Who’s more honest and thoughtful, Liberal or Conservative voters?

There is a great book that discusses the mental aspects of liters and conservatives and the always minority libertarian. I'll try and find it later...

One thing that bothers me about conservatives is they fight like hell to keep babies from being aborted but once they're born to a poor mother, they don't give so much of a shit. Kind of hypocritical, no?

Well we can all blame Kennedy for this... If you go back I'm your history. It was until he became president when the GOP and liberals did a total flop. And these different labels were put on them... Honestly I think conservative are more honest and direct( I am not going to argue the bush going to war seeking weds that's another topic). Liberals tend to beat around the bush kinda half ass tell you. It's like the old saying conservatives knw how start a war, but the liberals don't know how to finish them. They don't want to loose the union money and etc. That's my take.

One thing that bothers me about conservatives is they fight like hell to keep babies from being aborted but once they're born to a poor mother, they don't give so much of a shit. Kind of hypocritical, no? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

That's bullshit. Now I am pro-choice, and NOT a conservative, but there are a lot of pro-life groups out there who take the ladies in, help with medical care and education, assist with adoption or helping them set up a home, etc. Their leaders are whack jobs, but at the grassroots there are a lot of good hearted people.

Apparently you're a libertarian - so under "the rules" what don't you like about libertarians? Enlighten us, I don't think there are many libertarians who post to this thread and I seldom see Ron Paul bumper stickers. Originally Posted by Sickpuppy

I vote Libertarian for several reasons. 1. I have to be able to live with myself. I see no good choice between Romney and Obama, McCain and Obama, Bush or Kerry, etc. The lesser of two evils is still evil. 2. I want the Libertarian party to grow. They won't grow if people who are Libertarian at heart keep believing the media that the only choice is Democrat or Republican. 3. I believe that people should be allowed to do what they want, so long as they don't interfere with someone else's right to the same.


That being said, I disagree with many Libertarians when it comes to open borders. I think immigration has to be monitored. I also disagree with Ron Paul when he says that people should be able to use alternate currencies. My answer to that is to abolish the FED and return to a gold (or some kind of tangible) standard.

That's bullshit. Now I am pro-choice, and NOT a conservative, but there are a lot of pro-life groups out there who take the ladies in, help with medical care and education, assist with adoption or helping them set up a home, etc. Their leaders are whack jobs, but at the grassroots there are a lot of good hearted people. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Sure sounds hypocritical to me, you old post whore! Why don't you just come clean and admit you only vote Librarian on ECCIE.

That's bullshit. Now I am pro-choice, and NOT a conservative, but there are a lot of pro-life groups out there who take the ladies in, help with medical care and education, assist with adoption or helping them set up a home, etc. Their leaders are whack jobs, but at the grassroots there are a lot of good hearted people. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I guess that's why they continue to cut social welfare programs. They just care too much

I vote Libertarian for several reasons. 1. I have to be able to live with myself. I see no good choice between Romney and Obama, McCain and Obama, Bush or Kerry, etc. The lesser of two evils is still evil. 2. I want the Libertarian party to grow. They won't grow if people who are Libertarian at heart keep believing the media that the only choice is Democrat or Republican. 3. I believe that people should be allowed to do what they want, so long as they don't interfere with someone else's right to the same.


That being said, I disagree with many Libertarians when it comes to open borders. I think immigration has to be monitored. I also disagree with Ron Paul when he says that people should be able to use alternate currencies. My answer to that is to abolish the FED and return to a gold (or some kind of tangible) standard. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

In the beginning the Tea Party had a pretty libertarian viewpoint. It was a serious threat to the Republican Party They had 3 fundamental platforms. Strong national defense, eliminate waste by downsizing government and thereby reducing taxes and stay the fuck out of peoples lives. A lot of people latched on to that. The Republicans did too and started adding their own platform ideas until the Tea party became almost completely indistinguishable from the Rebublican party. That's a major reason why we will never have a viable national third party. Either the Dems or Reps will eventually corrupt it and consume the threat.

I couldn't get on board with some of Ron Paul's foreign policy and isolationism. If we could get a Libertarian candidate that would take on the fundamental platforms of the Tea party as stated above he would have a much better chance of receiving meaningful votes. Problem is the majority of those votes are most likely going to be pulled from the conservatives most of whom vote Republican otherwise thus making it easier for a Democrat nominee to win. It IS a lesser of two evils...even when you throw a third party candidate into the mix. If you are conservative but prefer the libertarian platform you have to make a decision of standing your your principles and voting for a third party that you know can't win even if you agree with their entire platform. You understand that your vote for the libertarian is being pulled away from the conservative moreso than the liberal. I don't think I would vote a libertarian ticket until I could see polling data that had it at or above the 33% range. You may call that caving to the Republicans and that might be a fair assessment. I voted for Perot in '92. I've regretted that decision ever since.

The answer to the question proposed by the OP can easily be answered.

Expanding the size, complexity and power of public institutions (and, by extension, the amount of money washing through them) increases the likelihood of corruption. The entire history of big-city machine politics in this country suggests as much — and so does everything we know about human nature.

Which party generally stands for bigger government? Which party stands for increasing the role of government? Which party stands for bigger government budgets and increased spending, more regulation and growth of the administrative state?

In general it is the Democrats and their voters. They are the party of corruption; and by extension the party of dishonesty in governance. And Liberals are their worst offenders. Liberals love bigger government, more spending, more regulation. They love what naturally corrupts. While Conservatives tend towards less government as necessary, they shy from the corrupting influences that comes with "big government" think.

I guess that's why they continue to cut social welfare programs. They just care too much Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

What fucktards like you deceitfully forget is that it was the "Christian fundamentalist" -- the ones you and your ilk wish to abolish and enjoying deprecating so much -- who initiated the first of many "social welfare programs" you trumpet about, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

The Battle of Solferino, fought in northern Italy in 1859, was a decisive episode in the struggle for Italian independence, in the birth of the Red Cross movement and in the creation of the Geneva Conventions. The bloody battle between the Austrians and a French-Italian alliance lasted for hours before the Austrians were driven into retreat. The casualties have been estimated at anything from 30,000 to 40,000 men. Thousands of wounded were left on the battlefield, far too many for the victors’ small medical teams to cope with. It happened that a 31-year-old Swiss businessman named Henri Dunant was travelling through the area and was utterly horrified by the battle (which he afterwards said compelled young men to be murderers) and by its aftermath. He helped to organise people from the nearby villages to bring water, food and aid to the wounded, regardless of their nationality. He persuaded the French to release a few captured Austrian doctors to help and he paid for the hasty creation of makeshift hospitals.

In 1862 Dunant wrote an account of what he had seen in which he suggested that national armies should have efficiently trained non-combatant volunteers to give help to the wounded of both sides. He also wanted international treaties to guarantee the protection of those involved. He sent copies to important figures all over Europe and he made a strong impression.

Dunant came from Geneva, where he had grown up a devout Calvinist with a deep interest in charitable work. In his twenties he engaged in business activities in North Africa and Italy and helped to create the international Young Men’s Christian Association. - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-....tRHesPjH.dpuf

... and don't forget the Hospitallers, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion:

Hospitallers ... also called Order of Malta or Knights of Malta, formally (since 1961) Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta, previously (1113–1309) Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, (1309–1522) Order of the Knights of Rhodes, (1530–1798) Sovereign and Military Order of the Knights of Malta, or (1834–1961) Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem, a religious military order that was founded at Jerusalem in the 11th century and that, headquartered in Rome, continues its humanitarian tasks in most parts of the modern world under several slightly different names and jurisdictions.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...2/Hospitallers

The answer to the question proposed by the OP can easily be answered.

Expanding the size, complexity and power of public institutions (and, by extension, the amount of money washing through them) increases the likelihood of corruption. The entire history of big-city machine politics in this country suggests as much — and so does everything we know about human nature.

Which party generally stands for bigger government? Which party stands for increasing the role of government? Which party stands for bigger government budgets and increased spending, more regulation and growth of the administrative state?

In general it is the Democrats and their voters. They are the party of corruption; and by extension the party of dishonesty in governance. And Liberals are their worst offenders. Liberals love bigger government, more spending, more regulation. They love what naturally corrupts. While Conservatives tend towards less government as necessary, they shy from the corrupting influences that comes with "big government" think. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Both parties love big government because human beings get drunk on power. They both enlarge government, but they do it in different ways. Democrats do it through social welfare programs. Republicans do it through enriching those who are already rich. Republicans also like to exert control over personal rights; abortion, gay marriage, etc.

In the beginning the Tea Party had a pretty libertarian viewpoint. It was a serious threat to the Republican Party They had 3 fundamental platforms. Strong national defense, eliminate waste by downsizing government and thereby reducing taxes and stay the fuck out of peoples lives. A lot of people latched on to that. The Republicans did too and started adding their own platform ideas until the Tea party became almost completely indistinguishable from the Rebublican party. That's a major reason why we will never have a viable national third party. Either the Dems or Reps will eventually corrupt it and consume the threat.

I couldn't get on board with some of Ron Paul's foreign policy and isolationism. If we could get a Libertarian candidate that would take on the fundamental platforms of the Tea party as stated above he would have a much better chance of receiving meaningful votes. Problem is the majority of those votes are most likely going to be pulled from the conservatives most of whom vote Republican otherwise thus making it easier for a Democrat nominee to win. It IS a lesser of two evils...even when you throw a third party candidate into the mix. If you are conservative but prefer the libertarian platform you have to make a decision of standing your your principles and voting for a third party that you know can't win even if you agree with their entire platform. You understand that your vote for the libertarian is being pulled away from the conservative moreso than the liberal. I don't think I would vote a libertarian ticket until I could see polling data that had it at or above the 33% range. You may call that caving to the Republicans and that might be a fair assessment. I voted for Perot in '92. I've regretted that decision ever since. Originally Posted by boardman

I hear that argument all the time. However, if you look closely at the two major parties, you'll see the differences are only cosmetic. Both parties have and will increase the size of the government, debt, surveillance state, taxes, etc. Both will continue their attacks on freedom and personal responsibility. It doesn't matter if one is the lesser evil. It's still evil. I won't vote for the continued destruction of America, even if one promises to do it more slowly.

I guess that's why they continue to cut social welfare programs. They just care too much Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Link or citation? If it is true, should be an easy request.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Both parties love big government because human beings get drunk on power. They both enlarge government, but they do it in different ways. Democrats do it through social welfare programs. Republicans do it through enriching those who are already rich. Republicans also like to exert control over personal rights; abortion, gay marriage, etc. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

How wrong are you? Who got rich under Obama? The rich got much richer under Obama and the separation between the rich and poor got larger (of course the middle class shrunk). Who works for Obama? A bunch of rich tax cheats. I don't mind them being rich but pay your taxes like everyone else has to.

Explain this claim about personal rights. You mention two things (is there nothing else like gun control or support of conservative causes you could throw in there?) abortion and gay marriage. Proportionally more black children are being aborted than white children....racism? More poor children are being aborted than rich children...classism? About half the children being aborted are female....sexism? There have been reports where feminists are aborting children just because they're male... barbarous? Gay marriage...do you know that most of those laws you oppose do not ban gay marriage? Bet you didn't know that. Defense of Marriage Act from which many came from only codifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not ban anything. Gay marriage cannot happen because it does not exist. You can call it anything you want but not marriage because according to these laws marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman.

Link or citation? If it is true, should be an easy request. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Really? Do you ever watch the news or read anything?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/20...amps.html?_r=0

http://www.disabledveterans.org/2011...lion-veterans/


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1954912