flies in the face of the common belief that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The law of probability alone proves that that's not the case. Examine the statistics of the number of wealthy people (those who make $1mil a year or more) to the number of people who make the median income which is $40,000 a year.

Why does someone have to make $1 million per year in order to count as someone who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps? :confused: I would think if someone can rise to a position where they can live comfortably, then that is what matters. No one needs $1 million per year to be happy, although it would certainly be nice :p

To all: Please don't miss the part where it says:

Of course :) I think people just don't want to give the wrong impression about what they believe so they point out the parts they don't believe in (at least, that's what I did).

hera7days
08-02-08, 02:43
I'm a democratic socialist. I'm registered as a democrat because socialist wasn't an option. I wonder if I should've just said other. Whatever. I've been it ever since the Clinton/Dole election, when I asked my dad what the difference between dems and reps was. He said, "Democrats help poor people, Republicans help rich people." :D Of course, I know now that there's a looooot more to them both than that, but that's just something that's stuck with me. Now, being told that was why I decided to be on the left, but why I have stayed there... well, I just agree with their policies. I'm your stereotypical leftist. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, think the War in Iraq was a bad idea, pro-legalization of marijuana, pro-stem cell research, blah de blah, you get the idea. I don't feel like getting into why I have these opinions, as I have too much to say on the subjects, and I would just end up rambling, oh like I'm not doing that now.

Although, tbh, I kind of liked the green party, too.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 02:45
Myr, you bring up a good point about the boot-strapless. Your argument reminded me of how most homeless people do not choose to be homeless, and the homeless in general cannot get out of their poverty because it's virtually impossible to get even a minimum wage job without a phone or a place to take showers regulary or clean clothes to wear. I can see how that carries into what you've said.

It seems like the democrat or liberal way to solve these problems is to throw money at them. I'm worried that the social programs created and/or wanted by liberals will do more to drag the nation deeper in debt than to actually help society's problems. When I look at the record low congressional approval rating, it only reassures these doubts.

myrmaad
08-02-08, 02:48
Why does someone have to make $1 million per year in order to count as someone who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps? :confused: I would think if someone can rise to a position where they can live comfortably, then that is what matters. No one needs $1 million per year to be happy, although it would certainly be nice :p


If you make less than $1mil a year, you are not in a bracket for negative "wealth redistribution" which was the question.

Many people believe they can become "rich" *the perceived "American Dream"*, and they vote as if they already are "rich", mainly because if/when they get "rich" they imagine they won't want to pay taxes on their "hard earned imaginary money".

Quasi, my problem is we're already in debt to our grandchildren's eyeballs, having spent trillions on a pointless war on an apparition of terrorism, all the while sewing the seeds of more terrorism with our own imperial brutality and actions. Collateral damage does nothing to sew seeds of good will, much the opposite. I do believe in diplomacy, I hope that if nothing else, I'm a living example of that.

In my view that's like buying a ferrari and living in a trailer. If we invested in our own house it would serve us better in the future by giving us a stable foundation. There are impractical ways to build a house, and there are ways to build a strong and enduring house that serves as a foundation of wealth. Obviously you don't give a drug addict funny money. You require the drug addict to address their issues and meet responsibilities. You teach the man to fish, you don't give him fish.

Edit: hubby has gone to bed, and I'm going to go join him :) Good night all.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 03:10
There are many things that puzzle me about democrats and liberals, etc.

- I do not understand why they feel like it is the government's duty to redistribute the wealth in the nation. I fear this only trains people to expect a handout when times get rough rather than pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. The government should not be a 'Santa Clause'.

- Why are democrats and liberals typically anti-gun/pro gun control? Criminals do not heed laws anyway, they will always find guns - where's the logic in disarming law abiding citizens?



In a perfect world, all people growing up in our society would get a fair shake and opportunities without regard to race, lousy parents, a families net worth, poor schools, etc.
The phrase, "pulling yourself by your own bootstraps" implys that one has boots to begin with. Some inner city kids are brought up in an environment (poor or no parents, drug infested neighborhoods, addicted parents, dangerous streets, etc) in which all of the possible "hope" was gone before they were born.

Imagine being a 10 year old boy in a housing project with his drug addicted mother, scrapping for something to eat with his older siblings and getting beaten by his mothers boyfriends. What chance does this kid have at his age to even visualize a future beyond his next meal? We in the big cities see this kind of stuff (for whites, blacks and Hispanics)and that is why nearly all the large cities are run by Democrats. Homelessness is rampant and growing. Emergency rooms are full of people who cannot afford to go to the doctor, and subsequently wait many times until it is too late. These problems cannot be solved by our government turning our backs on it. Liberals understand that it is a societies obligation to take care of the least of us. Or else we are no better than animals.

The redistribution of wealth as you put it is the way that some put it in order to demean the caring for the needy. Certainly no one would tolerate paying a perfectly healthy man to sit on his butt and collect a check. Nor would they tolerate paying a healthy, childless, unmarried woman to do the same. But sometimes circumstances call for a humanitarian government to assist when innocent lives are at stake (kids, elderly, homeless mothers, etc) and these people need assistance. I could go on...

As to the gun issue, people in big cities are generally not hunters. If you read the paper here you will find many instances where "legal" guns are used in many crimes. I happen to a gun owner in the city, but owing to who I am I can carry a weapon anywhere unlike everyone else. Handguns are illegal in Chicago. People in big cities are fed up with guns. The vast majority of them have never even seen a gun, unless it was in the holster of a cop. All they know is guns are used to kill people, and the less we have the better. Just recently a woman from Tennessee came here and was arrested for carrying a gun while visiting downtown when she went through a metal detector. She was shocked that she was not allowed to carry her gun up to the top of the Sears Tower. A scary thought if you ask me. Owning guns is very easy to understand when you live in rural America, where tradition, hunting and the wide open spaces make for a different reality.

There are many other rationales beyond some of those that I have offered here. I am tired and my medication is kicking in. Good night!

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 03:34
Eddie, you and Myr have convinced me about the bootstraps issue. However, why should we 'punish' the wealthy to help out the less privileged? Granted, some of wealthy got their money through inheritance, though others got it through hard work, a good idea, and good timing/ favourable conditions for those ideas.

Melonie Tomb Raider
08-02-08, 03:50
I'm very conservative, to say the least. Most of my beliefs regarding politics are based around my values and morals.

Naturally, there are other things to take into consideration, such as taxes, economy, etc. Those things are extremely important; however, my views regarding are not half as important as my morality.

For example, hypothetically speaking, let's say that one candidate running for office was pro life, but I disagreed with their plans for economy and taxes, while on the other hand, the other candidate running was pro choice, but had perfect plans for our economy and taxes. I'd simply vote for the candidate that was pro life. My morals are more important to me than the other issues.

Moreover, I would never vote for someone who was pro choice, regardless of whether they were Democrat or Republican. I don't want to be responsible for the death of innocent lives. Not in any way, shape, or form.

calico25
08-02-08, 03:58
I am very moderate. I have changed affiliations several times and basically sit on the fence. really depends on the issue though.

Though, i do hate extreme liberals and conservatives...so blind.

Cochrane
08-02-08, 05:49
I'm most with liberal democrats, in the european sense of the word, which means to me small government where possible, strict support for civil liberties, recently also ecology but without the extremism of decidedly green parties. However, I also hold some views that do not directly overlap with any of these, such as support for universal health care or government regulation of infrastructure. There is some overlap with multiple american groups in there, but given that the US have only two parties of importance, I think it's pretty clear that I think democrats are most in my direction.

Why? It just makes the most sense to me, personally. I was born in a socialist country, and while the iron curtain fell while I was only three years old, this still makes me think that civil liberties and rights are extremely important and must be protected by all means necessary. From that some other of my core opinions (no support for death penalty, for example) come very directly. Support for a small government that contracts out as much as possible, but still retains responsability for the nation's infrastructure, mainly comes from me being a railroad fan and closely following the discussions about this here in germany.

Mad Tony
08-02-08, 06:23
Conservative here. Ever since I started getting interested in politics I've always supported the Republican party. I don't think there's any conservative view I don't agree with, hence why I am conservative.

Although, I used to be pro-choice, but after really thinking about what it does and how wrong it is, I decided to become pro-life. I support the American people's right to bear arms as well.

I think the big thing I don't understand is socialism. I just don't understand why people think that way.

I can't see myself changing political affiliation in the future, as conservatism matches by values and beliefs.

I'll go into more depth about my political beliefs a bit later when I get home from school.

rowanlim
08-02-08, 06:37
CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government

control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on

the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention

and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.

Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,

tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what

they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.



I'm more liberal :p

True, I'm supporting the Democrats, rooting for Hillary Clinton :tmb:

Vertigo
08-02-08, 08:30
My post with the quote from Anarchy in the UK was removed.
Is it famous American Democracy?

Mona Sax
08-02-08, 08:40
I'd call myself a liberal social democrat (not as in the Democratic party). My main positions is that everybody should be able to find their own path to happiness and that every society should make sure even its weakest and poorest members can lead a decent life without having to starve or suffer. Personal freedom combined with social responsibility, so to speak.

What can't I understand about my political opponents (extreme right, religious fundamentalists)? That religion can have such an extreme impact on one's life, I guess, and that some people feel they have the right to tell others what their private life should look like.
Most of my beliefs regarding politics are based around my values and morals.
So are mine. ;)

myrmaad
08-02-08, 10:51
Eddie, you and Myr have convinced me about the bootstraps issue. However, why should we 'punish' the wealthy to help out the less privileged? Granted, some of wealthy got their money through inheritance, though others got it through hard work, a good idea, and good timing/ favourable conditions for those ideas.

I don't see any of this is as punishment. Everyone should pay taxes as far as I can see. Taxes pay for Infrastructure. Infrastructure is one of the measures that separates a "third world" designation from a "first world" designation.

My father is what you might call a "self-made man", effectively someone who "bootstrapped" except he didn't -- not quite.

He had made/inherited his first million by the time I was 15. My great-aunt was more correctly someone who boot-strapped* --never married, got her first teaching job at 16 and worked for over 50 years-- but she didn't quite, either. Both of these examples are very good people. Not good defined by going to church every Sunday, neither of them ever did or has. Good as in generous with those less fortunate, kind, compassionate, measured, thoughtful. Make decisions extremely slowly after considering many approaches and options. My dad even talks very slowly. The guy is "LAID BACK" yet he worked more than 75-80 hours a week all the time I've known him until just recently, when my baby brothers took over the farm. They even changed the farm business name to reflect their ownership of it.

My dad experienced living as a poor person, because he married my mother and they eloped to California when he was 17 and she was 14. His family disowned him for a while, (never my Great-Aunt though). My dad's father never actually worked for money. He did work, but he did the weirdest jobs, basically because he didn't need the money. I'm getting off track here, but suffice to say that my dad knew he wanted to be a farmer when he was a little boy. He constantly insisted on visiting my great-aunt and uncle's farm, and it annoyed my grandfather. (in-laws). So when my dad was 9 years old, my grandfather decided to move out of Baltimore and buy a 315-acre farm in rural maryland. My grandfather did not like farming at all. The stipulation was if my dad wanted the farm, my dad had to run it. My grandfather would help him a little, but by the time he was 14 my dad was running the entire farm. At 17 when he sold his herd of cows, *because of my mother* one of his cows he had bred became a Champion, widely recognized for her excellence in the dairy industry. After that, my dad had to start over without the farm his dad had bought him, and without his parents' help. There were some pretty tough times. When I was 3, my beloved great-aunt lent my dad the money to buy a 15 acre farm (at 1% interest). He got a job in a factory as well. The man who owned the factory had a big (really beautiful) farm. He hired my dad to run his farm for him, instead of work at the factory. This man became an inspiration to my dad. When I was 9, my dad bought a 120 acre farm near the farm his parents had originally bought him, again, Aunt L_ lent him the money at a small percentage rate. (I believe it was 1% again). He had paid her back in three years, and started buying more land. She died when I was 15 leaving him almost all her money. He eventually bought his farm back from his parents, and by the time I was 19, owned more than a 1000 acres.

Everyone must have help even if they work themselves into the ground.

But one thing my dad impressed upon me: when I was about 12 and my mother had died, it was some emotionally tough times for us as a family. One day I tearfully said to my dad, "if you didn't have us you'd be so much richer" and he said, "If I didn't have you, I'd be so much poorer." But it started a conversation about money, he told me that money makes people very greedy, shaking his head, he said, "the more I have, the more I want".

At the same time, my father always treated anyone who came to his farm with dignity and grace, even people that seemed, to a child, to be "bums". His respectfulness, even when it seemingly isn't "warranted" elevates him, and in my eyes, as one of the greatest men I've ever met. (I think he gets it from my great aunt, though, she was the same, she always saw the good in people, and she more than any other, is who I've tried to emulate in my life.)

I believe there is "enough" for everyone to have an opportunity to have the basic requirements of life: enough food, a safe shelter, and clean mainstream clothing that helps open the doors for opportunities.

It doesn't "hurt" anyone to pay their fair share of the burden for a great society in exchange for the privilege to live in that great society with it's infrastructure, safety, protections of property, and many opportunities for commerce.

As my dad has pointed out, the more wealth you generate, the more infrastructure you utilize. Private properties require more police protections, multiple vehicles and trucking of goods for commerce require roads and their maintenance, those same large tractor-trailers do much more damage and wear to the road infrastructure. etc etc.

My view is, if you don't want to pay your share for the privilege to live and do business here, you should not let the door hit you on your way out.


Incidentally:Most of my beliefs regarding politics are based around my values and morals. Mine absolutely are as well. Since I was raised with a very strong value for stewardship, over land, and animals, for example, and there you get my strong ethic for protecting the environment. I'll have to take some pictures of my dad's private legally protected sanctuary this summer. It's part of the SAVE THE BAY project, which is an EARMARK project.


Sorry for the rambling post, but ideology isn't something that can be explained in a single sentence. I could write a book about it, and about how my life has affected my intellectual discourse - it's ongoing.

ajrich17901
08-02-08, 10:52
Uh i dont follow any of these so...

(Backs away from thread slowly)

Capt. Murphy
08-02-08, 13:49
I'm very conservative, to say the least. Most of my beliefs regarding politics are based around my values and morals.

Naturally, there are other things to take into consideration, such as taxes, economy, etc. Those things are extremely important; however, my views regarding are not half as important as my morality.

For example, hypothetically speaking, let's say that one candidate running for office was pro life, but I disagreed with their plans for economy and taxes, while on the other hand, the other candidate running was pro choice, but had perfect plans for our economy and taxes. I'd simply vote for the candidate that was pro life. My morals are more important to me than the other issues.

Moreover, I would never vote for someone who was pro choice, regardless of whether they were Democrat or Republican. I don't want to be responsible for the death of innocent lives. Not in any way, shape, or form.
Preach it Sister. ;)

^That's pretty much what I'd say.

I'm Conservative. I might consider myself a Republican or maybe an Independent. My 'conservative' views are mainly social/moral. I'm for tax breaks... In fact I'm in favor of the fair tax. Gun control/regulation: I'm for law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves, family, and property. I'm also for conservation; ways of reducing energy costs through technology. I'm Pro-Life and Pro-Marriage.

Like Mel, I vote for the issues rather than the person or party affiliation because my beliefs and convictions are a higher priority.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 13:52
Moreover, I would never vote for someone who was pro choice, regardless of whether they were Democrat or Republican. I don't want to be responsible for the death of innocent lives. Not in any way, shape, or form.

You wouldn't. The woman who had the abortion is the only one responsible for that. Whether she had a legal or an illegal abortion. Laws or no laws.

Mr.Burns
08-02-08, 13:53
I prefer not to label myself with a single political ideology. Suffice it to say, I have both liberal and conservative views. I'll vote for whom I feel will do the best overall job of attempting to run this country. At the moment I'm mum on the person.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 14:16
Excellent points, Myr. Even the bootstrappers have been helped out somewhere along the line.

My next question for democrats/liberals is: should the wealthiest in this country be taxed a larger percentage of their income than the rest of the country? If so, to what extent, and how is it justified?

kryptonite23
08-02-08, 14:17
I am a democrat and I live in a democratic country,of course :p

Draco
08-02-08, 14:18
How about this:

Tax nobodies income.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 14:22
How about this:

Tax nobodies income.

And just make the government live off sales tax instead? That'd be interesting ;)...

Draco
08-02-08, 14:25
And just make the government live off sales tax instead? That'd be interesting ;)...

Sales Tax...that and the 140 other taxes that exist.

Income Tax isn't needed, and frankly it's not in accordance with the Constitution.

PARANOIA
08-02-08, 14:28
And just make the government live off sales tax instead? That'd be interesting ;)...

FairTax anyone?

Capt. Murphy
08-02-08, 14:28
I took that USAToday Poll, 'which candidate are you most like' (or something). Mike Huckabee is for the fair tax -correct? He is who I favored the most. But I find it sad (because this is what I believe) that Conservatives are going to vote for McCain (probably) just because he's the most "famous" of the candidates. That's just wrong in my opinion. :mad:

But I can't speak for the rest of the (conservative side of this) country.

PARANOIA
08-02-08, 14:29
I took that USAToday Poll, 'which candidate are you most like' (or something). Mike Huckabee is for the fair tax -correct? He is who I favored the most. But I find it sad (because this is what I believe) that Conservatives are going to vote for McCain (probably) just because he's the most "famous" of the candidates. That's just wrong in my opinion. :mad:

But I can't speak for the rest of the (conservative side of this) country.

From what I've heard, McCain is changing his tune. Maybe by the time November rolls around he'll be for the FairTax - who knows?

myrmaad
08-02-08, 14:31
Excellent points, Myr. Even the bootstrappers have been helped out somewhere along the line.

My next question for democrats/liberals is: should the wealthiest in this country be taxed a larger percentage of their income than the rest of the country? If so, to what extent, and how is it justified?

NO. no way should it be a larger percentage than any other individual. But remember I make a strong distinction between individuals and corporations.

Corporations should be taxed a bit more than any private individual on earnings, in my opinion, because businesses are by nature exploitative, and taxing is a way of creating a more equitable reimbursement for exploitation. It cannot be exorbitant though, simply because corporations will then pass on the costs to their consumers. I'm a business owner and that seems fair, because businesses use more resources: more electricity for an example, and these resources are limited by their nature and are shared by everyone. I do think that businesses that invest in renewable fuels and green technologies should be rewarded with incentives and credits.

I also think that green technology could and should become a major industry, creating jobs and wealth that supports US economic growth.

Paranoia, I would support not taxing "living wages" as was the original intent of the Constitution, rather than "income" which was originally a very different concept than living wages earned in trade for labor.

However, I don't mind paying income tax as long as it's fair and equitable across the board, I do object to people with lower incomes paying a larger percentage of their income for tax than people who make much larger incomes.

Cochrane
08-02-08, 14:31
Gun control/regulation: I'm for law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves, family, and property.

My opinion about this can be summed up in three points:

Guns are dangerous
There is no individual right to be armed over here (where here means most of europe)
The way it is around here works just fine.

Anything I ever said above and beyond that, or will ever say, is just clarification of these three points.

MiCkiZ88
08-02-08, 14:37
Living in a democratic country.. so.. yer.

I'm not really in to politics though. Most of the Finnish politicians just **** me off.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 14:38
My opinion about this can be summed up in three points:

Guns are dangerous
There is no individual right to be armed over here (where here means most of europe)
The way it is around here works just fine.

Anything I ever said above and beyond that, or will ever say, is just clarification of these three points.

You might find this interesting. (http://www.gunfacts.info)

EgyptianSoul
08-02-08, 14:39
I'm more of an anarchist. Politicians make me angry cause most of them are so self-centered and stupid.

MiCkiZ88
08-02-08, 14:41
Politicians make me angry cause most of them are so self-centered and stupid.Especially here.. *shudders*

Cochrane
08-02-08, 15:16
You might find this interesting. (http://www.gunfacts.info)

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't have time to go through 89 pages of pro-gun propaganda at the moment, as I have to learn for a math exam next week. I was just trying to explain why I think what I think here. If you see any outstanding flaw in my very short argument, it would be very helpful if you could point it out directly.

Mona Sax
08-02-08, 15:16
I'm Pro-Marriage.
So you support same-sex marriages? ;)

This might come as a shock, but people who want gays to be able to marry don't actually oppose traditional woman/man marriages, as the term 'pro-marriage' insinuates. Just like not being 'pro-life' doesn't mean you're against life. These terms are just rhetorical tricks to put political opponents in a corner they definitely don't belong into.
My next question for democrats/liberals is: should the wealthiest in this country be taxed a larger percentage of their income than the rest of the country? If so, to what extent, and how is it justified?
I think so, yes. Any state or society can only work as long as people do their best to support it, each according to their possibilites and abilities. If you have an income tax of, say, 30%, somebody who just barely manages to get by on a low-wage job will feel it much more than a millionaire. 70% of a manager's salary is more than enough to lead a good life, whereas 70% of the $5 or something a McDonald's employee gets won't buy you anything. That's neither ethical nor fair. A flat-rate tax may look mathematically just, but the felt consequences certainly aren't. The burden has to have the same weight for everybody, so it's obvious that those who are financially stronger and have a more secure position in life should pull more than their own weight.

Mad Tony
08-02-08, 15:32
I'm more of an anarchist. Politicians make me angry cause most of them are so self-centered and stupid.You do know that a country cannot function properly when it is in a state anarchy?

myrmaad
08-02-08, 16:18
On the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_main):

I've been looking at their website, and it does seem pretty fair, as well as quite low.

@Mona, don't people who are below the poverty level i.e. the working poor taxed at a lower rate than people above the poverty level? I'm not certain.. but I would think someone who makes minimum wage would be living beneath the poverty line.

As for those above poverty level: when both my husband and I were working with no children living at home, we were paying very close to 50% of our income in taxes. We were in a higher tax bracket at the time. That seemed to unfairly penalize us, but we made some investments and it got better. I think the fair tax seems like a good deal for everyone.. I live in a state with no sales tax and strong economic growth on the surplus side historically. Our slots do a lot to keep us on the surplus side, plus our neighbors all have high sales tax, encouraging them to come here for their shopping.

Mona Sax
08-02-08, 16:23
@Mona, don't people who are below the poverty level i.e. the working poor taxed at a lower rate than people above the poverty level?
I would certainly hope so, yeah. I haven't heard of any country where that's not the case, but then again, I'm absolutely no expert.

Spitfire
08-02-08, 17:48
I'm pretty liberal on most society driven aspects of life. Diversity exists so I do my best to roll with it. However, I guess you could say I'm republican when it comes to national security and war.

Drone
08-02-08, 17:54
I'm far away from politics. But I'm sure I ain't democrat and never will be one

EgyptianSoul
08-02-08, 17:57
You do know that a country cannot function properly when it is in a state anarchy?

Yes I know. Laws of the wild would only apply and that would lead to chaos. I don't want that. I'm just saying that I'm not supporting any party 'cause I just think that this world is being ruled by the wrong people. People who want the power they get and abuse it. I wouldn't call this world any kind of a paradise for any living beings. Too many things are wrong and nothing is being done. Even the politicians and others who are "above" us are not saints. They really don't care about us. How many times have we heard the same lies and trusted them. I'm sick and tired of it.

Spitfire
08-02-08, 18:01
Yes I know. Laws of the wild would only apply and that would lead to chaos. I don't want that. I'm just saying that I'm not supporting any party 'cause I just think that this world is being ruled by the wrong people. People who want the power they get and abuse it. I wouldn't call this world any kind of a paradise for any living beings. Too many things are wrong and nothing is being done.

So what are some of your anarchist characteristics? I've never really talked or read up about it but I figure anarchists go against the government instead of leaving not applying their opinions and influence.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 18:07
I'm terribly sorry, but I don't have time to go through 89 pages of pro-gun propaganda at the moment, as I have to learn for a math exam next week. I was just trying to explain why I think what I think here. If you see any outstanding flaw in my very short argument, it would be very helpful if you could point it out directly.

Way to write off something when you only bothered to look at the page count.

EgyptianSoul
08-02-08, 18:17
So what are some of your anarchist characteristics? I've never really talked or read up about it but I figure anarchists go against the government instead of leaving not applying their opinions and influence.

I am against the government, against the people who run this world. I have my own beliefs and I see too many flaws in the way this world is run. So instead of being a plain pet on the governments leash I'm speaking my own mind and acting accordinly. I have been arrested for being honest about the lies we're sick of hearing, I have started a riot and committed crimes but only to state my opinion. And I will not stop. There has to be more things that can be done, not just leaving everything on some greedy politicians hands who just want fame and money. They're treating us like some dirty rats that they can tell anything to and expect us to believe it..

myrmaad
08-02-08, 18:31
The most efficient way to change the world is infiltrate the system.

some old Queen lyrics:

"fight from the inside
attack from the rear
fight from the inside
you can't win with your hands tied"

Drone
08-02-08, 18:49
this world's order can't be changed. Lenin fougth all the bourgeois and what's the reason? Some time later they came back again. Many others who fought for freedom, independence or other pure goals won but years passed and it's all turned back. It's disease which can't be fixed

Cochrane
08-02-08, 19:14
Way to write off something when you only bothered to look at the page count.

If you want to convince me that I'm wrong, and I got the impression that this was your intention (I apologize if I misinterpreted your post), then I would consider it common courtesy that you'll give me more detail. I officially swear that I won't link you to a 89-page eBook (or for that matter, even eight page) without at least giving a short summary of what you can expect in there, and some reference to the actually interesting section (page numbers work wonders here).

If this was some serious discussion about gun control here, and a reply to another lengthy post, then I would have looked at it, but as it is, I made a three sentence statement, basically, and I don't think that this really warrants such an amount of text to answer.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 19:35
If you want to convince me that I'm wrong, and I got the impression that this was your intention (I apologize if I misinterpreted your post), then I would consider it common courtesy that you'll give me more detail. I officially swear that I won't link you to a 89-page eBook (or for that matter, even eight page) without at least giving a short summary of what you can expect in there, and some reference to the actually interesting section (page numbers work wonders here).

If this was some serious discussion about gun control here, and a reply to another lengthy post, then I would have looked at it, but as it is, I made a three sentence statement, basically, and I don't think that this really warrants such an amount of text to answer.

The "gun nuts" feel that our country is a nation founded by and kept "free" with the knowledge and fact that the citizens possess firearms. When the country was founded more than 90% of what was to become the United States was nothing more than wilderness, so carrying a gun and venturing into this vast and wild region was a necessity. Today that argument is still used to defend gun ownership in order to prevent a totalitarian government, and for ones personal defense. And of course the fall back is always that the Constitution not only allows it but promotes it. That has always been debated, and probably will for a long time to come.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 19:40
My opinion about this can be summed up in three points:

Guns are dangerous
There is no individual right to be armed over here (where here means most of europe)
The way it is around here works just fine.

Anything I ever said above and beyond that, or will ever say, is just clarification of these three points.

1.) Knives are dangerous, cars are dangerous, a board with a nail in it is dangerous. With the right attitude, training, and safety, a gun is a effective tool for hunting, sporting, and self defense. Lots of things are dangerous if they're misused.

2.) and 3.) Good for you and the rest of Germany. Over here a lot of people aren't content to sit tight and wait for the police to swing by after someone has already broken into their home to rob and/or murder. A lot of people aren't content to hand over their wallet at knife or gunpoint.

I get the feeling from what you've posted that you think guns do more to raise violent crime than to deter it - you said over where you are people don't have the right to be armed and they don't need it. The statistics I linked to earlier show that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens can be a good crime deterrent, and many times taking away gun rights has resulted in the opposite effect law makers had hoped for.

I can respect you for not wanting to read a huge document, but I cannot respect you automatically writing it off as propaganda.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 19:46
1.) Knives are dangerous, cars are dangerous, a board with a nail in it is dangerous. With the right attitude, training, and safety, a gun is a effective tool for hunting, sporting, and self defense. Lots of things are dangerous if they're misused.

2.) and 3.) Good for you and the rest of Germany. Over here a lot of people aren't content to sit tight and wait for the police to swing by after someone has already broken into their home to rob and/or murder. A lot of people aren't content to hand over their wallet at knife or gunpoint.

I get the feeling from what you've posted that you think guns do more to raise violent crime than to deter it - you said over where you are people don't have the right to be armed and they don't need it. The statistics I linked to earlier show that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens can be a good crime deterrent, and many times taking away gun rights has resulted in the opposite effect law makers had hoped for.

I can respect you for not wanting to read a huge document, but I cannot respect you automatically writing it off as propaganda.

Ask any big city cop if he thinks that an armed populace surrounding him is a good idea. Ask a federal agent (like I was). Being surrounded by gun toting citizens (running the gamut from honest, caring people to insane maniacs) is not a good thing for law enforcement.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 19:49
Ask any big city cop if he thinks that an armed populace surrounding him is a good idea. Ask a federal agent (like I was). Being surrounded by gun toting citizens (running the gamut from honest, caring people to insane maniacs) is not a good thing for law enforcement.

There's not always a cop around when you need one.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 19:51
There's not always a cop around when you need one.

Nor are there in Canada, Germany or England (to name a few) all of which have phenomenally low murder via firearm rates.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 19:55
Nor are there in Canada, Germany or England (to name a few) all of which have phenomenally low murder via firearm rates.

Touché. Any statistics to back it up with?

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 20:01
Touché. Any statistics to back it up with?

Here (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3051123) is one.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 20:06
Here (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3051123) is one.

OK, but what about homicide rates using any weapon? Seems like people will always find something to murder with if they really want to.

Mona Sax
08-02-08, 20:14
Homicide rates in general are very high in the US compared to Europe. Japan has an extreme level of social control, so it's got the least amount of crimes worldwide. It's mainly a cultural phenomenon, but I think the positive aspect of social networks could very well be exported.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 20:15
Homicide rates in general are very high in the US compared to Europe. Japan has an extreme level of social control, so it's got the least amount of crimes worldwide. It's mainly a cultural phenomenon, but I think the positive aspect of social networks could very well be exported.

Intriguing insight :tmb:

Cochrane
08-02-08, 20:16
1.) Knives are dangerous, cars are dangerous, a board with a nail in it is dangerous. With the right attitude, training, and safety, a gun is a effective tool for hunting, sporting, and self defense. Lots of things are dangerous if they're misused.
a) Lots of things are dangerous when misused, but guns are always dangerous. There are three possible uses for guns: Hurt someone/something, threaten to hurt someone/something or training how to hurt someone/something. Cars have legitimate uses. Knives have legitimate uses. Boards with nails, well, I'll grant you that one. But here point b applies, which is:
b) A gun is extremely dangerous. With a knife, you'll have to come up close to hurt, and depending on the knife, killing someone is very hard work. With a board with nails, you have to come just as close, and killing is, unless in extraordinary circumstances, very difficult. There's blood poisoning if the nail is really old, but that's it.

A gun is meant to be dangerous. That's the main difference.

2.) and 3.) Good for you and the rest of Germany. Over here a lot of people aren't content to sit tight and wait for the police to swing by after someone has already broken into their home to rob and/or murder. A lot of people aren't content to hand over their wallet at knife or gunpoint.

I get the feeling from what you've posted that you think guns do more to raise violent crime than to deter it - you said over where you are people don't have the right to be armed and they don't need it. The statistics I linked to earlier show that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens can be a good crime deterrent, and many times taking away gun rights has resulted in the opposite effect law makers had hoped for.
Yes, I do think that guns do more to raise violent crime than to deter it. It's not just that it makes it easier for actual criminals to get one (and it does), there are also other issues. For example, escalation. A robber that expects you to be armed isn't going to turn away from you/your house, because chances are that any other in the area will be just as armed. So instead he'll buy a bigger gun than he expects you to have. Second point: There's a whole lot of crime commited by people you wouldn't normally think of as criminals until they commit their crime. Family shootings, people running amok, that kind of thing. Not having guns does not prevent that, but guns can help to make the situation worse.

As an example, when the new main station in Berlin was opened, someone run amok outside. He had a knife, and he injured 17 people. There was some fear of AIDS initially, but that turned out to be unjustified. All 17 survived. Now imagine if that guy had had a gun.

I actually prefer waiting for people who are trained to deal with the situation. A few friends of mine tried to become police officers a while back, so I have some rough overview over the conditions, and it seems to me that there's no chance in hell I would be qualified enough for that kind of work. If I got myself a gun to defend my home or myself, I would practically pretend that I am, actually, qualified for this work. I'd rather loose my wallet than my life, and if someone held me at gun-point, I am quite certain that me having a gun would not change the odds in my favor.

I can respect you for not wanting to read a huge document, but I cannot respect you automatically writing it off as propaganda.
It's own description says that it's a list of "gun myths" and statistics and facts that try to disprove them. This does not sound like an objective treatment of the subject to me. As an additional thing: This is going to sound anti-american, but it's really not meant that way: Web sites that are badly made and whose main graphical element is an american flag tend to promote right-wing ideas exclusively.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 20:21
While tighter gun control may work for other countries, it's going to take a lot of time and creativity to make the same thing work for the U.S. Once people have the right to bear arms, it's hard to convince them to give it up.

USP
08-02-08, 20:31
Nor are there in Canada, Germany or England (to name a few) all of which have phenomenally low murder via firearm rates.

If we wish to argue this line of thinking, you should have mentioned Switzerland.
They have one of the highest ownership of guns per capita and their gun related crimes are so low that they don't even record them any longer. I think you already knew this though.
The government even gives all men rifle training and a rifle of their own.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 20:37
If we wish to argue this line of thinking, you should have mentioned Switzerland.
They have one of the highest ownership of guns per capita and their gun related crimes are so low that they don't even record them any longer. I think you already knew this though.
The government even gives all men rifle training and a rifle of their own.

Yes but they weed out the miscreants first. Not everyone is allowed to participate.

Mona Sax
08-02-08, 20:44
The Swiss aren't known to be particulary aggressive, anyway. :D When you can decide pretty much all political questions and have no way of ever falling through the safety net, the chance you're ever going to use a gun is pretty low. There's just a much lower risk of frustration. The downside of the militia system (most citizens are also soldiers) is that almost all cases of domestic violence with guns involves military weapons.

USP
08-02-08, 20:47
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.
Sign me up

Cochrane
08-02-08, 20:55
OK, but what about homicide rates using any weapon? Seems like people will always find something to murder with if they really want to.

As you wish. A broad overview is given by this abstract: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/214 which says:
Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI [higher-income] and UMI [upper-middle-income] countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13).

If you need more detail:

Official german police statistics, released by the german ministry of the interior, for 2006 show that people were threatened with a firearm 8 813 times, and 4 584 times there when firearms were fired (during a crime). That makes a total of 13 397 cases of gun use, compared to 6 304 223 commited crimes in total. This is 0.21% of all cases. This number has been on the decline since 2003, where it was 0.26%. From 1996 till 2002, it declined from 0.33% to 0.26% (The percentages of threatened and actually shot, relative to each other, remained approximately the same during the period) For the purposes of this dicussion, I'd say these numbers are pretty stable.

Official source is http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006/index2.html (I'm afraid I know of no english translation. I'm also afraid that this has far more pages than what you linked me to, which is why I tried to provide an overview).

Now for the US, there were 388,897 cases of firearm use in 2006 (source: US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm)). Comparing this to german statistics is difficult, as different reporting methodologies are used. According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html), there were 1,417,745 cases of violent crime and 9,983,568 cases of property crime (the german statistic does not make such a distinction), leading to a total of 11,401,313 crimes in 2006. If my calculator is to be trusted, that makes for a total of 3.4% of all crimes where firearms were used.

The FBI page has a very huge warning, saying that you basically cannot compare these values within the US (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/about/variables_affecting_crime.html) without taking into account other factors. As the statistics are are measured differently for Germany and the US, this is even more true. Still, I do believe one can make out a clear trend: Firearms are less used in Germany to commit crimes than in the US.

While tighter gun control may work for other countries, it's going to take a lot of time and creativity to make the same thing work for the U.S. Once people have the right to bear arms, it's hard to convince them to give it up.
On that one I'll have to agree with you. Disarming the US is not a realistic proposal, I'm just supporting it in principle. I'm not even arguing that private guns are completely useless. The US has huge stretches of land where police can just not arrive in time. Some kind of gun there is rather important. Still, I'd only see this as a necessary evil, not as a right that the constitution should grant the people.

Quasimodo
08-02-08, 20:56
Quote:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.
Sign me up

:tmb:

Cochrane
08-02-08, 21:17
First of all, swiss weapon laws are far stricter than those in the US. You need a permission to purchase a weapon (which is granted automatically unless there are reasons not to), commercial trading needs special licenses and you're not allowed to carry your gun unless you can proof that you really have to to protect yourself and others, and you have to take a test to show that you are qualified and know about applicable laws. Automatic weapons, laser sights, night vision add-ons and silencers are all banned.

The statistics that are "not kept" (http://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/de/home/dokumentation/zahlen_und_fakten.html) show that in 2006, of all intentional killings (a total of 198, both attempted and fully commited) 34 were commited with firearms, which is 17%. Germany, being a much larger country, had larger numbers for both, but in only 4.3% of all "crimes against life", as the statistic I posted above calls it, were firearms fired. Now the swiss police points out very clearly that it's statistics are complete rubbish (they are working on a new statistics system, which should be done in 2009), and they use different methodology than Germany, so again, these numbers can hardly be compared. Still, it looks as if Germany's winning.

USP
08-02-08, 21:20
Where are you getting your information?
Few restrictions

In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.

The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.

Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

Cochrane
08-02-08, 21:22
From the official homepage of Switzerland (http://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/de/home/themen/sicherheit/waffen/waffentragen.html), and you?

USP
08-02-08, 21:26
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm)

Mona Sax
08-02-08, 21:29
I can tell you that in Switzerland, you cannot carry a weapon without a permit (which almost nobody has). Same goes for purchasing one.

Cochrane
08-02-08, 21:29
Wow, BBC really needs to update their site. The bill that took gun control away from the cantons and gave it to the federal government was passed in 1997 and became law in 1999. It was passed precisely in order to reduce gun abuse.

Mona Sax
08-02-08, 21:31
From the looks of it, soldiers won't be allowed to take their guns home anymore in the near future, anyway. They already have to return the ammo.

Why are we discussing this, anyway? I thought the topic was why you have whatever political opinions you happen to have.

MadCroy101
08-02-08, 21:39
Democrat, because i can :p

Ward Dragon
08-02-08, 23:37
NO. no way should it be a larger percentage than any other individual. But remember I make a strong distinction between individuals and corporations.

Corporations should be taxed a bit more than any private individual on earnings, in my opinion, because businesses are by nature exploitative, and taxing is a way of creating a more equitable reimbursement for exploitation. It cannot be exorbitant though, simply because corporations will then pass on the costs to their consumers. I'm a business owner and that seems fair, because businesses use more resources: more electricity for an example, and these resources are limited by their nature and are shared by everyone. I do think that businesses that invest in renewable fuels and green technologies should be rewarded with incentives and credits.

I also think that green technology could and should become a major industry, creating jobs and wealth that supports US economic growth.

Paranoia, I would support not taxing "living wages" as was the original intent of the Constitution, rather than "income" which was originally a very different concept than living wages earned in trade for labor.

Sounds great to me :tmb:

However, I don't mind paying income tax as long as it's fair and equitable across the board, I do object to people with lower incomes paying a larger percentage of their income for tax than people who make much larger incomes.

Wait a minute :confused: I am pretty sure that under the current system, people with lower incomes pay a much lower percentage in income taxes compared to people with higher incomes.

myrmaad
08-02-08, 23:46
That's the part I strongly object to, sorry if I didn't make that clear. I don't mind paying taxes, but I think the percentages should be in line with ability to pay.. and it surely wasn't fair of us to have to pay 50% of our income when we discovered how empty nest syndrome was affecting it.

TR 4 LIFE
08-02-08, 23:52
straight up Democrat here!!! I don't care who wins the race...just as long as it's Hilary or Obama!!!! ;)

Ward Dragon
09-02-08, 02:21
That's the part I strongly object to, sorry if I didn't make that clear. I don't mind paying taxes, but I think the percentages should be in line with ability to pay.. and it surely wasn't fair of us to have to pay 50% of our income when we discovered how empty nest syndrome was affecting it.

I think I agree with you, but I'm tired so I'm not 100% clear what you are saying :o I think the best idea would be a flat tax (maybe around 15-20%) with an exemption for the first X amount of dollars made per year where X would be a reasonable amount so that poorer families wouldn't have to spend grocery money on taxes. Is this what you were saying too?

calico25
09-02-08, 02:38
Ask any big city cop if he thinks that an armed populace surrounding him is a good idea. Ask a federal agent (like I was). Being surrounded by gun toting citizens (running the gamut from honest, caring people to insane maniacs) is not a good thing for law enforcement.


Please. My friends who are cops and marshals all want and appreciate armed citizens. As a gun owner, I do think we need stricter laws in the US in terms of conceal carry and owning an actual firearm. The background check needs to be much, much better. I also think training should be mandatory and apart of the license to own a handgun.

I actually had to defend myself and my home back in June with one of my hand guns and I don't want to think about what would have happened if i had not had guns to defend myself. I was outnumbered and caught off guard. Guns are needed today. This world is not some Utopian society where everyone lives happily together...the quicker most liberals realize that, the better.

Tyrannosaurus
09-02-08, 02:51
I support the Regressive Party:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive

Ward Dragon
09-02-08, 03:16
I support the Regressive Party:

Awesome. It even has you for a mascot :D

I don't know if Maddox's site is allowed here, though (at least not in the general chat section).

Tyrannosaurus
09-02-08, 03:23
Then I better clarify in case it gets deleted. I am in favor of a Theocratic Autocracy centered around the worship of dinosaurs, specifically me. Just visit my myspace for details:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=145647113

Ward Dragon
09-02-08, 03:24
Then I better clarify in case it gets deleted. I am in favor of a Theocratic Autocracy centered around the worship of dinosaurs, specifically me.

Are you a real T-rex, or a robot in disguise like Megatron in Beast Wars?

Tyrannosaurus
09-02-08, 03:26
No, I'm a real T.rex. Or more specifically, THE T.rex, the son of the Great Tyrant Father and dictator-for-life of the entire planet.

Quasimodo
09-02-08, 03:38
How do manage to reach the keyboard with tiny arms and such a big head? :confused:

Tyrannosaurus
09-02-08, 04:15
A human types for me.

Eddie Haskell
09-02-08, 04:54
Please. My friends who are cops and marshals all want and appreciate armed citizens. As a gun owner, I do think we need stricter laws in the US in terms of conceal carry and owning an actual firearm. The background check needs to be much, much better. I also think training should be mandatory and apart of the license to own a handgun.

I actually had to defend myself and my home back in June with one of my hand guns and I don't want to think about what would have happened if i had not had guns to defend myself. I was outnumbered and caught off guard. Guns are needed today. This world is not some Utopian society where everyone lives happily together...the quicker most liberals realize that, the better.

Not where I come from, and certainly not in the federal agencies. The largest supporters of handgun control are the major big city mayors and their police departments. No cop wants to check out every domestic disturbance and face a handgun in every home. Your police officer friends most likely would rather not want to fear that each and every citizen can get the drop on him and with potentially more firepower. Even the supposed sanest among us can lose it, and if they are carrying a weapon at that time, well...

Draco
09-02-08, 05:29
Only a bad police officer is surprised when someone has a gun.

Quasimodo
09-02-08, 05:36
Aren't cops supposed to be trained to take down an assailant armed with a handgun? I still think you'd have to be pretty darned cracked to shoot a cop.

Tthe Spirit
09-02-08, 05:41
I am spritual/religious...

I dont even beleive in politics...
politics=source of discrimination :hea::hea::hea: no matter what sgn the leaders call themselves by.

Words created by GOD are far better to follow than words crafted by man ;)

calico25
09-02-08, 06:11
Not where I come from, and certainly not in the federal agencies. The largest supporters of handgun control are the major big city mayors and their police departments. No cop wants to check out every domestic disturbance and face a handgun in every home. Your police officer friends most likely would rather not want to fear that each and every citizen can get the drop on him and with potentially more firepower. Even the supposed sanest among us can lose it, and if they are carrying a weapon at that time, well...

Ok, well considering the last one I talked to is an HPD officer here in Houston and has nothing but good things to say about civilians who had CCLs and who served as a sort of back up in sticky situations...I will go with what he has to say. Don't get me wrong, i understand where you are coming from, but disarming the law abiding and responsible citizens is just wrong. Like i said in my previous post, i think we need stricter laws and mandatory training and more frequent checks on the mental health of the CCL owners.

I will always fight for my right to arm myself, especially after my own personal experiences...

Cochrane
09-02-08, 06:53
Aren't cops supposed to be trained to take down an assailant armed with a handgun? I still think you'd have to be pretty darned cracked to shoot a cop.

I'm pretty certain they are, but does that mean that they want to, given the choice?

One thing I always have a problem with is the focus on law-abiding citizen. Everyone is law-abiding, until he breaks it. There are people who follow the law and will do so until they die, and there are people who mainly refuse to, but there is also a rather large category of people where you'd expect them to follow the law, but suddenly they don't do it anymore, for example in cases of domestic violence.

Quasimodo
09-02-08, 07:02
I'm pretty certain they are, but does that mean that they want to, given the choice?

One thing I always have a problem with is the focus on law-abiding citizen. Everyone is law-abiding, until he breaks it. There are people who follow the law and will do so until they die, and there are people who mainly refuse to, but there is also a rather large category of people where you'd expect them to follow the law, but suddenly they don't do it anymore, for example in cases of domestic violence.

Riiiight.

I like Calico's idea of stricter license laws and mandatory training - but I'm unsure about the frequent mental health checks. How could that be done fairly and objectively?

Cochrane
09-02-08, 07:06
Riiiight.

I like Calico's idea of stricter license laws and mandatory training - but I'm unsure about the frequent mental health checks. How could that be done fairly and objectively?

That shouldn't be too difficult. Railroad engineers, for example, already have to go through regular tests to see whether they are fit. I don't know about regular checks for law enforcement agencies or similar, but I'm pretty certain they have such checks at least for hiring, and one could probably develop an easier version of that test to use as a regular test for normal citizens.

Draco
09-02-08, 15:50
That shouldn't be too difficult. Railroad engineers, for example, already have to go through regular tests to see whether they are fit. I don't know about regular checks for law enforcement agencies or similar, but I'm pretty certain they have such checks at least for hiring, and one could probably develop an easier version of that test to use as a regular test for normal citizens.

How many gun owners do you know?