Hm. I can't see you going for the Dems, though! Are you going to write in?
Shocking about Romney, isn't it? I figured he was the sort who couldn't back down and that if anyone was going to drop out before the next round, it would be Huckabee!
Shocking, but half expected. I really wish he'd held on, though; Texas would have gone for him. Of that, I have no doubt. Huckabee would have been forced to drop out then.
Of course, this IS the reason that Huckabee stayed in in the first place: to pull votes away from Romney and give McCain the lead. Huckabee should have been gone long ago.
You know that Romney has 4 million votes to McCain's 4.7 million? And 11 states to McCain's 13. This is a race in which the democrats who voted in the republican primaries played a HUGE part.
The truth of the matter is that the Republican party is split three ways, and the only conservative that we had left in the race was Romney, and he was moderate. Now Romney's gone, so there are a lot of different options open now - but none of them involve me voting for McCain.
My opposition to McCain is beyond "Anyone But." My opposition to McCain is "Crush Him." Veteran hero he may be, but has no respect for the core values of Conservatism nor any respect for the Republican - that is Conservative - Base, and I have no respect for him as a politician. I cannot vote for him.
I'm not in favor of McCain at all except I applaud him for his stance on anti-torture and anti-Guantanamo Bay. But I don't actually know what you're talking about because I haven't researched him thoroughly -- his war stance alone turns me completely off of him. I can't support a pro-war candidate, that's the biggest issue for me of this election.
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp) - you'll be surprised this guy even claims to be a conservative.
"The crux of the McCain-Feingold bill was a ban on soft money -- unlimited contributions to the national political parties for "party-building" activities. The bill also placed restrictions on outside groups airing so-called "issue ads" that tout or criticize a candidate's position on an issue, but refrain from explicitly telling viewers to vote for or against that candidate."
Basically, it limits how much you can support a candidate and what kinds of political ads you can have. There's a bunch of other garbage in it, as well. It completely ignores the right to free speech.
Um, on reading on it, it actually limits lobbyists and corporations which are good things in my book. Nothing against individual right to free speech. So I guess there's a point for McCain from me, lol.
Oh, it sounds great - most liberal ideas do, as they usually have the best intentions - until it's put into practice, and then intentions don't matter. You realize you've given up freedoms you didn't sign up to lose. Whether they affect you personally..... Well, that's never hindered my opinions on the way things should be; corporations and lobbyists have rights to free speech, as well.
Oh, it sounds great - most liberal ideas do, as they usually have the best intentions - until it's put into practice, and then intentions don't matter. You realize you've given up freedoms you didn't sign up to lose.
Hm, I can think of a lot of conservative ideas this describes perfectly.
corporations and lobbyists have rights to free speech, as well.
It's not an issue of free speech; that's just an excuse to get the funding and ads you want. Corporations buy and pay for candidates and that's why we're in the mess we're in. Corporations look out for corporations, not people or the American ideal. It's all about profits and government becomes a business. That is immoral to me.
Hm, I can think of a lot of conservative ideas this describes perfectly.
If we're talking about keeping a sense of morality in the country, yeah, I can as well. For instance: Sodomy. But I can also show where the liberal ideology has failed, and not only on issues [im]moral. Repeatedly.
It's not an issue of free speech; that's just an excuse to get the funding and ads you want.
It is an issue of free speech! Corporations have just as much interest in who runs our country as individual citizens, and they have a right to support those interests! Or are you implying that corporations don't have a right to free speech? If a corporation has no rights, then how can they even exist within the US? And how are we to deal with people like George Soros who is an individual and does the exact same thing? Should we introduce limits on people with a certain dollar amount to their name, too?
A person is a person no matter how small OR how large. Just on the legal basis, a person can be defined as an individual, partnership, or legal entity. Corporations are legal entities. The Constitution covers the rights of all legal persons residing within the US. So how are we to determine which rights a corporation should and should not have? Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate any differences, and it shouldn't!
Individual people can have just as much impact as corporations - especially if they have a high net worth. Government being run as a business, as you say, has nothing to do with the actual corporations and everything to do with the citizens who do NOT get involved. It has to do with the politicians that are in office. It's a problem, but the way to get past problems is never to abridge the rights of our citizens! Never ever!
I will never understand class envy. I thought America was about opportunity and realizing the American Dream - achieving success. But it seems more and more that we as a nation are more concerned with our own woes and finding someone else on whom to place the blame. Someone else to fix it. Someone "higher" to penalize because we're jealous. "Stick it to The Man. Stick it to Big Business. It's all their fault."
If we're talking about keeping a sense of morality in the country, yeah, I can as well. For instance: Sodomy.
Homosexuality has nothing to do with this issue, nor is it anything the government should be controlling. What someone does in their bedroom is not my business. The government doesn't moderate sex before marriage, or extramarital sex, so if you're going to push for one thing, you have to push for all of the above. And if you do push for all of the above, then we're back to a puritan society and The Scarlett Letter Maybe you want that but I sure don't; it's not so far away from Islamic extremism.
And frankly the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, either. People shouldn't get special benefits just for being married. We don't need the government regulating it. It should be a church thing like it was before the 1920s.
But again it has absolutely nothing to do with limitations on soft campaign funds.
So how are we to determine which rights a corporation should and should not have? Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate any differences, and it shouldn't!
Corporations do get representation -- because every individual gets his/her own vote. Individuals can support candidates and bring up their own concerns any way they want. But just because corporations have more money than individuals does not mean that they should get to have more impact on who is elected to office. Corporations aren't always corrupt -- but this country isn't just about big business.
I will never understand class envy.
It's not class envy; it's that the wealthy shouldn't be the only ones who get to speak, and let's face it, the wealthy do get to say more because they can pay more. And I believe the wealthy have a certain responsibility to those who are not so wealthy. That's a biblical principle.
Wow, my blood pressure's up too early in the morning. Must go do something relaxing like write fanfic. ;)
But again it has absolutely nothing to do with limitations on soft campaign funds.
I wasn't saying it did; I was referring to the aforementioned ideas that look great on paper but don't work out in real life. It was just an example: laws against sodomy. ;)
As for morality, I believe we have a right to exist in a moral society; I, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy. Regardless of my rants on it in the past, I do believe the rights do exist:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, October 11, 1798
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people. What the people want. And should the government back that? Ohhhh yes! Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
But just because corporations have more money than individuals does not mean that they should get to have more impact on who is elected to office. Corporations aren't always corrupt -- but this country isn't just about big business.
So they get representation, but they just can't say anything? Again, I'm left wondering where in the Constitution it says that.
And again, there are some individuals who are just as or even more rich than some corporations. Do we abridge thier rights, as well? Because they have interests, and many of those interests are about their businesses and/or investments. There's also the fact that the definition of Corporation within the bill includes nonprofit organizations, which are entirely different from business corporations. They have an entirely different set of retirement plans, even, and for a reason! Because the ACLU is absolutely nothing like Fidelity: they have entirely different purposes!
And I believe the wealthy have a certain responsibility to those who are not so wealthy. That's a biblical principle.
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair. As for that last bit... you realize you have just contradicted yourself? You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
I agree with the principle, obviously, but I do NOT believe that it is the government's right nor place to enforce the rich to be generous. Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted. We don't have a right to tell people that they can only be so rich until they have to start sharing. Special interests exist; we regular folk assemble, petition, write letters, etc. For business folk and political relations, it's already illegal to accept bribes: what more can we do? It is wrong, no matter what the intentions, to abridge the rights of our citizens!
Wow, my blood pressure's up too early in the morning. Must go do something relaxing like write fanfic. ;)
Lol We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that. ;) I enjoy the debate and the difference of opinion; best way to learn, in my book. :)
I was referring to the aforementioned ideas that look great on paper but don't work out in real life.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Patriot Act and warrantless searches and wiretapping that everyone signed the dotted line for in the wake of 9/11 before anyone said, "Um, hey, wait a minute, this grants the president unconstitutional powers and violates core rights"...
, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy.
But public indecency is infringing other people's rights. And that's what I mean -- of course I want to live in a moral society -- but you can have a moral society without it being rooted in any one religious doctrine.
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people.
Exactly -- they left it out because to declare which moral standard they personally upheld (and obviously this was something the founding fathers were not even in agreement, given what a diverse religious -- and nonreligious -- representation they were) would be in contradiction with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
No, we wouldn't. In some places, sure -- but as long as the government isn't making a law that requires nude billboards all over, the core values of the American people themselves would keep those billboards largely out of sight by protesting and boycotting and complaining. And that's what I'm saying: the federal government shouldn't have to make these laws -- that's local government!
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair.
No, I never said that it's unfair for some people to have more money! And my argument is that corporations buy and pay for politicians, who ignore individuals to keep the funding of a corporation. The politicians give in to the corporations who want big profits, and meanwhile corporations are screwing over people. This is particularly abhorrent in sectors such as, oh, pharmaceuticals, who have the US patent office by the balls and are responsible for so much of the health care crisis in this country. (And no, I have not watched Michael Moore's documentary, nor do I intend to, lol.)
You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
Should have phrased it differently. Generosity is a universal human moral...that the Bible happens to agree with. ;)
Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted.
What about the early Church who came together and shared all they owened? True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
A little off-topic, but ideally I believe it's the Church who should be providing welfare and healthcare to the people. If the Church would do its job instead of building megachurches, then the government wouldn't have to concern itself with these matters. But unfortunately the Church is distracted, and the government is picking up the slack for it. I think that's tragic.
We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that.
Oh, nothing personal taken and I hope you know I'm not worked up at you; my blood pressure raises because I care so much about all these issues myself and they've been ones I've been wrestling with a lot over the past four years.
Four years ago, btw, I would have agreed with you completely on all your stances. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 07:34 pm (UTC)LOL Who?? (Is that an allowed question?)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 08:35 pm (UTC)press releaseLJ post. ;)I'll give you a hint, though: I have no faith in my own party.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 08:37 pm (UTC)Shocking about Romney, isn't it? I figured he was the sort who couldn't back down and that if anyone was going to drop out before the next round, it would be Huckabee!
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 09:41 pm (UTC)Of course, this IS the reason that Huckabee stayed in in the first place: to pull votes away from Romney and give McCain the lead. Huckabee should have been gone long ago.
You know that Romney has 4 million votes to McCain's 4.7 million? And 11 states to McCain's 13. This is a race in which the democrats who voted in the republican primaries played a HUGE part.
The truth of the matter is that the Republican party is split three ways, and the only conservative that we had left in the race was Romney, and he was moderate. Now Romney's gone, so there are a lot of different options open now - but none of them involve me voting for McCain.
My opposition to McCain is beyond "Anyone But." My opposition to McCain is "Crush Him." Veteran hero he may be, but has no respect for the core values of Conservatism nor any respect for the Republican - that is Conservative - Base, and I have no respect for him as a politician. I cannot vote for him.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 12:16 am (UTC)And sorry for the length on my announcement; I didn't mean to have it sit for so long!! But I've been away from my desk all day. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 01:18 am (UTC)"The crux of the McCain-Feingold bill was a ban on soft money -- unlimited contributions to the national political parties for "party-building" activities. The bill also placed restrictions on outside groups airing so-called "issue ads" that tout or criticize a candidate's position on an issue, but refrain from explicitly telling viewers to vote for or against that candidate."
Basically, it limits how much you can support a candidate and what kinds of political ads you can have. There's a bunch of other garbage in it, as well. It completely ignores the right to free speech.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 01:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 02:21 am (UTC)http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 02:24 am (UTC)Hm, I can think of a lot of conservative ideas this describes perfectly.
corporations and lobbyists have rights to free speech, as well.
It's not an issue of free speech; that's just an excuse to get the funding and ads you want. Corporations buy and pay for candidates and that's why we're in the mess we're in. Corporations look out for corporations, not people or the American ideal. It's all about profits and government becomes a business. That is immoral to me.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 06:30 am (UTC)If we're talking about keeping a sense of morality in the country, yeah, I can as well. For instance: Sodomy. But I can also show where the liberal ideology has failed, and not only on issues [im]moral. Repeatedly.
It's not an issue of free speech; that's just an excuse to get the funding and ads you want.
It is an issue of free speech! Corporations have just as much interest in who runs our country as individual citizens, and they have a right to support those interests! Or are you implying that corporations don't have a right to free speech? If a corporation has no rights, then how can they even exist within the US? And how are we to deal with people like George Soros who is an individual and does the exact same thing? Should we introduce limits on people with a certain dollar amount to their name, too?
A person is a person no matter how small OR how large. Just on the legal basis, a person can be defined as an individual, partnership, or legal entity. Corporations are legal entities. The Constitution covers the rights of all legal persons residing within the US. So how are we to determine which rights a corporation should and should not have? Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate any differences, and it shouldn't!
Individual people can have just as much impact as corporations - especially if they have a high net worth. Government being run as a business, as you say, has nothing to do with the actual corporations and everything to do with the citizens who do NOT get involved. It has to do with the politicians that are in office. It's a problem, but the way to get past problems is never to abridge the rights of our citizens! Never ever!
I will never understand class envy. I thought America was about opportunity and realizing the American Dream - achieving success. But it seems more and more that we as a nation are more concerned with our own woes and finding someone else on whom to place the blame. Someone else to fix it. Someone "higher" to penalize because we're jealous.
"Stick it to The Man. Stick it to Big Business. It's all their fault."
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 01:35 pm (UTC)Homosexuality has nothing to do with this issue, nor is it anything the government should be controlling. What someone does in their bedroom is not my business. The government doesn't moderate sex before marriage, or extramarital sex, so if you're going to push for one thing, you have to push for all of the above. And if you do push for all of the above, then we're back to a puritan society and The Scarlett Letter Maybe you want that but I sure don't; it's not so far away from Islamic extremism.
And frankly the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, either. People shouldn't get special benefits just for being married. We don't need the government regulating it. It should be a church thing like it was before the 1920s.
But again it has absolutely nothing to do with limitations on soft campaign funds.
So how are we to determine which rights a corporation should and should not have? Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate any differences, and it shouldn't!
Corporations do get representation -- because every individual gets his/her own vote. Individuals can support candidates and bring up their own concerns any way they want. But just because corporations have more money than individuals does not mean that they should get to have more impact on who is elected to office. Corporations aren't always corrupt -- but this country isn't just about big business.
I will never understand class envy.
It's not class envy; it's that the wealthy shouldn't be the only ones who get to speak, and let's face it, the wealthy do get to say more because they can pay more. And I believe the wealthy have a certain responsibility to those who are not so wealthy. That's a biblical principle.
Wow, my blood pressure's up too early in the morning. Must go do something relaxing like write fanfic. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 12:29 am (UTC)I wasn't saying it did; I was referring to the aforementioned ideas that look great on paper but don't work out in real life. It was just an example: laws against sodomy. ;)
As for morality, I believe we have a right to exist in a moral society; I, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy. Regardless of my rants on it in the past, I do believe the rights do exist:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, October 11, 1798
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people. What the people want. And should the government back that? Ohhhh yes! Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
But just because corporations have more money than individuals does not mean that they should get to have more impact on who is elected to office. Corporations aren't always corrupt -- but this country isn't just about big business.
So they get representation, but they just can't say anything? Again, I'm left wondering where in the Constitution it says that.
And again, there are some individuals who are just as or even more rich than some corporations. Do we abridge thier rights, as well? Because they have interests, and many of those interests are about their businesses and/or investments. There's also the fact that the definition of Corporation within the bill includes nonprofit organizations, which are entirely different from business corporations. They have an entirely different set of retirement plans, even, and for a reason! Because the ACLU is absolutely nothing like Fidelity: they have entirely different purposes!
And I believe the wealthy have a certain responsibility to those who are not so wealthy. That's a biblical principle.
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair. As for that last bit... you realize you have just contradicted yourself? You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
I agree with the principle, obviously, but I do NOT believe that it is the government's right nor place to enforce the rich to be generous. Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted. We don't have a right to tell people that they can only be so rich until they have to start sharing. Special interests exist; we regular folk assemble, petition, write letters, etc. For business folk and political relations, it's already illegal to accept bribes: what more can we do? It is wrong, no matter what the intentions, to abridge the rights of our citizens!
Wow, my blood pressure's up too early in the morning. Must go do something relaxing like write fanfic. ;)
Lol We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that. ;) I enjoy the debate and the difference of opinion; best way to learn, in my book. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 02:24 am (UTC)I was thinking more along the lines of the Patriot Act and warrantless searches and wiretapping that everyone signed the dotted line for in the wake of 9/11 before anyone said, "Um, hey, wait a minute, this grants the president unconstitutional powers and violates core rights"...
, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy.
But public indecency is infringing other people's rights. And that's what I mean -- of course I want to live in a moral society -- but you can have a moral society without it being rooted in any one religious doctrine.
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people.
Exactly -- they left it out because to declare which moral standard they personally upheld (and obviously this was something the founding fathers were not even in agreement, given what a diverse religious -- and nonreligious -- representation they were) would be in contradiction with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
No, we wouldn't. In some places, sure -- but as long as the government isn't making a law that requires nude billboards all over, the core values of the American people themselves would keep those billboards largely out of sight by protesting and boycotting and complaining. And that's what I'm saying: the federal government shouldn't have to make these laws -- that's local government!
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair.
No, I never said that it's unfair for some people to have more money! And my argument is that corporations buy and pay for politicians, who ignore individuals to keep the funding of a corporation. The politicians give in to the corporations who want big profits, and meanwhile corporations are screwing over people. This is particularly abhorrent in sectors such as, oh, pharmaceuticals, who have the US patent office by the balls and are responsible for so much of the health care crisis in this country. (And no, I have not watched Michael Moore's documentary, nor do I intend to, lol.)
You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
Should have phrased it differently. Generosity is a universal human moral...that the Bible happens to agree with. ;)
Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted.
What about the early Church who came together and shared all they owened? True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
A little off-topic, but ideally I believe it's the Church who should be providing welfare and healthcare to the people. If the Church would do its job instead of building megachurches, then the government wouldn't have to concern itself with these matters. But unfortunately the Church is distracted, and the government is picking up the slack for it. I think that's tragic.
We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that.
Oh, nothing personal taken and I hope you know I'm not worked up at you; my blood pressure raises because I care so much about all these issues myself and they've been ones I've been wrestling with a lot over the past four years.
Four years ago, btw, I would have agreed with you completely on all your stances. ;)