Just wondering...

[Andrew Johnson]

....what this might stir up on both sides of the political spectrum.

http://online.logcabin.org/

[Andrew Johnson]

Nothing? Why not? Now my curiousity is piqued.

[Andrew Johnson]

Could it be that Michael Moore and Bill O'rielly haven't told any of you political scientists what to think of these cats?

I'm using the term scientist very loosely I might add.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Could it be that Michael Moore and Bill O'rielly haven't told any of you political scientists what to think of these cats?

I'm using the term scientist very loosely I might add.


So...???? Get the ball rolling.


What do YOU think of those guys?

[Mugai_hentaisha]

From what I have read. I have no problem with it I figure if you looked hard enough you would find their types in all the political parties. They are just part of the spectrum

[Andrew Johnson]

Just trying to illustrate a point that I brought up in a previous thread. That point was that political philosophy, like everything else in life, is not cut and dry.

As far as what I think about 'em. I don't support any political parties because I see them all as having an agenda. An agenda that has very little to do with we the common people. I do have to say, they are more progressive than your standard democrats and republicans.

I tend to have a very libertarian philosophy toward life, but vote more republican. I vote this way because the republicans are closer in philosophy to libertarians than democrats, and libertarians are a long way from landing the big seats in office.

If you do some research on the political spectrum, you find that the further to the right you go it's more about freedom. So, libertarians fall further to the right than republicans. Some of the close minded ideas of some republicans don't seem like they are champions of freedom, but they are more so than democrats.

The concept of creating equality can only be achieved by limiting the freedom of the people. Since the dem's stive more toward creating an equal and level playing field they are, in my opinion, against many of my personal freedoms.

Of course, I don't copy and paste my thoughts off radically biased news websites, like I've seen here in the past. I also tend to form my own non-partisan opinions about everything. None of the opinions I form could be packaged neatly in to one little box. Like those of all the "political scientists" on this board.

[Andrew Johnson]

whats ur opinion on PETA hunters, jewish nazis or black KKK members?

Kind of what I'm trying to say I guess. Only you've gone to an extreme here to make your point.

There are plenty hunters whol love animals, I'm sure. I'm a hunter myself.

Dare I say racists come in all colors and creeds. So, while you don't get jewish nazis and black clansmen. You do get hate groups who's memberships are comprised of blacks and jews.

[Andrew Johnson]

It's all along the same lines of the tired old discussion; Are guys that get topped by t-girls gay?

Not cut and dry.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Just trying to illustrate a point that I brought up in a previous thread. That point was that political philosophy, like everything else in life, is not cut and dry.

As far as what I think about 'em. I don't support any political parties because I see them all as having an agenda. An agenda that has very little to do with we the common people. I do have to say, they are more progressive than your standard democrats and republicans.

I tend to have a very libertarian philosophy toward life, but vote more republican. I vote this way because the republicans are closer in philosophy to libertarians than democrats, and libertarians are a long way from landing the big seats in office.

If you do some research on the political spectrum, you find that the further to the right you go it's more about freedom. So, libertarians fall further to the right than republicans. Some of the close minded ideas of some republicans don't seem like they are champions of freedom, but they are more so than democrats.

The concept of creating equality can only be achieved by limiting the freedom of the people. Since the dem's stive more toward creating an equal and level playing field they are, in my opinion, against many of my personal freedoms.

Of course, I don't copy and paste my thoughts off radically biased news websites, like I've seen here in the past. I also tend to form my own non-partisan opinions about everything. None of the opinions I form could be packaged neatly in to one little box. Like those of all the "political scientists" on this board.

Forgive me for saying this, but I think you are being a bit of a cop out. Saying you don't support ANY political parties because they all have an agenda... you might as well live in a cave.

Also, I think you are going by outdated definitions of republicans and democrats. The "classic" definitions of those parties no longer exsist. You go by the old definition where Republicans want less government and Democrats want more. That is painfully not true anymore.

BOTH Dems and Reps want to limit your freedom. There is no question about that. The only questions are WHICH freedoms they each want to limit. As an example, is the Republican Patriot Act giving you more personal freedom?

I don't think anyone on this board is claiming to be a "political scientist" any more than you are. We are all just giving our opinions.

(I edited out the question I asked. I didn't see that you had already answered it)

[speck]

Let me ask you, if you don't support any political parties, do you vote?

I don't think you read his post....or at least you ignored parts of it.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Let me ask you, if you don't support any political parties, do you vote?

I don't think you read his post....or at least you ignored parts of it.

Opps... sorry. I did read his post, a few times, but when I was writing my reply I must have forgotten that part. I didn't ignore it.


Sorry.

[Andrew Johnson]

When I said I don't support any particular political parties, I meant exclusively. In other words I don't endorse the republican party even though I vote for a lot of them. I just don't put my stock in a party, but rather individuals instead.

[Felicia Katt]

“Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.”

Winston Churchill

Voting for the individual is the same as voting for the party. Even if they don't hold the party's view, they are still beholden to them, and will more often than not, prove Mr Churchill true.

FK

[Andrew Johnson]

Voting for the individual is the same as voting for the party. Even if they don't hold the party's view, they are still beholden to them, and will more often than not, prove Mr Churchill true.

FK

It's not the same as voting for the party if you don't vote straight across party lines. Remeber checks and balances?

Opposite opinions can help people arrive somewhere in the middle. Instead of sliding to far to one side or the other.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Voting for the individual is the same as voting for the party. Even if they don't hold the party's view, they are still beholden to them, and will more often than not, prove Mr Churchill true.

FK

It's not the same as voting for the party if you don't vote straight across party lines. Remeber checks and balances?

Opposite opinions can help people arrive somewhere in the middle. Instead of sliding to far to one side or the other.


So why don't you just say you're a Moderate. That would have saved a lot of time.

[Andrew Johnson]

It's not even that cut and dry for me, and I don't really think it is for most. I've seen soooooooo many threads on here saying the left is so blah blah blah, and others saying the right is so blah blah blah.

I just felt like throwing a different perspective out there.