Seriously, explain Democrats to me?
- Thread starter DasBoot
- Start date
- Status
Baba Louie
New member
I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
Will Rogers
Party of "The People" as opposed to the party of "Business". The more you have to conserve, the more Conservative you become (with the exception of Bill Gates & Paul Allen... maybe).
Will Roger's quote sums it up to me. A fractile group, loosely tied together in that they are not (typically) big business oriented, in fact, they might tend to rail against all the evils that big business brings about in society, not being willing to admit that most of their jobs come from or as a result of a businessman making a decision to hire their services (labor).
Both R & D have issues with ethics at times, both have issues with morals at others (maybe they're the same issue really). Both, when placed in positions of power, tend to follow the thinking, "Power corrupts, Absolute Power is really really cool".
Each group (generalizing and stereotyping here) could look at the exact same incident (call it a car wreck for example) and claim different things were to blame... and both would probably be correct, based on their life experiences. One might blame the driver(s), the other the auto mfg., time of day, road condition, alcohol intake, etc.
Rule of thumb (as I understand it) is 40% D, 40% R with the odd 20% being centrist/fence sitters who are the swing.
I was brought up in a blue collar, union family in Harry Truman's hometown... thus D's. Yellow Dog Democrats to be exact. My mother voted R only once in her life, and that was for Richard Nixon, a fact she has since lamented and vowed never ever to repeat. Yet both parents were fiscal conservatives and social liberals.
All things considered, I have to agree with Cowman. And history. Read about the Adams/Jefferson political, uh, differences of opinion concerning the election of 1800 ('twas vile). Yet later, their correspondence showed (to me) how we need each group and the political swing as we move forward (hopefully it's a forward movement) while our morals and ethics sink lower (but does it really?).
And remember, power SHOULD equal personal responsibility w/ integrity. But sometimes... we are forced to admit the weakness of mankind when it stares us in the face.
Will Rogers
Party of "The People" as opposed to the party of "Business". The more you have to conserve, the more Conservative you become (with the exception of Bill Gates & Paul Allen... maybe).
Will Roger's quote sums it up to me. A fractile group, loosely tied together in that they are not (typically) big business oriented, in fact, they might tend to rail against all the evils that big business brings about in society, not being willing to admit that most of their jobs come from or as a result of a businessman making a decision to hire their services (labor).
Both R & D have issues with ethics at times, both have issues with morals at others (maybe they're the same issue really). Both, when placed in positions of power, tend to follow the thinking, "Power corrupts, Absolute Power is really really cool".
Each group (generalizing and stereotyping here) could look at the exact same incident (call it a car wreck for example) and claim different things were to blame... and both would probably be correct, based on their life experiences. One might blame the driver(s), the other the auto mfg., time of day, road condition, alcohol intake, etc.
Rule of thumb (as I understand it) is 40% D, 40% R with the odd 20% being centrist/fence sitters who are the swing.
I was brought up in a blue collar, union family in Harry Truman's hometown... thus D's. Yellow Dog Democrats to be exact. My mother voted R only once in her life, and that was for Richard Nixon, a fact she has since lamented and vowed never ever to repeat. Yet both parents were fiscal conservatives and social liberals.
All things considered, I have to agree with Cowman. And history. Read about the Adams/Jefferson political, uh, differences of opinion concerning the election of 1800 ('twas vile). Yet later, their correspondence showed (to me) how we need each group and the political swing as we move forward (hopefully it's a forward movement) while our morals and ethics sink lower (but does it really?).
And remember, power SHOULD equal personal responsibility w/ integrity. But sometimes... we are forced to admit the weakness of mankind when it stares us in the face.
MeekAndMild
New member
Das Boot, I used to be a Democrat and this quote about sums it up.
My teacher was entirely apolitical as opposed to the big mouthed Democrats of all races and genders who broke knees at the mill, ran the local high(ly unionized) school, and took in bribes down at the local courthouse. If you were a fifteen year old wanting whiskey the bootlegger was a Democrat and a friend of the police chief. If your girlfriend "got in trouble" before legalized abortion the "doctor" across town was a Democrat and a friend of the Union bosses.
My teacher was an outsider who needed a job and took one at the roughest redneck high school in three counties because it was the only one the Democrat politicians would let her have. She wanted to teach and they wanted to make a show of her teaching there. This set me to thinking.
In the Deep South the Democratic party is and has been for a hundred years the place where people go when they want to skim money off the working folk while pretending to be a big happy brotherhood of good old boys. Dem party is fairly stereotyped to be an organized crime family which has easy entry requirements and lots of levels, from corner crap shoots to multi billion dollar scams.
If you just want to make a few bucks, maybe get a 'crazy check' the price is low, just your votes and a couple of dollars in the probate judges campaign pot. If you want to keep out legalized liquor to maintain the family bootlegging business the price goes up into the hundreds of dollars. A hundred thousand in the right hands gets you a deal for land downtown to build your Wally World or sporting goods store. A million dollars will get you a car factory in your home county.
Its got nothing to do with issues, more to do with people. You're not going to have too many outsiders such as Indian or Paki grocers in the Democratic party. You won't have too many dentists, but there will be one or two, who also maybe run a feed lot or deal real estate on the side. The Russian Jew who owns the furniture store will never be a member nor will the retired Hungarian music professor who fled Budapest during the uprising. Dems make a big show of inclusiveness, but its just a show.
For the local Democrats in my neck of the woods gun control has nothing to do with the Million Moms or Ted Kennedy. It has more to do with keeping outsiders out of the loop. Dems don't want scabs down at the mill. They sure don't want armed scabs. They don't want hip hoppers but if they have to endure the noise for a show of solidarity they don't want them armed. They want consumers with lots of free money burning a hole in their pocket but they don't want anything to keep the local pet thugs from skimming said money in a peacable fashion. They want the illegal drug trade, the prostitution trade, the welfare trade and the public school scam to be organized and they can't be organized if customers have guns.
Needless to say I dropped out of the Democratic party 'way back about 40 years ago.
I was on a picket line with my father before I was 2 years old. Before the first grade I went to political rallies where good Southern Democrats ranted for states rights against big government and against "outside agitators coming down and sturrin' up the Nigras". My evolution of change started in high school with the help of a middle aged, very Christian and very Black English teacher who showed kindness toward all and tolerence without ire.
My teacher was entirely apolitical as opposed to the big mouthed Democrats of all races and genders who broke knees at the mill, ran the local high(ly unionized) school, and took in bribes down at the local courthouse. If you were a fifteen year old wanting whiskey the bootlegger was a Democrat and a friend of the police chief. If your girlfriend "got in trouble" before legalized abortion the "doctor" across town was a Democrat and a friend of the Union bosses.
My teacher was an outsider who needed a job and took one at the roughest redneck high school in three counties because it was the only one the Democrat politicians would let her have. She wanted to teach and they wanted to make a show of her teaching there. This set me to thinking.
In the Deep South the Democratic party is and has been for a hundred years the place where people go when they want to skim money off the working folk while pretending to be a big happy brotherhood of good old boys. Dem party is fairly stereotyped to be an organized crime family which has easy entry requirements and lots of levels, from corner crap shoots to multi billion dollar scams.
If you just want to make a few bucks, maybe get a 'crazy check' the price is low, just your votes and a couple of dollars in the probate judges campaign pot. If you want to keep out legalized liquor to maintain the family bootlegging business the price goes up into the hundreds of dollars. A hundred thousand in the right hands gets you a deal for land downtown to build your Wally World or sporting goods store. A million dollars will get you a car factory in your home county.
Its got nothing to do with issues, more to do with people. You're not going to have too many outsiders such as Indian or Paki grocers in the Democratic party. You won't have too many dentists, but there will be one or two, who also maybe run a feed lot or deal real estate on the side. The Russian Jew who owns the furniture store will never be a member nor will the retired Hungarian music professor who fled Budapest during the uprising. Dems make a big show of inclusiveness, but its just a show.
For the local Democrats in my neck of the woods gun control has nothing to do with the Million Moms or Ted Kennedy. It has more to do with keeping outsiders out of the loop. Dems don't want scabs down at the mill. They sure don't want armed scabs. They don't want hip hoppers but if they have to endure the noise for a show of solidarity they don't want them armed. They want consumers with lots of free money burning a hole in their pocket but they don't want anything to keep the local pet thugs from skimming said money in a peacable fashion. They want the illegal drug trade, the prostitution trade, the welfare trade and the public school scam to be organized and they can't be organized if customers have guns.
Needless to say I dropped out of the Democratic party 'way back about 40 years ago.
My intentions were stated in my original post.
If responding to subsequent posts is, to you, choir-preaching, just go somewhere else so you don't have to read my responces.
Yes, I am truly interested in how people can consider themselves good, decent, ethical people with morals and a sense of right and wrong while at the same time behaving, and espousing philosophies, completely antithetical to those very same personal traits.
Do me a favor if you will.
Answer the little quiz with the profiles I posted a couple of threads back.
If you answer it HONESTLY, I think you will see what I'm getting at.
I know
"I'm not going to answer your stupid little quiz!"
It would be nice to see your answers though.
If responding to subsequent posts is, to you, choir-preaching, just go somewhere else so you don't have to read my responces.
Yes, I am truly interested in how people can consider themselves good, decent, ethical people with morals and a sense of right and wrong while at the same time behaving, and espousing philosophies, completely antithetical to those very same personal traits.
Do me a favor if you will.
Answer the little quiz with the profiles I posted a couple of threads back.
If you answer it HONESTLY, I think you will see what I'm getting at.
I know
"I'm not going to answer your stupid little quiz!"It would be nice to see your answers though.
DasBoot,
So if you're truly interested in understanding the liberal mindset, why won't you go ask some....you know...liberals?
I think it's a fair question.
I will honestly answer your quiz. Do you have the stones to answer mine?
1) Probably not going to vote unless he's a white collar criminal.
2-10) Definitely D. I personally agree very strongly with #10.
Now it's my turn. Same rules.
1) The white collarcriminal who has no intentions of making an honest living.
2) The person who wants to see the Federal government enforcing their morality.
3) The person who wants to deny your daughter an operation, even if the alternative means her death or the destruction of her reproductive organs.
4) The racist xenophobe sitting in his bunker.
5) The person who thinks Iraq is just peachy.
6) The person who thinks we have done EVERYTHING RIGHT in Iraq.
7) The person who thinks it's OK for a congressman to promote graft and corruption without any repercussion.
8) The person who thinks its OK to go to a serviceman's funeral and wave banners condemning him to hell.
9) The person who thinks that children should be tought religious doctrine in school instead of science.
10) The person who thinks that the government should meddle in all aspects of their personal life.
See where this gets you? Either side can be tarred with the brush of it's extremists, but Cowman said it's best. The reason people vote Democrat is the Republicans and the reason people vote Republican is Democrats.
So if you're truly interested in understanding the liberal mindset, why won't you go ask some....you know...liberals?
I think it's a fair question.
I will honestly answer your quiz. Do you have the stones to answer mine?
1) Probably not going to vote unless he's a white collar criminal.
2-10) Definitely D. I personally agree very strongly with #10.
Now it's my turn. Same rules.
1) The white collarcriminal who has no intentions of making an honest living.
2) The person who wants to see the Federal government enforcing their morality.
3) The person who wants to deny your daughter an operation, even if the alternative means her death or the destruction of her reproductive organs.
4) The racist xenophobe sitting in his bunker.
5) The person who thinks Iraq is just peachy.
6) The person who thinks we have done EVERYTHING RIGHT in Iraq.
7) The person who thinks it's OK for a congressman to promote graft and corruption without any repercussion.
8) The person who thinks its OK to go to a serviceman's funeral and wave banners condemning him to hell.
9) The person who thinks that children should be tought religious doctrine in school instead of science.
10) The person who thinks that the government should meddle in all aspects of their personal life.
See where this gets you? Either side can be tarred with the brush of it's extremists, but Cowman said it's best. The reason people vote Democrat is the Republicans and the reason people vote Republican is Democrats.
Slash,
I applaud your candor.
But with regards to #10, you feel a person immersed in kiddie porn in the privacy of his own home should be allowed to watch your child in day care!?
Or a person who smokes crack in his off hours should be allowed to fly airlines.
There's that liberal "private life" doesn't matter philosophy.
Mayor Marrion Barry of DC, caught on tape in a hotel w/a hooker and smoking crack.
Astonishingly, the voters(overwhelmingly, if not all, democrats) vote him back into office.
Personal behaviour DOES matter!
Would you continue to be a friend of someone you found out to be a pedophile?
As for your quiz:
#7 & 8....Dems...most recently Jefferson w/$90k in the freezer.
All others....Reps.
However, perhaps I'm wrong, but aren't your examples a bit more "lunitic fringe" than mine?
I mean, look at my #s 5,6,7,9.
Who is it in congress pushing so hard to set a date to leave Iraq?
Who is it that defended the actions of McKinney(Pilossi/Black Caucus) or at least made no attempt at saying it was wrong?
As for schools, liberal policies have made it all but impossible to remove a child from class.
And you yourself firmly believe in #10.
There certainly is enough crap to go around for both parties.
And after reading Spahrtan agree that what Clinton did was despicable, I now see there is some hope for the democrats.
I applaud your candor.
But with regards to #10, you feel a person immersed in kiddie porn in the privacy of his own home should be allowed to watch your child in day care!?
Or a person who smokes crack in his off hours should be allowed to fly airlines.
There's that liberal "private life" doesn't matter philosophy.
Mayor Marrion Barry of DC, caught on tape in a hotel w/a hooker and smoking crack.
Astonishingly, the voters(overwhelmingly, if not all, democrats) vote him back into office.
Personal behaviour DOES matter!
Would you continue to be a friend of someone you found out to be a pedophile?
As for your quiz:
#7 & 8....Dems...most recently Jefferson w/$90k in the freezer.
All others....Reps.
However, perhaps I'm wrong, but aren't your examples a bit more "lunitic fringe" than mine?
I mean, look at my #s 5,6,7,9.
Who is it in congress pushing so hard to set a date to leave Iraq?
Who is it that defended the actions of McKinney(Pilossi/Black Caucus) or at least made no attempt at saying it was wrong?
As for schools, liberal policies have made it all but impossible to remove a child from class.
And you yourself firmly believe in #10.
There certainly is enough crap to go around for both parties.
And after reading Spahrtan agree that what Clinton did was despicable, I now see there is some hope for the democrats.
Das Boot,
OTOH, I do care if the guy driving my cab shows up drunk. I do care if my babysitter is a convicted child molester.
See how it works?
7 DeLay? Cunningham? Scanlon?
8 You'd be wrong. http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/2061316.html
Both of these lists are 'lunatic fringe'. That's the point.
This may come as a surprise, but most Americans do not wholeheartedly agree with either party.
You're going to have to go a long way to convince me that "business as usual" is in any way preferable to "cut and run".*Both* options are non-starters.
Who is it that defended the actions of DeLay or at least made no attempt to say it was wrong?
We can play this game all day
Both parties are corrupt.
I noticed that you commented on everything I said except for the most important comment:
Kiddie porn is illegal. If someone's been downloading it, he's in prison not a daycare.
Again, illegal. The FAA has very stringent sobriety requirements. What kills your argument is that you raise specific examples where their personal behavior is blatantly illegal and directly interferes with their ability to do the job. But what about when it doesn't? I don't care if the local McDonald's manager is into S&M. I don't care if my son's teacher is gay. I don't care if the guy rotating my tires is cheating on his wife. And I don't care if the president is getting a hummer from an intern.
OTOH, I do care if the guy driving my cab shows up drunk. I do care if my babysitter is a convicted child molester.
See how it works?
No, but if he was the best transmission guy in town I'd let him fix my car. In his shop, away from my kids.
7 DeLay? Cunningham? Scanlon?
8 You'd be wrong. http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/2061316.html
No, not really. "The green-haired kid"?
Both of these lists are 'lunatic fringe'. That's the point.
This may come as a surprise, but most Americans do not wholeheartedly agree with either party.
And who is it that says we're stuck there forever?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/22/cheney/index.html
You're going to have to go a long way to convince me that "business as usual" is in any way preferable to "cut and run".*Both* options are non-starters.
I seem to remember them scattering like roaches to avoid getting tarred with her, but I could be wrong.
Who is it that defended the actions of DeLay or at least made no attempt to say it was wrong?
We can play this game all day
Both parties are corrupt.I noticed that you commented on everything I said except for the most important comment:
Please quit dodging and trying to change the subject. I'd appreciate some candor in exchange for mine.
Slash,
Illegal personal behaviour can go on for a lifetime w/o the person being caught.
As for the Pres, getting a hummer, you don't think such behaviour leaves the Pres open to blackmail.
To deal with blackmail, youusually have to give something to protect yourself.
In the case of a President, what do think that could be?
Military info, a slow react time to a certain situation, etc.
Thank you!
This illustrates EXACTLT what I've been getting at from the start!
So much for moral convictions!
What exactly do you think I've been doing with you???
Illegal personal behaviour can go on for a lifetime w/o the person being caught.
As for the Pres, getting a hummer, you don't think such behaviour leaves the Pres open to blackmail.
To deal with blackmail, youusually have to give something to protect yourself.
In the case of a President, what do think that could be?
Military info, a slow react time to a certain situation, etc.
And it's nice to know that you find pedophilia acceptable to the point where you would still patronise one just to get your tranny done!
Thank you!
This illustrates EXACTLT what I've been getting at from the start!
So much for moral convictions!
.
What exactly do you think I've been doing with you???
Baba Louie
New member
Das
One of the kids at our office is taking a class in Political Science at UNLV and brought a "Position Quiz" from his class to the office the other day. Said quiz being the same one (or close to it) you posted earlier. The boss and his wife are hard core Dem's based mostly on Choice/Life (choice), they've got pictures of them with BJ Clinton, do fund raisers for the D party, etc.
When we ALL took the quiz, it turns out that everyone there, surprise surprise, ended up being a Libertarian. Boss and wife were... shocked to say the least and began to rationalize their long held positions/beliefs.
Again, their take was "Down with the Robber Barons" yet they loathe the corruption found within Union management (remember this is Las Vegas), nay to capital punishment (death penalty) but yea to Abortion, legalize drugs but no one working there would be tolerated to come to work buzzed, second amendment was about hunting (they both hunt) but not for stopping governmental tyranny (even tho they both are post graduate educated engineers who KNOW our history and why it was written), Public Education should remain free (I laughed and asked them about their property taxes and personal/corporate income taxes financing said free education on this point), Yay to gay marriage, nay to illegal immigration (yet they hire several illegals around their house to "help out" and pay them cash under the table), Environmentalism is a way of life and Repub/Big Business policies are killing the earth, etc.
There are two sides to each coin + the smaller rim that both holds them together yet keeps them apart.
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Extremism to any degree is probably approaching someone's idea of Utopia but probably not the proles, nor the majority of taxpayers.
You might have just as easily asked about explaining Republicans (McCain and neo-cons come to mind). It's easy to self-rationalize if you're on either edge (left or right), while I find it easier to walk the middle and try to act like the good Boy Scout (Be Prepared, Help Others and Do a Good Turn Daily) I once was.
YMMV
One of the kids at our office is taking a class in Political Science at UNLV and brought a "Position Quiz" from his class to the office the other day. Said quiz being the same one (or close to it) you posted earlier. The boss and his wife are hard core Dem's based mostly on Choice/Life (choice), they've got pictures of them with BJ Clinton, do fund raisers for the D party, etc.
When we ALL took the quiz, it turns out that everyone there, surprise surprise, ended up being a Libertarian. Boss and wife were... shocked to say the least and began to rationalize their long held positions/beliefs.
Again, their take was "Down with the Robber Barons" yet they loathe the corruption found within Union management (remember this is Las Vegas), nay to capital punishment (death penalty) but yea to Abortion, legalize drugs but no one working there would be tolerated to come to work buzzed, second amendment was about hunting (they both hunt) but not for stopping governmental tyranny (even tho they both are post graduate educated engineers who KNOW our history and why it was written), Public Education should remain free (I laughed and asked them about their property taxes and personal/corporate income taxes financing said free education on this point), Yay to gay marriage, nay to illegal immigration (yet they hire several illegals around their house to "help out" and pay them cash under the table), Environmentalism is a way of life and Repub/Big Business policies are killing the earth, etc.
There are two sides to each coin + the smaller rim that both holds them together yet keeps them apart.
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Extremism to any degree is probably approaching someone's idea of Utopia but probably not the proles, nor the majority of taxpayers.
You might have just as easily asked about explaining Republicans (McCain and neo-cons come to mind). It's easy to self-rationalize if you're on either edge (left or right), while I find it easier to walk the middle and try to act like the good Boy Scout (Be Prepared, Help Others and Do a Good Turn Daily) I once was.
YMMV
The date was....successful.
As to your list GoSlash has already made the point i was going to, that it focuses on different poles of the party and makes them sound like one homogenous group. He also made the list i was going to of white collar criminals and the like.
But i have another bone to pick, although its getting a little off topic:
4) The green haired kid w/nose ring, still living at home, with no real life experience.
See i was a fairly popular guy in high school. Not in the sitcom jerk-jock way (although im a damn good hockey player), but in the sense that of my 450 person graduating class i was and continue to be good friends with probably about 400 of them.
There were i'd say about 25 of those who had wierd colored hair and piercings at some point, and of the ones i can think of off the top of my head, heres what they're doing now: IT manager at a major steel fabrication plant, air condition repairman, owner of an auto-body shop, 2 welders and a laser operator, owner of a skate-shop, a drug dealer
, and the rest i can think of are currently in their 3rd year of college, like me.
But back to the point, The fact that you find me quite Republican-like is very accurate. BECAUSE im pretty moderate, just left of center, JUST LIKE most other democrats out there. We don't care about a lot of the partie's extreme values anymore than you care about the extreme values of your party. We have a few issues which make us vote just to the left. But we are brainwashed about each other's parties by our own to make us see them as crazed facists (you) or crazed commies (me).
The thing about a public education is that it is supposed to be free, to everyone. I don't blame today's Germans for the atrocities of WWII, and i dont blame those kids for their parents breaking our laws by comming here. I have no problem with my tax money going to give a K-12 education to any kid in the US, regardless of who their parents are.
However my understanding is that the whole family moving here and trying to live off the fat of the land is quite rare. Most of what we're dealing with is youngish males comming here alone, and sending the money they make back to their families (because they dont make enough, 'handouts' included, to support an entire family here. I don't have any tolerance for this, other than an admission that if the tables were turned i might do the same thing, but I'd accept the repurcussions. And no, hospitals shouldnt have to shoulder an an unpaidfor burden, but like i said, I can't justify refusing emergency care to those who need it, and further, preventative care is cheaper to give out than emergency care. Its a catch 22.
When i weighed the options, i just fell on the other side of the chasm.
As to your list GoSlash has already made the point i was going to, that it focuses on different poles of the party and makes them sound like one homogenous group. He also made the list i was going to of white collar criminals and the like.
But i have another bone to pick, although its getting a little off topic:
4) The green haired kid w/nose ring, still living at home, with no real life experience.
See i was a fairly popular guy in high school. Not in the sitcom jerk-jock way (although im a damn good hockey player), but in the sense that of my 450 person graduating class i was and continue to be good friends with probably about 400 of them.
There were i'd say about 25 of those who had wierd colored hair and piercings at some point, and of the ones i can think of off the top of my head, heres what they're doing now: IT manager at a major steel fabrication plant, air condition repairman, owner of an auto-body shop, 2 welders and a laser operator, owner of a skate-shop, a drug dealer
, and the rest i can think of are currently in their 3rd year of college, like me. But back to the point, The fact that you find me quite Republican-like is very accurate. BECAUSE im pretty moderate, just left of center, JUST LIKE most other democrats out there. We don't care about a lot of the partie's extreme values anymore than you care about the extreme values of your party. We have a few issues which make us vote just to the left. But we are brainwashed about each other's parties by our own to make us see them as crazed facists (you) or crazed commies (me).
The thing about a public education is that it is supposed to be free, to everyone. I don't blame today's Germans for the atrocities of WWII, and i dont blame those kids for their parents breaking our laws by comming here. I have no problem with my tax money going to give a K-12 education to any kid in the US, regardless of who their parents are.
However my understanding is that the whole family moving here and trying to live off the fat of the land is quite rare. Most of what we're dealing with is youngish males comming here alone, and sending the money they make back to their families (because they dont make enough, 'handouts' included, to support an entire family here. I don't have any tolerance for this, other than an admission that if the tables were turned i might do the same thing, but I'd accept the repurcussions. And no, hospitals shouldnt have to shoulder an an unpaidfor burden, but like i said, I can't justify refusing emergency care to those who need it, and further, preventative care is cheaper to give out than emergency care. Its a catch 22.
When i weighed the options, i just fell on the other side of the chasm.
DasBoot,
I agree with them on quite a few issues, namely the idea that the Federal government should stay within it's budget and keep their noses out of our personal business. I also disagree with them on quite a few issues, namely the concept that the Federal government should play nanny.
I agree with the Republicans on quite a few issues (RKBA, capital punishment, self-reliance, states' rights, flat tax, small government) but also disagree with *them* on quite a few issues (church and state, domestic spying, defecit spending, etc.)
I defend them (as much as calling them a bunch of corrupt power-mongerers is a defense) because you try to paint them as the embodiment of all evil in American politics. They're not worse than Republicans, they're just as bad.
Clear?
I agree with them on quite a few issues, namely the idea that the Federal government should stay within it's budget and keep their noses out of our personal business. I also disagree with them on quite a few issues, namely the concept that the Federal government should play nanny.
I agree with the Republicans on quite a few issues (RKBA, capital punishment, self-reliance, states' rights, flat tax, small government) but also disagree with *them* on quite a few issues (church and state, domestic spying, defecit spending, etc.)
I defend them (as much as calling them a bunch of corrupt power-mongerers is a defense) because you try to paint them as the embodiment of all evil in American politics. They're not worse than Republicans, they're just as bad.
Clear?
MidnightRambler
New member
The economy isn't exactly thriving. Alot of us have lost good paying jobs because our companies closed down. I work now, but I make about 40% less than what I made at my old job and it's all I can do to keep my head above water. Several office buildings and businesses in Indianapolis have closed their doors and the buildings are now vacant. So the statement that the economy is thriving to me is not factual.
Blackwater OPS
New member
Not a thread hijack, but this might clear up who is in what party
1. A congressman said recently, "Government can be a force for good in your life." Do you:
a) Agree? You believe your taxes help the government identify the greatest needs in society and then solve those needs as it redistributes wealth in myriad ways. The government generally spends your money better than you do in these "big issue" areas.
b) Feel confused, because you've never really thought about the question, What is the proper role of government in my life?
c) Disagree? Government's role should be limited, and individuals should be left on their own to be responsible and to seek their dreams and achievements for themselves and their families, which will lead to the greatest good in a free society. Free markets, churches, voluntaryism and other private efforts are much more effective at solving many big concerns in society.
Free enterprise profit, competition, certification
2. Martha Stewart should have gone to jail for life because she is part of the whole capitalist syndrome of greed, profiteering and corporate anti-environmentalism. Do you agree?
a) Yes. She is evil, and capitalism would be even more so without the welcome check of government regulations and prosecutors like New York's Eliot Spitzer.
b) Martha's real problem is an overweening personality that's just so, well, arrogant.
c) No, Martha is not evil. Most charges were dropped. Profit is not evil, either; in fact, profit is the basis for new investment in products, services and technologies. Profit makes companies stronger, giving them access to more sources of investment from financial markets. And yes, a portion of profit goes to those who took the risk on management's ideas shareholders. And like Stewart or not, arrogance is not a crime.
3. A small coffee shop owner is upset that a Starbucks is moving into the same shopping center. The owner has organized a campaign to stop the new store from locating there. Such action is:
a) Laudable. Small-business owners always are being driven out by the big corporate bully. Such a fight represents the struggle of average folks against corporate behemoths.
b) Good to the degree that it represents the will of the people. If most members of a community don't want a Starbucks, then Starbucks should not open up there. Put it to a vote.
c) Reprehensible. Companies should be free to compete as long as government doesn't get involved. Let the best coffee win.
4. You discover the handyman who has been doing odd jobs around the neighborhood, including some construction projects, does not have a state contractor's license. Do you:
a) Call the state licensing board and demand that he be put out of business immediately?
b) Offer to study and take the written part of the exam for him so he doesn't get into trouble?
c) Rejoice that someone is finding a way around the state's occupational licensing laws, which function mainly to reduce competition and raise prices for consumers while offering little if any real protection for consumers?
If consumers believe they need an accreditation process for a profession, it could be accomplished privately, like an underwriter's laboratory for products or the college accreditation panels.
Taxes
5. I'm confused about taxes. Should they be higher or lower?
a) Higher. Government is a great benefit to the people, and taxes should be increased so government can take on the most important tasks of society, be it health care, education or transportation.
b) The size of government is about right, but it could be better managed and some waste can be cut.
c) Lower. Government at all levels is too big and should be cut to fit a defined and limited number of tasks. Taxpayers should have first call on the product of their labors, not the government, and be able to spend, invest and save their earnings as they choose. The more areas of life we invite government into, the more coercion, irrational or rational, will be in our lives.
6. Governments throughout the nation are facing alarming unfunded pension liabilities i.e., the amount of promises to government workers to pay for their pension plans are far more than the funds earmarked to pay the tab. We should:
a) Expand the pay and benefits for government workers, because they are so important to our success as a society, and hope investment gains cover the increases.
b) Find some way to pay for the liabilities, perhaps by raising taxes or floating a pension bond. We don't want to do anything that would upset the government worker unions and precipitate a strike.
c) Switch from defined-benefit plans that give public workers a promised percentage of their final pay (usually 80 percent to 100 percent) to defined-contribution plans (i.e., 401-k's) similar to those in the private sector. While we're at it, we eliminate or outsource as many government jobs as possible.
Property rights: Eminent domain, view rights
7. A large retail company, such as Costco or Wal-Mart, has offered a city significant tax benefits if the city uses eminent domain to take an older strip mall of small businesses and give the big-box retailer the choice location. City Council members:
a) Have every right to do so, and should proceed. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld such takings in the Kelo decision last summer, and city officials need to maximize tax revenue on every plot of land.
b) Should hire a firm to do a study and hold public meetings to see what the public prefers. If the majority wants the property for a big retailer, then the majority should rule.
c) Should tell the big retail company to find another city to hornswoggle. Property rights are the foundation of American life whether you're a single homeowner or Donald Bren even if, in Kelo, a slim high court majority was too foolish to see it.
8. A small city wants to save some hillsides as open space but doesn't have the money to buy the property from its owners. The city should:
a) Increase taxes to pay for it. Preserving open space and habitats for an endangered gecko is important to the sustainability of the planet. Maybe a bond is a good idea.
b) Simply regulate away most of the owner's development rights. If the city, say, reduces the number of homes that can be built on the land by 95 percent, it will gain the open space but will not have actually taken the property so won't have to pay anything for it. Problem solved. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
c) Forgettaboutit. Property owners should be free to develop their land as they see fit, under existing rules and regulations they've been living by. Cities should deal with their fundamental responsibilities and leave property owners alone.
9. You live on a hillside with a great view. But your neighbor about three lots below has planted his yard full of tall eucalyptus and cottonwood trees, and your view has been damaged. Do you:
a) Claim your neighbor's air as your "view shed" and demand the city council pass a view-protection statute that would have the government force your neighbor to cut down or top his trees?
b) Ask your neighbor to cut down or at least top some of his trees maybe even offering to help pay for it, or do it yourself then go to the city to complain if the neighbors refuse to trim the trees?
c) Even if he doesn't respond to your friendly gesture, you shrug your shoulders and figure it's his property, and he has a right to do with it as he will? So you keep your grumbles to yourself and maybe a few guests?
d) Sneak into his yard with a chain saw while he is on vacation and cut down the trees yourself?
Free speech, religion, civil liberties
1. A congressman said recently, "Government can be a force for good in your life." Do you:
a) Agree? You believe your taxes help the government identify the greatest needs in society and then solve those needs as it redistributes wealth in myriad ways. The government generally spends your money better than you do in these "big issue" areas.
b) Feel confused, because you've never really thought about the question, What is the proper role of government in my life?
c) Disagree? Government's role should be limited, and individuals should be left on their own to be responsible and to seek their dreams and achievements for themselves and their families, which will lead to the greatest good in a free society. Free markets, churches, voluntaryism and other private efforts are much more effective at solving many big concerns in society.
Free enterprise profit, competition, certification
2. Martha Stewart should have gone to jail for life because she is part of the whole capitalist syndrome of greed, profiteering and corporate anti-environmentalism. Do you agree?
a) Yes. She is evil, and capitalism would be even more so without the welcome check of government regulations and prosecutors like New York's Eliot Spitzer.
b) Martha's real problem is an overweening personality that's just so, well, arrogant.
c) No, Martha is not evil. Most charges were dropped. Profit is not evil, either; in fact, profit is the basis for new investment in products, services and technologies. Profit makes companies stronger, giving them access to more sources of investment from financial markets. And yes, a portion of profit goes to those who took the risk on management's ideas shareholders. And like Stewart or not, arrogance is not a crime.
3. A small coffee shop owner is upset that a Starbucks is moving into the same shopping center. The owner has organized a campaign to stop the new store from locating there. Such action is:
a) Laudable. Small-business owners always are being driven out by the big corporate bully. Such a fight represents the struggle of average folks against corporate behemoths.
b) Good to the degree that it represents the will of the people. If most members of a community don't want a Starbucks, then Starbucks should not open up there. Put it to a vote.
c) Reprehensible. Companies should be free to compete as long as government doesn't get involved. Let the best coffee win.
4. You discover the handyman who has been doing odd jobs around the neighborhood, including some construction projects, does not have a state contractor's license. Do you:
a) Call the state licensing board and demand that he be put out of business immediately?
b) Offer to study and take the written part of the exam for him so he doesn't get into trouble?
c) Rejoice that someone is finding a way around the state's occupational licensing laws, which function mainly to reduce competition and raise prices for consumers while offering little if any real protection for consumers?
If consumers believe they need an accreditation process for a profession, it could be accomplished privately, like an underwriter's laboratory for products or the college accreditation panels.
Taxes
5. I'm confused about taxes. Should they be higher or lower?
a) Higher. Government is a great benefit to the people, and taxes should be increased so government can take on the most important tasks of society, be it health care, education or transportation.
b) The size of government is about right, but it could be better managed and some waste can be cut.
c) Lower. Government at all levels is too big and should be cut to fit a defined and limited number of tasks. Taxpayers should have first call on the product of their labors, not the government, and be able to spend, invest and save their earnings as they choose. The more areas of life we invite government into, the more coercion, irrational or rational, will be in our lives.
6. Governments throughout the nation are facing alarming unfunded pension liabilities i.e., the amount of promises to government workers to pay for their pension plans are far more than the funds earmarked to pay the tab. We should:
a) Expand the pay and benefits for government workers, because they are so important to our success as a society, and hope investment gains cover the increases.
b) Find some way to pay for the liabilities, perhaps by raising taxes or floating a pension bond. We don't want to do anything that would upset the government worker unions and precipitate a strike.
c) Switch from defined-benefit plans that give public workers a promised percentage of their final pay (usually 80 percent to 100 percent) to defined-contribution plans (i.e., 401-k's) similar to those in the private sector. While we're at it, we eliminate or outsource as many government jobs as possible.
Property rights: Eminent domain, view rights
7. A large retail company, such as Costco or Wal-Mart, has offered a city significant tax benefits if the city uses eminent domain to take an older strip mall of small businesses and give the big-box retailer the choice location. City Council members:
a) Have every right to do so, and should proceed. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld such takings in the Kelo decision last summer, and city officials need to maximize tax revenue on every plot of land.
b) Should hire a firm to do a study and hold public meetings to see what the public prefers. If the majority wants the property for a big retailer, then the majority should rule.
c) Should tell the big retail company to find another city to hornswoggle. Property rights are the foundation of American life whether you're a single homeowner or Donald Bren even if, in Kelo, a slim high court majority was too foolish to see it.
8. A small city wants to save some hillsides as open space but doesn't have the money to buy the property from its owners. The city should:
a) Increase taxes to pay for it. Preserving open space and habitats for an endangered gecko is important to the sustainability of the planet. Maybe a bond is a good idea.
b) Simply regulate away most of the owner's development rights. If the city, say, reduces the number of homes that can be built on the land by 95 percent, it will gain the open space but will not have actually taken the property so won't have to pay anything for it. Problem solved. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
c) Forgettaboutit. Property owners should be free to develop their land as they see fit, under existing rules and regulations they've been living by. Cities should deal with their fundamental responsibilities and leave property owners alone.
9. You live on a hillside with a great view. But your neighbor about three lots below has planted his yard full of tall eucalyptus and cottonwood trees, and your view has been damaged. Do you:
a) Claim your neighbor's air as your "view shed" and demand the city council pass a view-protection statute that would have the government force your neighbor to cut down or top his trees?
b) Ask your neighbor to cut down or at least top some of his trees maybe even offering to help pay for it, or do it yourself then go to the city to complain if the neighbors refuse to trim the trees?
c) Even if he doesn't respond to your friendly gesture, you shrug your shoulders and figure it's his property, and he has a right to do with it as he will? So you keep your grumbles to yourself and maybe a few guests?
d) Sneak into his yard with a chain saw while he is on vacation and cut down the trees yourself?
Free speech, religion, civil liberties
Blackwater OPS
New member
10. You find out some of your neighbors attend a mosque (or church or synagogue) where disrespect for the U.S.government and anti-American sermons are the order of the day. Do you:
a) Demand that the police shut the house of worship and demand that all houses of worship be licensed by or run by the government so this kind of nonsense can never happen again?
b) Ask the zoning or planning commission to declare the institution out of compliance with regulations (or write new regulations outlawing hate propaganda) to force it to close?
c) Figure tolerating a certain amount of foolishness is simply part of living in a free society?
d) Start attending activities yourself to see if there is anything dangerous enough to report to the authorities going on?
11. You are convinced that marriage between homosexuals would not only be disruptive of society but is morally wrong. Do you:
a) Support a U.S. constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage?
b) Do everything in your power to convince homosexuals you know not to seek marriage but suggest that a civil union that would grant rights such as inheritance and hospital visitation is an acceptable alternative?
c) Use your powers of persuasion to get others to agree with you but decide that outlawing same-sex marriage is as unwise as making it mandatory, and question whether it should be the state's job to license marriage at all?
d) Support a state initiative declaring marriage is only valid between a man and a woman?
12. A newspaper publishes a story about a secret government surveillance program on Americans, based on anonymous government sources who were troubled by a program not authorized by the laws or the Constitution. Do you:
a) Demand the leakers be found, that the leakers and journalists go to jail for a long time, and that laws against disclosing government secrets be toughened?
b) Worry a bit about whether the anonymous sources were reliable or had an agenda, but figure it's good to know what the government is up to?
c) Cheer that this information has been made public and consider the journalists and leakers heroes who have exposed information the government should never have been able to keep secret in the first place?
13. Global warming may be caused by humans to such a significant degree that it is:
a) A threat to the entire world and will bring on catastrophe, possibly within 10 years, as Al Gore, left, warns. Americans should be willing to take dramatic steps i.e., more government regulation on fuel-wasting behavior, forced increased conservation to reduce greenhouse gases, investments in nuclear energy.
b) An interesting and potentially frightening theory, and we should trust the politicians and experts to do what's best. They know more than we know.
c) A theory of dubious substance. The Earth has been naturally warming and cooling over billions of years, and the degree of human contribution and impact is debatable. This is one case where a freer market will lead to cleaner industries, more fuel alternatives, and fewer problems from carbon dioxide or pollutants. Tax credits for new environmental technology and other incentives could reduce greenhouse gases enough to ward off a problem until newer technologies solve it for us.
d) A problem that pales in comparison to global cooling.
Transportation
14. The automobile is:
a) Nearly satanic in the evil it foists upon society. Cars pollute and promote isolation and sprawl. Society should build more transit systems to replace car travel.
b) OK, but we still need more transit. Government should force automakers to build cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars.
c) A wonderful product of a free market, a reflection of individualism and freedom. Car and fuel taxes pay for more than their share of expenses related to transportation. We need more roads, preferably toll roads, to ease congestion, not crowded (or underused!) and overpriced transit systems.
d) So important that we need to subsidize their purchase by poor people.
War and foreign policy
15. Our government seems to get in a lot of wars without a declaration of war by Congress, as the U.S.Constitution demands. You conclude that:
a) The Constitution is a "horse and buggy" document, as Franklin D. Roosevelt said, and in the space age, modern democracy and freedom demand more leeway in the actions of the chief executive to protect us.
b) The age of terrorism demands quicker action to preserve our liberties than allowed by the Constitution. If the president needs to act decisively, he should do so and then later get the explicit approval of Congress for any military actions.
c) Congress needs to re-assert itself and insist that only it can declare war.
16. A country in Africa one that has oil resources only partly developed is ruled by a cruel dictator and is on the verge of civil war. Do you:
a) Demand that the U.S. military be sent over to set things to rights immediately?
b) Demand a U.N. Security Council resolution, including economic sanctions, to be followed by the dispatch of a U.N.-authorized international conflict-resolution team?
c) Contribute money to a relief fund with special expertise in helping refugees from this country's trouble? Other than that, consider it's someone else's country, not yours, and while the problems might be deplorable they're not something you or your government is called upon to solve.
The Nanny State
17. Every year thousands of new laws are passed by Congress, the state Legislature and local governments, governing such things as shower water pressure, helmets for motorcyclists, smoking on beaches. Is this a good thing?
a) Yes. Government has your best interests in mind, and its regulations have helped us have longer lives. These laws also help parents enforce their advice to children.
b) Mostly. Although some laws could be pruned, most are needed to keep a complex, modern society functioning well.
c) No. A nanny state law will never substitute for good parenting, self-responsibility and common sense.
Gun ownership
18. The government can have my handgun
a) Any time the government chooses. I don't like guns, and I don't like people who like them. Government should ban them to improve the safety of all of us.
The U.S. Constitution is a "living document" and what applied in the agrarian 18th century probably does not apply today. Besides, the founders were probably referring to militias having guns, not individuals.
b) I don't have a handgun to give, though I wouldn't ban them. They should be tightly regulated by local, state and federal governments, however.
c) When a government official peels it from my cold, dead fingers. Gun ownership by individuals is specifically allowed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and it was one factor in winning the American Revolution. It would be sensible to learn firearms safety before buying one, although government mandates aren't the most useful way to encourage safety.
Education
19. I would like to attend a public high school that has particularly strong math program and that is located in another part of town, instead of the high school where I'm currently enrolled.
a) Your request should be honored only if the racial and ethnic balance in each school allows for such a transfer.
b) Your parents should buy a home in that part of town to assure enrollment.
c) Good idea, the educational system should treat you as an individual and let you choose your school, although an even better idea is to shut down the current system of public schools and let a free market of private choices emerge.
Immigration
20. A person I suspect is an illegal immigrant does my landscaping. Should I
a) Call federal authorities to report the person and be sure he is deported. Join a group that seeks laws that particularly will curtail low-skill, low-wage immigrants coming to the United States in the belief that the workers are causing too much strain on American culture?
b) Let it slide this time, but next time ask for proof of citizenship before hiring. Support local policies that might help further identify and deport illegals and otherwise make their lives difficult?
c) Treat the individual as you would wish to be treated and support policies that would increase immigration quotas that are justified by market demand rather than arbitrary political decisions. Work to reduce the size of the welfare state, which is the real problem. Support border stations that would check for infectious disease and links to terror organizations. Support private programs that would encourage citizenship and assimilation?
SCORING THE TEST
Thanks for taking the Freedom Quiz. The most-free answer was always c. The least-free, or statist, answer was always a, and a middling or squishy minded philosophical answer was always b. Sometimes we added a d and e answer to illustrate another aspect of the debate.
If you answered c to all 20 questions, you are a hardcore true patriot and ready to join the "free state" or start one. Fight on!
>If you answered c to 15-20 questions, you are a freedom lover with a squishy side. Perhaps your college professors have been getting inside your scull?
If you answered c to 10-15 questions, you are dazed and a little confused. You are a mushy moderate who hasnt thought through your political philosophy thoroughly enough.
>If you answered c to fewer than 10 questions, then you are in need of a sort of born-again experience, but youre not irredeemable. Call me, and Ill have a list of a few books for you to read.
If you answered a to 15 or more questions, you are a devoted enemy of freedom, who most likely works for the government or is a direct beneficiary of it. We wont give up all hope for you!
a) Demand that the police shut the house of worship and demand that all houses of worship be licensed by or run by the government so this kind of nonsense can never happen again?
b) Ask the zoning or planning commission to declare the institution out of compliance with regulations (or write new regulations outlawing hate propaganda) to force it to close?
c) Figure tolerating a certain amount of foolishness is simply part of living in a free society?
d) Start attending activities yourself to see if there is anything dangerous enough to report to the authorities going on?
11. You are convinced that marriage between homosexuals would not only be disruptive of society but is morally wrong. Do you:
a) Support a U.S. constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage?
b) Do everything in your power to convince homosexuals you know not to seek marriage but suggest that a civil union that would grant rights such as inheritance and hospital visitation is an acceptable alternative?
c) Use your powers of persuasion to get others to agree with you but decide that outlawing same-sex marriage is as unwise as making it mandatory, and question whether it should be the state's job to license marriage at all?
d) Support a state initiative declaring marriage is only valid between a man and a woman?
12. A newspaper publishes a story about a secret government surveillance program on Americans, based on anonymous government sources who were troubled by a program not authorized by the laws or the Constitution. Do you:
a) Demand the leakers be found, that the leakers and journalists go to jail for a long time, and that laws against disclosing government secrets be toughened?
b) Worry a bit about whether the anonymous sources were reliable or had an agenda, but figure it's good to know what the government is up to?
c) Cheer that this information has been made public and consider the journalists and leakers heroes who have exposed information the government should never have been able to keep secret in the first place?
13. Global warming may be caused by humans to such a significant degree that it is:
a) A threat to the entire world and will bring on catastrophe, possibly within 10 years, as Al Gore, left, warns. Americans should be willing to take dramatic steps i.e., more government regulation on fuel-wasting behavior, forced increased conservation to reduce greenhouse gases, investments in nuclear energy.
b) An interesting and potentially frightening theory, and we should trust the politicians and experts to do what's best. They know more than we know.
c) A theory of dubious substance. The Earth has been naturally warming and cooling over billions of years, and the degree of human contribution and impact is debatable. This is one case where a freer market will lead to cleaner industries, more fuel alternatives, and fewer problems from carbon dioxide or pollutants. Tax credits for new environmental technology and other incentives could reduce greenhouse gases enough to ward off a problem until newer technologies solve it for us.
d) A problem that pales in comparison to global cooling.
Transportation
14. The automobile is:
a) Nearly satanic in the evil it foists upon society. Cars pollute and promote isolation and sprawl. Society should build more transit systems to replace car travel.
b) OK, but we still need more transit. Government should force automakers to build cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars.
c) A wonderful product of a free market, a reflection of individualism and freedom. Car and fuel taxes pay for more than their share of expenses related to transportation. We need more roads, preferably toll roads, to ease congestion, not crowded (or underused!) and overpriced transit systems.
d) So important that we need to subsidize their purchase by poor people.
War and foreign policy
15. Our government seems to get in a lot of wars without a declaration of war by Congress, as the U.S.Constitution demands. You conclude that:
a) The Constitution is a "horse and buggy" document, as Franklin D. Roosevelt said, and in the space age, modern democracy and freedom demand more leeway in the actions of the chief executive to protect us.
b) The age of terrorism demands quicker action to preserve our liberties than allowed by the Constitution. If the president needs to act decisively, he should do so and then later get the explicit approval of Congress for any military actions.
c) Congress needs to re-assert itself and insist that only it can declare war.
16. A country in Africa one that has oil resources only partly developed is ruled by a cruel dictator and is on the verge of civil war. Do you:
a) Demand that the U.S. military be sent over to set things to rights immediately?
b) Demand a U.N. Security Council resolution, including economic sanctions, to be followed by the dispatch of a U.N.-authorized international conflict-resolution team?
c) Contribute money to a relief fund with special expertise in helping refugees from this country's trouble? Other than that, consider it's someone else's country, not yours, and while the problems might be deplorable they're not something you or your government is called upon to solve.
The Nanny State
17. Every year thousands of new laws are passed by Congress, the state Legislature and local governments, governing such things as shower water pressure, helmets for motorcyclists, smoking on beaches. Is this a good thing?
a) Yes. Government has your best interests in mind, and its regulations have helped us have longer lives. These laws also help parents enforce their advice to children.
b) Mostly. Although some laws could be pruned, most are needed to keep a complex, modern society functioning well.
c) No. A nanny state law will never substitute for good parenting, self-responsibility and common sense.
Gun ownership
18. The government can have my handgun
a) Any time the government chooses. I don't like guns, and I don't like people who like them. Government should ban them to improve the safety of all of us.
The U.S. Constitution is a "living document" and what applied in the agrarian 18th century probably does not apply today. Besides, the founders were probably referring to militias having guns, not individuals.
b) I don't have a handgun to give, though I wouldn't ban them. They should be tightly regulated by local, state and federal governments, however.
c) When a government official peels it from my cold, dead fingers. Gun ownership by individuals is specifically allowed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and it was one factor in winning the American Revolution. It would be sensible to learn firearms safety before buying one, although government mandates aren't the most useful way to encourage safety.
Education
19. I would like to attend a public high school that has particularly strong math program and that is located in another part of town, instead of the high school where I'm currently enrolled.
a) Your request should be honored only if the racial and ethnic balance in each school allows for such a transfer.
b) Your parents should buy a home in that part of town to assure enrollment.
c) Good idea, the educational system should treat you as an individual and let you choose your school, although an even better idea is to shut down the current system of public schools and let a free market of private choices emerge.
Immigration
20. A person I suspect is an illegal immigrant does my landscaping. Should I
a) Call federal authorities to report the person and be sure he is deported. Join a group that seeks laws that particularly will curtail low-skill, low-wage immigrants coming to the United States in the belief that the workers are causing too much strain on American culture?
b) Let it slide this time, but next time ask for proof of citizenship before hiring. Support local policies that might help further identify and deport illegals and otherwise make their lives difficult?
c) Treat the individual as you would wish to be treated and support policies that would increase immigration quotas that are justified by market demand rather than arbitrary political decisions. Work to reduce the size of the welfare state, which is the real problem. Support border stations that would check for infectious disease and links to terror organizations. Support private programs that would encourage citizenship and assimilation?
SCORING THE TEST
Thanks for taking the Freedom Quiz. The most-free answer was always c. The least-free, or statist, answer was always a, and a middling or squishy minded philosophical answer was always b. Sometimes we added a d and e answer to illustrate another aspect of the debate.
If you answered c to all 20 questions, you are a hardcore true patriot and ready to join the "free state" or start one. Fight on!
>If you answered c to 15-20 questions, you are a freedom lover with a squishy side. Perhaps your college professors have been getting inside your scull?
If you answered c to 10-15 questions, you are dazed and a little confused. You are a mushy moderate who hasnt thought through your political philosophy thoroughly enough.
>If you answered c to fewer than 10 questions, then you are in need of a sort of born-again experience, but youre not irredeemable. Call me, and Ill have a list of a few books for you to read.
If you answered a to 15 or more questions, you are a devoted enemy of freedom, who most likely works for the government or is a direct beneficiary of it. We wont give up all hope for you!
Blackwater,
I'll have first go
All C with exception of the following:
16 B Dealing with problems overseas that impact us here *should* be the Federal government's job. They should use whatever tools they have at their disposal to get the job done.
If the problem does not affect us directly, then C.
19... I'm torn on that one. We specifically followed option B to get our son into a good school, but C would be preferable.
I fit the mold of whatever party this is supposed to represent....but the conclusions are a little....leading. Which party is it? Lemme guess: Libertarians.
I'll have first go
All C with exception of the following:
16 B Dealing with problems overseas that impact us here *should* be the Federal government's job. They should use whatever tools they have at their disposal to get the job done.
If the problem does not affect us directly, then C.
19... I'm torn on that one. We specifically followed option B to get our son into a good school, but C would be preferable.
I fit the mold of whatever party this is supposed to represent....but the conclusions are a little....leading. Which party is it? Lemme guess: Libertarians.
FWIW, I would rather have my colon pulled out through my left nostril then join the Democratic party, but I have to disagree on a couple of points.
I agree, but can you really trust that the Republicans are going to protect your rights, in the event that gun control becomes a popular issue again, and being against it would cost them an election.
Just my opinion, but I think they'd sell you out in a minute, and never look back. Politicians care about money and power, not you.
So, did anyone here, when they reached puberty, say "OK, now I have a choice, I can like girls, or I can like boys, let me decide...?" How does someone choose their sexual orientation? A more important question to ask yourself is why you would even care who other consenting adults sleep with?
Why care what a person does in their private life, with another consenting adult (please, folks, Monica knew what she was doing)? Research how many other U.S. presidents had mistresses, and I think you'll find that a lot had them, it's just that the press had greater respect for their privacy.
I agree, but can you really trust that the Republicans are going to protect your rights, in the event that gun control becomes a popular issue again, and being against it would cost them an election.
Just my opinion, but I think they'd sell you out in a minute, and never look back. Politicians care about money and power, not you.
So, did anyone here, when they reached puberty, say "OK, now I have a choice, I can like girls, or I can like boys, let me decide...?" How does someone choose their sexual orientation? A more important question to ask yourself is why you would even care who other consenting adults sleep with?
Why care what a person does in their private life, with another consenting adult (please, folks, Monica knew what she was doing)? Research how many other U.S. presidents had mistresses, and I think you'll find that a lot had them, it's just that the press had greater respect for their privacy.
- Status