Hi Dig,
You have to understand. I am against curtailing free speech, banning books, the religious right, and the Patriot Act.
For me, there are a few basic principles which are important to me:
1. The system works. The American form of government is a good one. Constitutional Republic
with strong checks and balances on individual and government power.
2. The rule of law
3. Libertarian ideals
In just this thread, I stated that "Though the Republicans lead this category [racist remarks] by far, the Democrats do have their moments" and gave a few examples. I view that as a statement demonstrating that there are examples of racism in both camps but a statement primarily AGAINST Republicans as I said they lead the category. I then pointed out David Duke's book on "Jewish Supremacism". On the whole, I think I've primarily made anti-Republican remarks today. If you choose to see them as any different I'd say that is not a fair assessment at all. When I debate with Torone or MikeAI, they don't claim I'm "primarily a Democrat". What's the difference?
Though I would vote against the Patriot Act if there were a referendum, I think it wouldn't be the end of the world, that it's keeping in line with other legislation passed in times of perceived crisis in the US, and that if passed it wouldn't effect my life. I think it's quite possible that it would come and go just like many other such acts passed as a reaction to say WW I or WW II. Those are two different ideals in conflict. My position is perfectly public. The Patriot Act is against my libertarian philosophy. The Patriot Act is not the beginning of an Orwellian America/Oceana that would spell the end of all liberties. There are issues of national security which may make such an act justifiable and historically that has been the case. Now that I've said that let's see if I'm labelled a conservative or a liberal today.
I don't think either party has a broad and consistent enough theme that I can sign up to either one. Different people have different agendas and within any one particular party there are a quite wide range of political views and personalities. Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton are three completely different politicians. I can't judge them as "Democrats". I judge them on their individual merits. Parties change in time to reflect political reality. Parties don't dictate the borderline. People dictate the borderline. The libertarian party does reflect my philosophical views but I think by itself it would be a disaster if taken 100%.
Checks and balances on government and individual power are the guiding principle of the Constitution. Here is our strength.
"Just barely black"? WTF, man. I don't even think you believe you own words. Secretary of State is hardly a "token" position. Powell is the highest ranking minority in the history of the United States. That you would care to denigrate him on the basis of his "percentage of blackness" seems to me a sign that you are only pro-minority for Democrats but not so for Republicans. Isn't the principle more important than the party? <-_<
I liked Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. They are men who did their job. Both in character and
deeds they have their faults and they have their strengths. You can tell the story of any of their presidencies in such a way that they either saved the country or ruined it. I rather suspect the truth, for what's it's worth, is halfway in between those views for each of these men.
Last edited by Colin at Apr 27 2003, 04:55 AM
|