What party am I?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by conntom, Apr 3, 2010.

  1. conntom

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston (MA, US)
    With all the political talk here I wonder where I fit in.

    I love the Tea party people.....I do not want any part of socialism.

    But am I a liberal Repub..... I am pro choice and socially a bit more liberal and totally not into the religious right.

    Or

    Am I am centrist, fiscally conservative Democrat. I believe in people first.....but I believe strongly that you - as they say, "Give a man a fish he east today, teach a man to fish and he eats tomorrow."
     
  2. D_Andreas Sukov

    D_Andreas Sukov Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,933
    Likes Received:
    3
    Id say you are very confused.


    You love people that support companies and politicians that are ethically profit before people, yet say you are people first.


    You sound very third way. But i think you need to have a long read into the beliefs and histories of both sides.
     
  3. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,319
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,179
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    Does that mean you'll refuse Medicare and Social Security when you reach 65?
     
  4. Pitbull

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,753
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds like you are an independent not leaning toward either party.
     
  5. cdunstan1

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,106
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Join the coffee party. As long as you're civil you can believe in whatever you like.
     
  6. Sergeant_Torpedo

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    anyone who defines themselves by party politics is a pathetic soul
     
  7. Rommette

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,101
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    310
    Gender:
    Female
    Verified:
    Photo
    The Tea Party will be dead in 2 years. No third party besides the independent party will ever last...they've all came and gone. What do we have Libetarian? WTF do they do? Exactly. The Tea Party is nothing more than a party that will be absolved into Republican Party where it came from. Besides, they're all racists...and im not saying this because they dont have any black people in their party but rather because they genuinely are racists. They nor their candidates could care less about blacks. Who do they go after? The FAR right people who make compromises with democrats to get bills passed. This is one of my problems with gerrymandering. Is it better to have all the black people put into one group so that we can have one represenative out of 4 who will serve our interests full time and the other 3 not give a fuck? Or is it better to make districts where all the blacks are evenly distributed so all the candidates are more in the middle? If the second were to happen there would be no Tea Party. There would be no far right of far left....everyone would be leaned in the middle. Conservative Dems and Liberal Repubs...

    The Tea Party's days are numbered. Political anger doesn't last long in this country.

    Now, as far as what you really asked...I would have to say you're a Democrat. As far as not favoring the religious stuff...good cause YOU SHOULDN'T! When seperation of church and state was first made it was made to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE CHURCHES as well as the people. Today many people don't realize it. Churches should have their own power by being seperated. Many people only see where it may harm churches by weakening them. I would argue it serves them just as well as it serves the government. Do we want the government stepping in and dictating churches what to do? No. Do we want churches telling the government what to do? No. Now, even with the seperation of church and state there are still fine lines and every now and then the court must intervene.

    TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH! :tongue:

    I sure as hell hope none of his kids will ever go to public school. And dont even think about using the post office! You better pay $2 more and use Fed Ex.
     
  8. Stretch

    Stretch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think it's necessary to define yourself as belonging to any particular party. Vote for the individual.
     
  9. D_Andreas Sukov

    D_Andreas Sukov Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,933
    Likes Received:
    3
    Deosnt work like that here. The party is stronger than any individual, so we have to vote on party grounds.
     
  10. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    I'd start my own party, but the one I had in mind consists of a dance floor, strobe lights, disco balls, free vodka shots and techno.
     
  11. conntom

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston (MA, US)
    I currently identify with the Tea Party mostly but stretch is right...vote the person.

    But The Dems and Repubs both dissappoint me.


    INDUSTRIAL..... Those are programs I pay into and then receive a benefit. Unlike the Obama care which I will pay into and other people will get for free. That bothers me because the number of people looking for a free hand out is excessive.

    Frankly, I don;t even expect to receive those benefits becasue the gov't blows the money I do put into it. All those people asking for free stuff now won;t do squat to help me in 40 years - that I'm sure of...
     
  12. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Actually, the comparison to Medicare and Social Security is quite astute. If you die at age 40, you never collect on those programs you paid into. You never receive the "benefit" of those Socialist programs.

    And if you want no part of Socialism, I hope you don't use the US Postal Service, interstate highways, the library, the police, the fire department, or public schools, either.

    Does it not seem backwards to you that we have a philosophy where everyone is entitled to basic education but not to be healthy? We pay into a system of law enforcement to keep ourselves safe, but we don't pay into a system of health care to keep ourselves healthy. How do you reconcile that? Police are out there protecting people whether or not they pay their taxes. Are you anti-police, then?

    You're living in a country with a bunch of Socialist programs already, and by and large those programs are not hurting the country at all as much as privatized health care and the massive drain it has on our economy.
     
  13. conntom

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston (MA, US)
    You mean to tell me you can't see the difference here?

    Because we pool our money to have roads, schooling, and national defense does not make us a socialist country.

    The fact I died before reaching the benefit age does nothing to make the comparison....that would just be unfortunate.

    The thing is the system needs change. But not this kind of change. This will give incentive to laziness and abuse of the system.

    Look at cosmetic surgery. It has become less expensive and more available over the years WITHOUT the gov't - and in many cases without insurance companies....
     
  14. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Actually, that's precisely what Socialism is, mate.

    And it would be unfortunate if you were to lose your job and be unable to afford health care coverage. It's exactly the same thing.

    Actually, Obamacare, as you called it, is a first step doing a couple of things right. Getting rid of pre-existing conditions, for example. Forcing private health care on people is questionable (and exactly what the Republicans wanted, despite them suddenly saying now that it's not what they wanted). We'll see how it works out.

    Why not look at something relevant? Like cancer treatment. That certainly hasn't been getting "less expensive and more available over the years without the government [doing anything]".

    Boob jobs aren't relevant because they aren't health care. That's like saying, "Look how cheap DVD players are now without the government doing anything to help it along!"
     
  15. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Wait until you reach 55 years old and discover you have to continue working at a job that is chipping away at your mental health because you hate the work, but you cannot afford to go out on your own and start a business or change jobs because you've got a family to keep insured, they have pre-exsiting conditions, you have pre-existing conditions, and the insurance companies won't touch you because they consider you too much of a risk. So, the logical thing to do is to continue to waste your life in a dull job that doesn't offer you any personal satisfaction or otherwise enhance your life except with a pay check and insurance, and then both of those can be taken away at any moment. When you reach that stage in life, then think about all those who "are lazy and abuse the system." Their numbers aren't not that great. But right now there are hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed people who fit the description I provided who cannot find work and will not find work for a long time. And it's not because they are lazy and like to abuse "the system." So, you think these people should be prevented from accessing quality health care?

    Or how about the guy who, despite having health insurance, is finally dropped from coverage because he's cost the insurance company too much money for a life-threatenining chronic condition (MS is a good example) and he and his family, after going through every possible means to keep themselves going have to default on the mortgage, lose their home and take out bankruptcy. But if he had access to quality medical care that was guaranteed to him as a citizen, he and his family could maintain the little dignity and independence they have. You want to deny that person?

    There are thousands of different reasons people end up needing medical care that they cannot afford, even with the insurance that they currently have, who are required to lose everything just to continue to receive minimal treatment by going on welfare. Do you think that is cheaper in the long run for a society than just owning up to the fact that part of a decent, caring civilization is to offer the best quality health care to every citizen, regardless of their particular situation?

    Are you aware that the Third Reich's answer for the chronically disabled and those with diseases that could not be cured by 1930s medicine was to load them up along with the seven million or so Jews and ship them off to concentration camps where they were eliminated? Yeah, many more millions were eliminated not because they were perceived as a political threat or threat of watering down the racial profile of German culture. They were shipped off and incinerated simply because they were crippled, blind, deaf, had a birth defect, and also because they were considered or discovered to be homosexual. Is that the solution you think is better than offering public health care. Or would you rather see people with this problems left on the side of the road to rot? I can take you to many third world countries where that's what happens. I'm sure it would make you feel real special inside to witness that kind of inhumanity.

    I'm a 65 year-old gay male who has never had children. By your reasoning, I should have been allowed an exemption on my state and federal income tax in the USA so I never had to pay for a service I never needed or used: public education. After all, why should the government put the touch on me to educate your children? But it doesn't work that way. We all have a vested interested in educating our citizens and we are just as obligated to provide the best health care we can offer, because it benefits out society. You are simply interested in what benefits you, and I completely understand. Since Reagan became president, the focus has become "what's in it for me?" rather than "how does it benefit my society?" The former is just plain greed. The latter is understanding that you don't live alone in a society and have an obligation to keep your society healthy. In turn, it will provide you with many more benefits than just "What's in it for me?"

    How fucking hard is this to understand? For some reason the current iteration of the GOP doesn't get and neither do the Tea Baggers.
     
    #15 midlifebear, Apr 3, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2010
  16. invisibleman

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Carolina


    You definately would be a Republican...IF ONLY YOU HAD A LITTLE DISCIPLINE. hehehe.
     
  17. conntom

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston (MA, US)
    There really needs to be a new party for the centrists among us. This Dem/repub thing is junk.
     
  18. gymfresh

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,659
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rodinia
    Verified:
    Photo
    If by here, you mean the UK, that's largely true. One of the key political differences I have noticed between our two countries is that all my British friends know which party holds their locality's seat, but few remember the incumbent's name. In contrast, lots of my US friends can tell me the name of their Representative or Senator name, but are unclear on the party affiliation.

    The former is kind of what happens in a parliamentary system. You vote for a party, and the party fills in the blanks. Elections in the US are often popularity contests based on personality, as confirmed by some of the recent party-switching by elected officials who then get reëlected or appear that they will be. Our system encourages candidates to become celebrities.
     
  19. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    It's moments like these that make me glad I've aligned myself with the twisted. :biggrin1:
     
  20. D_Andreas Sukov

    D_Andreas Sukov Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,933
    Likes Received:
    3
    The Dems are centre!!!!! You guys seriously dont have a left party.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted