Any sane person can't vote Republican

[Jagged]

Any sane person can't vote republican, just consider the three republican cornerstones:

1) The right to bear arms.
This right is primarily helping nuts to terrorize their neighbours.

2) Gay rights.
Bush will outlaw gay marriages, obviously showing that his call for freedom is for the majority, not for minorities.

3) Abortion.
Republicans will argue that a living creature, not yet human in anyway, has the right to take over over the life of a human being. In fact, since it can't speak for itself, Republicans claim the right to take the life of a mother over her child.

I mean... even in Denmark, where we have nut cases arguing for tighter immigration laws, we don't get sane people who'll argue against weapons control, gay rights, or abortion. Are all Americans plain nuts?

[Woody]

So if you believe in liberty, freedom, and the rights of the unborn your insane? How insulting!
As for gay marriage, under Federal law it was illegal long before President Bush took office or didn't you realize that? The Protection of Marriage act doesn't deny homosexuals civil union but rathers reserves the title of marriage as a union between a man and woman.

[Jerico]

It will be interesting to see how many protesters will be demonstrating during the Rep. Convention. Or perhaps how much the media will try to ignore it, and how Bush, Inc. will try to silence them.
It might be something unprecedented.
After all, we're dealing with one of the worst presidents (administrations) in history!

[Woody]

Worst President, not hardly. Most hated, possibly. The liberals just hated to be marginalized and the President has become the object they have projected their misfortune onto. I agree it will be funny to watch all the left wingers on parade.

[DeeCrowSeer]

So if you believe in liberty, freedom, and the rights of the unborn your insane? How insulting!
As for gay marriage, under Federal law it was illegal long before President Bush took office or didn't you realize that? The Protection of Marriage act doesn't deny homosexuals civil union but rathers reserves the title of marriage as a union between a man and woman.

While I'm not condoning the title or tone of this thread, I wonder if there isn't a contradiction in anyone claiming to be in favour of "freedom". Just from my own navel-gazing, I can't quite figure out if such a thing is actually possible. People can only ever argue in favour of their own brand of freedom, rather than a general public, objective freedom. For instance some people want the freedom to keep loaded guns in their homes, and some people want the freedom not to be shot by family members playing with loaded guns in the home. Some people want the freedom to know that "marriage" is a sacred insistutution reserved purely for breeders, and some want the freedom to call their gay civil unions a marriage.

So is Freedom, capital F, possible? I assume you're taking the position that you "believe" in Freedom... so what exactly is it? What is liberty?

As usual, I'm not trying to make a clever point, I'm just curious. I know what brand of freedom I want, and I've probably let that colour my question, but that's not what this is about.

D...

[Kitsune]

This a pretty common example of ad homminem arguments.... "Someone doesn't agree with me, so they must be insane"
I could say the same thing about Democrats "You must be insane to vote for people who want to take your money away from you and give it to buerocrats who in turn will give it to other beurocrats and by the end of the process some of that might trickle down to the poor."
It would be insane to vote for a man who didn't just protest the war, but he named names of people who he said commited war crimes, while those men were being held as POWs and were sceduled for release.
I wouldn't say that because I have the immagination and open mindedness to see the other guys point of view even if I dont agree with. I also don't make the mistake off assuming that just because someone votes for a party that they agree with the current party platform 100%... Donald Rumsfield is on record as disagreeing with Bush on his gay marrage stance... Rummy said "I beleive freedom means freedom for everybody" which is also my stance on the issue.

[Kitsune]

Worst President in my lifetime would have been Jimmy Carter... which is a shame because he is a great human being and I have nothing but respect for his achivements outside of the white house.

Worst President, not hardly. Most hated, possibly. The liberals just hated to be marginalized and the President has become the object they have projected their misfortune onto. I agree it will be funny to watch all the left wingers on parade.

[Jerico]

I agree it will be funny to watch all the left wingers on parade.

Hmmm... sounds like in what you wrote, that you labelled the 100s of thousands of people who are protesting today (and perhaps tomorrow as well) against GW Bush are ALL left wingers.
Are all people who disagree with Bush and want him out Left Wingers?
Are all people who disagree with you Left Wingers?

Donald Rumsfield is on record as disagreeing with Bush on his gay marrage stance... Rummy said "I beleive freedom means freedom for everybody" which is also my stance on the issue.

Is that what Rumsfeld said? I haven't seen him in the news at all for quite a while. Especially after the Abu Ghraib blunder.
I think it was one of the other Bushies that said that, because he has a lesbian daughter.
Here it is....
At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town Tuesday, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying "freedom means freedom for everyone,'' when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with,'' Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

[broken link]

At least he's not a hypocrite on that issue.
Here's a non-political statement:
It shows how a parent's beliefs do not entirely dictate how a child will turn out.
Along the same lines:
The Reagan children are an example of how the children will not necessarily tow the line for their parents' political party.

[Woody]

So is Freedom, capital F, possible? I assume you're taking the position that you "believe" in Freedom... so what exactly is it? What is liberty?

As usual, I'm not trying to make a clever point, I'm just curious. I know what brand of freedom I want, and I've probably let that colour my question, but that's not what this is about.

D...

The definition of Freedom in this context is "being able to act, use, etc. without hindrance.". Liberty is "a particular right, freedom, etc.", like not being deprived of life because you haven't been born yet. Reusing your firearm example, if I'm free I may be allowed to own and operate that firearm. By your example someone else's fear of my freedom should strip me of that freedom. Your scared family member would strip the other family member of personal freedom to secure a measure of safety for himself. There is the key to this freedom and liberty business. You can't take something from somebody or you are attacking freedom. In essence you have pre judged the firearm owner by wanting to strip him of his lawful ownership of said firearm and no that is not freedom. We as a nation try to engage in setting parameters on freedom all too often. Take drugs as an example. I could careless if my neigbour is smoking pot or shooting heroin. If he wants to destroy his life fine. We have decided that we don't want people to have that liberty to slowly kill themselves with the chemical of their choice. The effect has been that we spend billions on a war against drugs that we can't possibly win. The human cost is horrible. We have made drugs so valuable that people will kill to protect the lucrative cash flow generated by an illegal substance. As time goes by we get softer as a people and demand more safety but unfortunatly safety and freedom are completely different animals.

[Woody]

I agree it will be funny to watch all the left wingers on parade.

Hmmm... sounds like in what you wrote, that you labelled the 100s of thousands of people who are protesting today (and perhaps tomorrow as well) against GW Bush are ALL left wingers.
Are all people who disagree with Bush and want him out Left Wingers?
Are all people who disagree with you Left Wingers?

Not at all and I was quite literal in what I meant. I didn't say all the people protesting are left wingers. I said, ". . .it will be funny to watch all the left wingers on parade.. I was just referring to that particular segment of the protestors. I'm sure most are just party loyalist or part of the mindless "ABB" crowd.

[Jerico]

I'm a part of the ABB crowd and will gladly debate you on any issue that I feel knowledgable enough to comment on, and see if you can label me one of these "mindless" people that you refer to.
I can see from your posts that you do have zeal which is good. It's good to see at least two sides speaking in this forum.

[Doc]

So is Freedom, capital F, possible? I assume you're taking the position that you "believe" in Freedom... so what exactly is it? What is liberty?

As usual, I'm not trying to make a clever point, I'm just curious. I know what brand of freedom I want, and I've probably let that colour my question, but that's not what this is about.

D...

The definition of Freedom in this context is "being able to act, use, etc. without hindrance.". Liberty is "a particular right, freedom, etc.", like not being deprived of life because you haven't been born yet. Reusing your firearm example, if I'm free I may be allowed to own and operate that firearm. By your example someone else's fear of my freedom should strip me of that freedom. Your scared family member would strip the other family member of personal freedom to secure a measure of safety for himself. There is the key to this freedom and liberty business. You can't take something from somebody or you are attacking freedom. In essence you have pre judged the firearm owner by wanting to strip him of his lawful ownership of said firearm and no that is not freedom. We as a nation try to engage in setting parameters on freedom all too often. Take drugs as an example. I could careless if my neigbour is smoking pot or shooting heroin. If he wants to destroy his life fine. We have decided that we don't want people to have that liberty to slowly kill themselves with the chemical of their choice. The effect has been that we spend billions on a war against drugs that we can't possibly win. The human cost is horrible. We have made drugs so valuable that people will kill to protect the lucrative cash flow generated by an illegal substance. As time goes by we get softer as a people and demand more safety but unfortunatly safety and freedom are completely different animals.

Both the war on drugs and the war on terrorism depend almost entirely on fear. Moreover, the premise of both is public safety, which is weighed against taking both freedom and liberty away, which both have done.

Woody, I'm not singling you out, just making a statement. I'm interested in otherwise libertarians who suspend their ideals when it comes to terrorism. I know one libertarian who strongly supports the Patriot Act. This seems untenable.

[Woody]

Debate is a good thing but the "ABB" crowd labels themselves. You could teach a parrot to say that and it wouldn't sound any more mindless from his beak. To be fair I did say in jest the other day "Anybody But Kerry" but he is clearly the lesser leader between the two men in my opinion. Kerry blows in the political wind and has no moral compass what so ever. If anything he is the perfect lap dog for the Democratic party.

[Doc]

So "Anybody but Kerry" is better or less mindless than "Anybody but Bush" because you believe it?

[Woody]

Both the war on drugs and the war on terrorism depend almost entirely on fear. Moreover, the premise of both is public safety, which is weighed against taking both freedom and liberty away, which both have done.

Woody, I'm not singling you out, just making a statement. I'm interested in otherwise libertarians who suspend their ideals when it comes to terrorism. I know one libertarian who strongly supports the Patriot Act. This seems untenable.

I'm not really a Libertarian but I find I agree with a lot of their views. I am against the war on drugs and those parts of the Patriot Act that damage freedom. The parts that affect privacy are disturbing as well. I also deviate from the Repulican party line on capital punishment. I don't think any government, State or Federal, should be allowed to murder it's own citizens. The proccess to determine guilt is not infallible and you can't return life to those falsly convicted.