My fellow americans... (Warning: US Politics)

[Supracentral]

(Not trying to exclude others, but I'm talking about American government here... )

My grandfather used to tell me:

"Soap Box, Ballot Box, Ammo Box - in that exact order"

When I hear people talking about using violence as a means of change in this country, I shake my head. As long as the vote works, it's the only option.

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an American. As far as I can tell both parties have let us down and it's time for new blood.

We can vote these assholes out of office anytime we see fit.

I've heard people talk about wasted votes. They say a vote for a third party is wasted.

Think about this:

Can you honestly say either of the following statemets is true?

1. If I vote for a Republican, they will be fair, honest and will defend my rights to my life, my liberty and my property without comprimise during thier time in office.

2. If I vote for a Democrat, they will be fair, honest and will defend my rights to my life, my liberty and my property without comprimise during thier time in office.

In my experience, most people will give you a resounding NO to both statements. Many people will even laugh when reading those, since they are patently ludicrous to many of us.

But then they will go vote for one or the other. Why? To keep the "greater of two evils" out of office.

That's insanity. Why vote for people who you know in your heart are dishonest and do not care what happens to you. You get the government you vote for. Why vote for one you know in your heart is going to screw you?

I challenge each and every one of you to take the following quiz (it will take you less than 2 minutes:

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Come back and post your answers.

Suprisingly, the majority of people who take this test come up as Libertarian even though they usually proclaim that they believe something else.

If you fit that description, you might want to read over the following pages, it may change the way you look at things:

http://www.cato.org/
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.self-gov.org

I post this here today, as it is Memorial day here in the US, and on a daily basis I'm watching the slow erosion of the freedoms that so many Americans died to secure.

Try to put the emotions aside and look at what YOU truly believe in. Then vote it, whatever it may be. I'm not saying "I'm right and you are wrong", far from it. I will defend to the death your right to form your own opinion.

The reason I bring all of this up is many people haven't actually spent the time forming one, and I find the information above helpful in that regard. Others may feel different, and that's a good thing.

Regardless of what conclusion you come to, be glad you live in a place where you are still allowed to come to it on your own.

 

[Joel W.]

"Soap Box, Ballot Box, Ammo Box - in that exact order"

He sounds like a smart man...

I am a centrist that leans to the right...According to your test above..

 

[Big Wang Bandit]

Im a Conservative Liberatarian. Yay?

 

[Supracentral]

I come up as:

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

I'm pretty much an extreme libertarian.

 

[lagged]

if i were to associate with any party, it would be libertarians. i voted for badnarik last election...

 

[87supraturbo19]

im a 20 60 conservative

 

[Nick M]

Suprisingly, the majority of people who take this test come up as Libertarian even though they usually proclaim that they believe something else.

Loaded test. I can write one too. And then say you claim to be something else though right?

I have seen it before. The dumocrats do the same thing. In agreement on politicians in general. Vote conservative first. Liberal last.

The libertarians believe that prostitution, heroine use, marijuana use, and other deviant acts are ok. Then the call those acts personal things in the test. Because I believe in personal freedoms. But not personal destruction.

The governments purpose is to defend the borders, build an infastructure and enforce laws of decency as written in the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less. Many Republicans fit that bill, many more dont. The many more are the ones on TV. Because the left belives in the more and less, and the left is the media. John McCain is a political turd. A great American who served his country with dignity, but now is a politcal coward. He is a good example of a bad example. Another is Bob Dole. A brave veteran, who rode the politcal fence about as far as you can ride it. I did not vote for Bob Dole in the 96 campaign. There was no real difference between him and Mrs. Clinton. I voted for Howard Phillips in that election. I know you have no idea who he is. He was the candidate for the many at the bottom of the page. Other examples of those that believe in capitalism and a strong defense but are social liberals are Rudy Guilliani, Arnold Schwarzenagger, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. Bush I and II are close to conservatives. There heart is in the right place, but fall victim to feelings of guilt. Truely great conservatives are hard to come by, but they are out there. There are many in your House of Representatives, and almost none in the Senate. An example of a true conservative would be....

The Libertarian party is good for one thing, capitalism and limited government. And that is very important.But it isn't everything.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/is for those years when you just can't pull that lever for who the Republican party nominates. Another good site to keep with politicians true behaviors is www.taxfoundation.org
and another would be www.heritage.org for a good conservative site.

 

[drunk_medic]

You fall exactly on the border
of two political philosophies...
CONSERVATIVE

LIBERTARIAN

 

[Supracentral]

The libertarians believe that prostitution, heroine use, marijuana use, and other deviant acts are ok.

The governments purpose is to defend the borders, build an infastructure and enforce laws of decency as written in the Bible.

And here's example of your love of freedom? You will impose a specific religion's beliefs as law? You'd make acts between consenting adults illegal since it violates YOUR religion? I hate to tell you, but not everyone believes what you do.

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You'd establish your bible as the state religion enforced by law...

If that is your belief, I don't believe we have much to talk about. You don't believe in our Constitution any more than I believe in the Easter Bunny...

 

[Troyota]

My result was Libertarian leaning to the left (Liberal).

 

[Nick M]

And here's example of your love of freedom? You will impose a specific religion's beliefs as law? You'd make acts between consenting adults illegal since it violates YOUR religion? I hate to tell you, but not everyone believes what you do.

There is a right and wrong. It is decided by God. If it is decided by men and their opinion, then who is right? The one with the bigger Army? This attitudes has lead to the moral decay of American society that so many people are trying to figure out.

Amendment I


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And the Libertarian party disoboes this law as much as possible by trying to stop the free exercise clause and having a secular government. This law plainly states the Governement can not make you go to church, or STOP YOU FROM GOING TO CHURCH. Nothing more, nothing less. And to pretend otherwise is intelluctual dishonesty. And the Bible teaches salvation as an act of freewill(faith) only. Nice try though.

You'd establish your bible as the state religion enforced by law...

No, but the principle of right and wrong, which we have already done, if you havent noticed. See the first amendment.

If that is your belief, I don't believe we have much to talk about. You don't believe in our Constitution any more than I believe in the Easter Bunny...

See liberal logic at work here? Another thing I will gladly do is point out the liberal in "conservatives". I hope you don't believe in the easter bunny. Or whatever else people in the libertarian party see that indulge at 4:20.

 

[1TuffSupra]

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

The political description that
fits you best is...

.

LIBERTARIAN

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

I have to say I agree with this whole heartedly. The govt has gotten to the point where they are limiting the way that we can and can not live our lives. Im definitely a liberal, and no I do not see prostitution, gay marriage, heroine or marijuana use as deviant. NO it may not be the best for you and NO it may not follow religious norms, but who are you to say that I (if I wanted to, even though I dont) cant partake in those types of acts. If I do these things in the privacy of my own home, why should you care? Its not bothering you, you cant see it, so whats the big deal? I could see if I was some drug addicted fiend that was trying to steal from you. Thats different, but I believe that if the govt actually took over the drug industry and put some restrictions on how drugs are bought and sold, much like they sell the drug tobacco here in the US, most of the problems resulting in drug usage would subside. From what I have found almost half of the US prison population are people incarcerated due to non violent acts, meaning drug use, prostitution, etc. Besides most of these things were made illegal due to circumstances at the time for what was believed to be for the betterment of the country, but these situations, much like the rest of life, are subject to change.

But what really bugs me though, is this country's view on homosexual marriage. Im with whoopy goldberg on this one, "if your so against homo's getting together dont marry one." Im not gay, but I dont see what the whole fuss is about here. Homosexuality has been around for centuries, according to history, a lot of great men have participated in homosexual activity. Hell even monkeys participate in homosexual activity and their genome is 98+% similar to ours.

Homosexual behaviors occur more frequently the more evolved primates are, graduate student David Midyette said in a lecture Thursday.

In the second lecture of a six-part series, Midyette's talk, titled "Homosexual Behavior in Non-Human Primates," was part of the Sex Research Colloquium lecture series.

Discussing variations in sexual behavior from marmosets to macaques, Midyette cautioned homosexual behavior did not signify exclusive or inherent homosexuality in primates.

"As brains become more complex, sexual behavior gets more complex," he said

From what Ive learned in school homosexuality is not a choice.

Originally thought by the American Psychological Association (hereafter referred to as APA) to be a mental disorder, research into its causes, origins, and development have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list of diagnoses and disorders [1]. Many different theories can be found regarding the root of homosexuality, as far back historically as Ancient Greece.
D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpar. And its vice versa in homosexual females

While not proven the similarities of a homosexual males hypothalamus and a straight females hypothalamus are way too close for comfort to me. Seems like a whole bunch of political bible thumpers are jumping to a conclusion to me. Even if we cant prove that it is biological, we sure cant prove that it isnt at this point. So why the hell is our govt trying to make it illegal, well atleast it was until the world found out that Cheney's daughter was a lesbian.


And have you guys actually researched why marijuana was made illegal? I had to do a paper on the benifits of marijuana use as a medicinal drug in college. Guess what, the benifits far outweigh its shortcomings. How can something be as terrible as the govt makes it out to be when even when asthma patients smoke it their attacks are reduced? Here is something I used for my paper way back when.

For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It's not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it's been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600's, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900's.

America's first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law "ordering" all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other "must grow" laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp -- try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements - rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp "plantations" (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.

The Mexican Connection

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them.

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

And guys, I love a good honest political or religious debate, especially with Nick M and some others, but some of us get quite hostile about the whole thing. If any of you do not like what I posted here, by all means post a rebuttal. But DO NOT PM me with some child like response because you are upset. I am a rational educated human being and like the rest of those out there like me I am open to others opinions. So please lets keep it civil and respectable.

 

[Yellow 13]

That was a shorter quiz then I thought it would be.

 

[Nick M]

You don't believe in our Constitution any more than I believe in the Easter Bunny...

I don't say what you personally believe. But I have pointed out what the majority of libertarian politicians want. There is a difference. For my views on government see here.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

edit:
So if somebody choses to use heroine, but not to overdose, when he does overdose, can you legally send a taxpayer funded ambulance to try and save him? Only a libertarian can answer that please.

especially with Nick M and some others, but some of us get quite hostile about the whole thing. If any of you do not like what I posted here, by all means post a rebuttal.

I would only get hostile at personal or tasteless attacks, which have not happened. And I don't think will happen here.

 

[ross1]

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%

Libertarian

might have been 100%
100% but don't know anything about this federal ID card so put maybe about that one

ross

edit:
So if somebody choses to use heroine, but not to overdose, when he does overdose, can you legally send a taxpayer funded ambulance to try and save him? Only a libertarian can answer that please.


i say absolutely not, if your gonna do enough to come that close to death than you deserve to die

 

[Nick M]

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Which is the highest level of our government authority. The document that says we are a sovereign state, the document that legitmizes all other documents, including our Constitution.

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty

And by welfare, the Founding Fathers do not mean AFDC.

 

[Nick M]

As I stated, I believe the Libertarians would follow the law regarding taxes. I think they stand with the right wingers on this issue.

The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."

In Article I, Section 9, the original document made clear that "no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." It is moreover established that "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

Since 1913, our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property have been abridged and diminished by the imposition on each of us of Federal income, payroll, and estate taxes. This is an unconstitutional Federal assumption of direct taxing authority.

The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of the Federal government's present unjust tax system. Citizens, both in groups and as individuals, have repeatedly sought responses from the IRS bureaucracy as to the basis for the agency's tax policies and procedures. No answers have been forthcoming although a responsible government must be answerable to the people and has a duty to those it is supposed to serve.

We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax.

Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.)

To the degree that tariffs on foreign products, and excises, are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned "state-rate tax" in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of the United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation's citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit.

The effect of this "state-rate tax" will be to encourage politicians to argue for less, rather than more, federal spending, and less state spending as well.

To the extent permitted by the Constitution, we believe that the taxation of corporations is an appropriate source of government revenue. The Supreme Court has defined "income" as a "gain or increase arising from corporate activity or privilege." People are not corporations, and corporations need not be treated as "people" for the purposes of taxation.

There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."

We support the use of motor fuel excise taxes, at rates not in excess of those currently imposed, to be used exclusively for the erection, maintenance, and administration of Federal highways. These taxes should never be used for "demonstration projects", mass transit, or for other non-highway purposes.

We support the use of excise taxes to curb the use of tax dollars for media advertising, and to provide so-called "tax abatements," "tax incentives," and "economic development grants," which are pretexts to raid the public treasury and rob the workingman for the benefit of wealthy interests favored by the politicians.

 

[Nick M]

edit:
So if somebody choses to use heroine, but not to overdose, when he does overdose, can you legally send a taxpayer funded ambulance to try and save him? Only a libertarian can answer that please.

Still waiting for a libertarian to answer. You realize this is a trick question, and I will shred your answer.

 

[Supracentral]

There is a right and wrong. It is decided by God.

Negative. I am my own god. I don't steal. I don't murder. And I don't need some 2000 year old work of fiction to tell me so. I am a functioning human being. And as long as this basic disagreement exists between the two of us, there can be no rational discussion. You postulate an invisible man in the sky that *I* don't believe exists, therefore we can't have a sane discussion.

And the Libertarian party disoboes this law as much as possible by trying to stop the free exercise clause and having a secular government.

What exactly are you trying to say? No one wants to stop your religion, I just don't want it running my government. Nor do I want Allah, Buddah or enforced atheiesim. Your religion has no place in law. Period.

This law plainly states the Governement can not make you go to church, or STOP YOU FROM GOING TO CHURCH. Nothing more, nothing less. And to pretend otherwise is intelluctual dishonesty. And the Bible teaches salvation as an act of freewill(faith) only. Nice try though.

Ok, and where do you get this from? You guys are the ones who want prayer in schools, the ten commandments in a court house. You are trying to make the schools & the government YOUR church. Want prayer in school, send your kid to a private school that teaches your faith. I applaud you if you do so, stick to what you believe, but don't legislate it.

See liberal logic at work here?

I'm not a Liberal. If you are going to insult me, at least be accurate.

Another thing I will gladly do is point out the liberal in "conservatives". I hope you don't believe in the easter bunny. Or whatever else people in the libertarian party see that indulge at 4:20.

Nice ad homenim attack. I don't do drugs, I don't even drink. So you can take your self righteous b.s. and stuff it. But it's not MY right or YOUR right to dictate to people what they do.

Simply put, as long as you aren't harming another consenting adult without thier expressed permission, the law has no right to interfere.

If you believe that the only acceptable way to have sex is between a man and a woman who are married, practice that.

And if the guy next door believes that he can screw anyone anytime he feels, as long as they agree to it, what gives YOU the right to say differently? He's not hurting anyone, he's not violating ANYONES rights, but you feel you should have a say.

I would like to know why.

What about the Jews? Islam? Buddhists? Hindu's? Do they count?

Do you feel that your religion is the only one that is right?

 

[Fuzz420]

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

The political description that
fits you best is...
LIBERTARIAN

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%.