just interested .what party you are

[nbfcfireman]

what polital party do you consider yourself. not counting of course the one issue parties, ie. antiabortion, marjahana

[Plattsfire2]

Well, lets see how long we can keep this one civil... :rolleyes:

I'm conservative. But not part of the religeous right by any means.

[Dave1983]

None. I vote for who I think will do the better job. Besides, none of the parties fit all of my views.;)

A few topics for example...

I support a womans right to choose (Lib)
I support the death penalty (Con)
I support protecting the enviroment (Lib)
I support a strong national defense (Con)
I support stem cell research (Lib)
I support lower taxes (Con)

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. What we need is a "middle of the road" party:D

[CaptainGonzo]

A middle of the road independent, and I don't drink the Kool aid from either side of the aisle. I prefer Guinness or a good microbrew!

[jasper45]

I am a steadfast conservative. Politics in my local area, as well as the state, have kept me from belonging to the Republican party. Too many RINO's ... "republican in name only" ... who too often are worse than the democrat's are, or ever could be.
There is plenty of garbage strewn about the streets here from both parties, cover up's, scandals, and so on.
I certainly don't fit the bill by the Anti-American green party, and certainly not the libertarian party. I'm left without a party, I guess. Have Guinness, will travel.

[DennisTheMenace]

I am a steadfast conservative. Politics in my local area, as well as the state, have kept me from belonging to the Republican party. Too many RINO's ... "republican in name only" ...
Republicans were moderates long before the Far Right Conservative movement tried to take the whole thing over. As soon as the radical right relaizes that and that they owe the moderates much more then the moderates owe them, the Republican party will finally have a truely steady hold on the government. The moderates are and always have been the TRUE base of the Republican Party.

[doughesson]

I consider myself to be a conservative Libertarian.
Leave my taxes and guns alone,do all the heroin that you want to.Good luck with it.
Oh,and on the brew question,if I'm buying,it's Coors and/or Coors light.
If you are,whatever's coldest and closest to the barkeep. :D

[jasper45]

Republicans were moderates long before the Far Right Conservative movement tried to take the whole thing over. As soon as the radical right relaizes that and that they owe the moderates much more then the moderates owe them, the Republican party will finally have a truely steady hold on the government. The moderates are and always have been the TRUE base of the Republican Party.


This sounds an awfull lot like the rhetoric coming from the Democrat's. We're really not out of mainstream, we're really not liberal, we're really just moderates, and so on.
What does this mean? It means they are only concerned about votes, and not really about getting anything done. Their more concerned about staying in power, all the while not really accomplishing anything with that power. Their more concerned about what poles say, rather than what needs, or should be done. All reasons why I refuse to associate with the republican party, at least at this point in time.
My stance on the republican party is based largely on my own state's politic's, though I do have some criticism of policies on the national level.
My stance as a conservative is not "far right", but rather as more a "description". It's more of an attempt to stay consistant in my belief's, rather than sellout to money, entirely. Something both major parties are guilty of.
I support conservative fiscal and social agenda's. I support tax cuts and so on. Not necesarily for the rich, but for myself and my family. Something this president has accomplished, not the republican party.

[DennisTheMenace]

I support conservative fiscal and social agenda's. I support tax cuts and so on. Not necesarily for the rich, but for myself and my family. Something this president has accomplished, not the republican party.So you want a social agenda that tells folks that if they are not you, then they are wrong? Sounds like the Southern Dem's of 1850-1965.

As for fiscal conservatives, it was the right wing self discribed true that tried to throw a Coup' over Newt Gingrich for not being conservative enough AFTER he lead the nation to a balanced budget. The Country does not need hard core from the Left or Right, what we need are statesmen that do what is right for everyone not just their side of the debate.

[DennisTheMenace]

This sounds an awfull lot like the rhetoric coming from the Democrat's. We're really not out of mainstream, we're really not liberal, we're really just moderates, and so on.
What does this mean? It means they are only concerned about votes, and not really about getting anything done. Their more concerned about staying in power, all the while not really accomplishing anything with that power. Why steamroll the minority just because you won the most resent election? That is not governing, that is dictating an edict sort of like the mullahs of the Middle East. It is not what the Founding Fathers on any side had in mind when they set up our system of government with our incredible Constitution which keeps any majority in check. You steamroll the minority and you are going to be in deep crap when you are back in the minority, it is what lead to the GOP Revolution of 1994 in the first place, and what the GOP is now headed to do themselves. Just by the very fact that the margins of victory lately have been so close shows that the people are more interested in good governing rather then any sweeping changes to the landscape. And well they should think that, overall we are in great shape socially, economically and in the national “Happy Quotient”.

[jasper45]

[QUOTE=DennisTheMenace]So you want a social agenda that tells folks that if they are not you, then they are wrong? Sounds like the Southern Dem's of 1850-1965.
QUOTE]

Nice job on the spin, or better yet, putting words in my mouth. Never once did I suggest that those who are differant than myself are wrong. I hold a number of opinion's that are differant than those of the mainstream republican party, the reason for the statement's I made earlier. I hadn't realized that we had morphed this thread into a differant topic, already.

[jasper45]

As for fiscal conservatives, it was the right wing self discribed true that tried to throw a Coup' over Newt Gingrich for not being conservative enough AFTER he lead the nation to a balanced budget. The Country does not need hard core from the Left or Right, what we need are statesmen that do what is right for everyone not just their side of the debate.

The majority of my issue with the republican party is at the state level, no more, no less. I am fairly happy with our federal level of government, it is my state and local government with which the real issue is, for me.
My state has been driven by a lack of fiscal restraint, as well as over taxation for a number of years. Both sides of the aisle are as guilty as the other, here.
No politician has ever reduced my tax burdon, except at the federal level.


Again though, you are missing my point in my complaint about the GOP. They are driven by special interest groups, and the money they are given. The same is true with the democrat's. Until some of these particular issue's are solved, it is whoever has the most money gets their way. It has nothing to do with this high and mighty moderation garbage.
I can agree with you, we do need statesmen. We need politicians who do what is right for our country, not for their donors. Were close now, but certain issues show that money still talks the loudest.

[DennisTheMenace]

So you want a social agenda that tells folks that if they are not you, then they are wrong? Sounds like the Southern Dem's of 1850-1965.


Nice job on the spin, or better yet, putting words in my mouth. Never once did I suggest that those who are differant than myself are wrong. I hold a number of opinion's that are differant than those of the mainstream republican party, the reason for the statement's I made earlier. I hadn't realized that we had morphed this thread into a differant topic, already.I try to return the spin I am sent with a nice counter rotation and a slight curve. ;)

[DennisTheMenace]

The majority of my issue with the republican party is at the state level, no more, no less. I am fairly happy with our federal level of government, it is my state and local government with which the real issue is, for me.
My state has been driven by a lack of fiscal restraint, as well as over taxation for a number of years. Both sides of the aisle are as guilty as the other, here.
No politician has ever reduced my tax burdon, except at the federal level.


Again though, you are missing my point in my complaint about the GOP. They are driven by special interest groups, and the money they are given. The same is true with the democrat's. Until some of these particular issue's are solved, it is whoever has the most money gets their way. It has nothing to do with this high and mighty moderation garbage.
I can agree with you, we do need statesmen. We need politicians who do what is right for our country, not for their donors. Were close now, but certain issues show that money still talks the loudest.For the career politician the campaighn money goes to those that are potentially successful, the success does not go to those with them money. The majority of those guys worked their way up the ladder at elected positions that don't pay squat. Only occasionally do you get the Bill Frists that just jump into it with their millions, but even then, that money came from success in another field(although very well seeded with his dad's money ;) )

But with your last line you are forgetting, a politician and a statesmen are two totally different characters. Bill Clinton was possibly our nations greatest "politician" ever, but he was not much of a Statesman.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I am a staunch, died in the wool, liberal.

[DianeC]

I am a staunch, died in the wool, liberal.

Gee George, I thought we had so much in common!! :eek:

[Steamer]

I am a staunch, died in the wool, liberal.
Yup...and Limbaugh and Ted Kennedy have lunch every Thursday, too. :eek: :cool:

[scfire86]

Since I believe fiscal responsibility is crucial to our national economy I'm forced to be a democrat.

[fireguy919]

I’m independent. And let me tell you I was the most important person ever this election year. I had to be with all the people that called me. Everyone from Arnold to Bush himself. I would have at least ten messages every night when I go home. It was unreal. Who would of guessed not claiming one party or the other would of helped me to get all these calls

[doughesson]

Well,a WWII Admiral is quoted as saying"When you are in command,command."
This means that when a President has a majority of his Party's members in office along with him,he gets to decide how the country is run.There should be checks and balances,like we are taught in Civics class in HS but the President has the final say in how the national policy is set.
You might not like it and don't have to but you had your say when you cast your vote and write your congresscritter.(You DO write your congresscritter,don't you?)
Politicians and Reverends with a politcal agenda running off to countries and then spouting their opinion of what should be done,instead of meeting privately with the President and asking him to consider their opinion for an action aren't helping.
My general opinion of politicians,anyway,comes from Stephen Coonts' book"Flight of the Minotaur"where a naval officer assigned to Pentagon duty mutters"Politicians.If you rendered the lot of 'em,you wouldn't end up with a thimblefull of scruples."

Why steamroll the minority just because you won the most resent election? That is not governing, that is dictating an edict sort of like the mullahs of the Middle East.

[doughesson]

Taxing people until there is a surplus isn't financial responsibility.It's overcharging people for services rendered.
If you found out that Wally World had overcharged you for a TV set or tire change,you'd march back in,reciept in hand,demanding your money back and if you were mad enough,someone's job over the amount.
Now that I've said my piece,I will remind people that three subjects are tabboo at any well run wardroom table-politics,women and religion.This is to avoid hard feelings among people who HAVE to work and live together or they very well could die together.

Since I believe fiscal responsibility is crucial to our national economy I'm forced to be a democrat.

[DennisTheMenace]

I’m independent. And let me tell you I was the most important person ever this election year. I had to be with all the people that called me. Everyone from Arnold to Bush himself. I would have at least ten messages every night when I go home. It was unreal. Who would of guessed not claiming one party or the other would of helped me to get all these calls
Did not matter if you claimed a party or not, I got calls from all sides too in this past election.

[DennisTheMenace]

Well,a WWII Admiral is quoted as saying"When you are in command,command."
This means that when a President has a majority of his Party's members in office along with him,he gets to decide how the country is run.There should be checks and balances,like we are taught in Civics class in HS but the President has the final say in how the national policy is set.
You might not like it and don't have to but you had your say when you cast your vote and write your congresscritter.(You DO write your congresscritter,don't you?)
Politicians and Reverends with a politcal agenda running off to countries and then spouting their opinion of what should be done,instead of meeting privately with the President and asking him to consider their opinion for an action aren't helping.
My general opinion of politicians,anyway,comes from Stephen Coonts' book"Flight of the Minotaur"where a naval officer assigned to Pentagon duty mutters"Politicians.If you rendered the lot of 'em,you wouldn't end up with a thimblefull of scruples."See there is the problem, you have just demonstrated how too many people do not understand our system of government and get their education about it from pop FICTION.

The President has taken charge and done what he can under the Constitution, he can not just run roughshod around changing things to his personal liking and whims of the moment. Things were set up that way for a reason. Congress also must work together to change what some would like.

Placeing your moral views on the people on such issues as family, abortion, etc. is NOT leadership. That is legislating, there is a HUGE difference and different parts of the government has different roles. You might remember a term from fifth grade civics class called "checks and balances". The President DOES NOT have the final say on how National Policy is set, he is just one part of the balance of power in saying how it should be set. Granted being the single head of his particular branch of governement gives him the largest individual say, that is only one third of the total that he must share with the 9 top guys/girls in the Judiciary(and those at lower levels) and the 535 of the legislative branch. What you propse is that the President of the United States be allowed to operate as an elected dictator.

The founding fathers intended for thing to be tough to change, the situation that the nation is in is by design, there is no good point in a single party/political faction being allowed to run make major changes because they have temporary power(and it is ALWAYS temporary).

[DennisTheMenace]

Taxing people until there is a surplus isn't financial responsibility.It's overcharging people for services rendered.
If you found out that Wally World had overcharged you for a TV set or tire change,you'd march back in,reciept in hand,demanding your money back and if you were mad enough,someone's job over the amount.
Now that I've said my piece,I will remind people that three subjects are tabboo at any well run wardroom table-politics,women and religion.This is to avoid hard feelings among people who HAVE to work and live together or they very well could die together.
While I am with you on the issue, that is a totally screwed up example. Wally World can charge you what ever the heck they want to charge you. If the price on the tag is what you paid at the register it is not over charging even if you paid $500 for a can of Coca-Cola.

There is no retail comparison to the government and its spending. The debate should be how much of a surplus/debit window is best for the country, the taxpayers, and the economy. It is a legit debate that should be had. Simple cognitive thought will let you know that with a multi-trillion dollar budget, there is no way that the actual revenues and expenditures will ever be in perfect balance. So what should we aim for in the max debit we should be willing to take on, and what is the max surplus that we she feel is right in the government holding before refunds are issued or the next years tax rate is lowered. It is a VERY difficult if not impossible balancing act and it is there at every level of governenment from a small hamlets budget through the state level and up to the federal level. I wish I had the answer to the right level, it requires a serious understanding of economics and a crystal ball, but all that we have is one guy in a white house to send a wish list to 535 guys in a domed white building on a hill to try and come up with a common opinion on the way to go with it all.

[doughesson]

Agreeing with one my favorite authors isn't getting educated by pop fiction.I've worked on a few campaigns when I was a kid and after seeing how most politicians treat people after the election is over and done with causes me to find the mental image of a politician in a rendering vat kind of funny.
I do know about checks and balances.I saw the previous administration actually admit that they were looking for ways around the Constitution to enact more gun control than it was legally to do.Because the system is hard to change,despite what the media and other people who hate Freedom wanted to do,they couldn't and the Judicial Branch overruled the Executive branch,like it's supposed to be able to do.
I never said anything about a dictator.The President has to be the one held accountable for what happens on his watch,just like a ship's Captain or Officer of the Deck.When he screws up,he is roasted for it and when he makes us all proud,he should be praised for it,no matter what political party he belongs to.
For this reason,the President should be able to set policy for the nation,even though Congress might shoot him down.

[bobsnyder]

I'm a Democrat, mostly becuase I find the people who run the Republican party far more repugnant, arrogant and generally distasteful all around than those who run the Democratic party. I don't like any of them...but we don't have open primaries in Pennsylvania...

I don't, however, spout the party line on all issues, by a long shot...

I believe fiscal responsibility is found in balanced budgets and/or modest surpluses to aid in debt reduction...not the tax-and-spend policies of old-school Democrats or the don't-tax-and-spend-like-idiots-anyway policies of the modern GOP.

I believe free markets are a great resource allocation tool most of the time, but, in the real world, they also do fail from time to time. Therefore, there is a need for government intervention in the economy...but not in the wholly politically motivated ways in which our government has undertaken economic policy for decades.

I believe in freedom of religion and, more importantly, freedom from religion. I have no right telling you what to believe or where and what to worship...but there is no place for your god in my government, either. Period.

I'm pro-choice, without reservation or apology...and I'm also pro-death penalty for a list of offenses, as long as it's equitably enforced, regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, region of the country, time of day, or anything else that might make it discriminatory.

I believe it's none of my business - and certainly none of the government's business - what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and relationships. I belive that, in turn, means debates over things like gay marriage should never have happened. The government has no place in the marriage business at all...that's a religious issue (see above)...it should record and enforce civil contracts between whichever consenting adults wish to enter into them. That's it.

Overall, I believe I would rather have the government meddling in my financial life than my personal life.

I believe freedom of speech, press and thought should be protected to the hilt...and I oppose censorship in all its forms, whether in the name of morality, political correctness, or pretty much anything else except public safety (the old "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater exception").

I believe in my right to keep and bear arms...but also in the rights of me and others like me to at least keep an eye on who else is bearing arms. I think many gun control advocates take it to the point of paranoia...but I also think the NRA is run by a bunch of raving whack-jobs.

I could go on...but I'm tired of typing...

[scfire86]

Taxing people until there is a surplus isn't financial responsibility.It's overcharging people for services rendered.


Borrowing at record levels is not ultimately bad for the economy, but potentially a national security issue.

The GOP controls all aspects of the federal government and is running our country towards economic disaster.

[DougVelting]

I try to remain in the common sense party, lets face it, no candidate in history has ever said what they actually mean or believe. If someone ever runs with the slogan "vote for me cause i cant screw it up anyworse" Ill be there on voting day.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I'm a Democrat, mostly becuase I find the people who run the Republican party far more repugnant, arrogant and generally distasteful all around than those who run the Democratic party. I don't like any of them...but we don't have open primaries in Pennsylvania...

I don't, however, spout the party line on all issues, by a long shot...

I believe fiscal responsibility is found in balanced budgets and/or modest surpluses to aid in debt reduction...not the tax-and-spend policies of old-school Democrats or the don't-tax-and-spend-like-idiots-anyway policies of the modern GOP.

I believe free markets are a great resource allocation tool most of the time, but, in the real world, they also do fail from time to time. Therefore, there is a need for government intervention in the economy...but not in the wholly politically motivated ways in which our government has undertaken economic policy for decades.

I believe in freedom of religion and, more importantly, freedom from religion. I have no right telling you what to believe or where and what to worship...but there is no place for your god in my government, either. Period.

I'm pro-choice, without reservation or apology...and I'm also pro-death penalty for a list of offenses, as long as it's equitably enforced, regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, region of the country, time of day, or anything else that might make it discriminatory.

I believe it's none of my business - and certainly none of the government's business - what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and relationships. I belive that, in turn, means debates over things like gay marriage should never have happened. The government has no place in the marriage business at all...that's a religious issue (see above)...it should record and enforce civil contracts between whichever consenting adults wish to enter into them. That's it.

Overall, I believe I would rather have the government meddling in my financial life than my personal life.

I believe freedom of speech, press and thought should be protected to the hilt...and I oppose censorship in all its forms, whether in the name of morality, political correctness, or pretty much anything else except public safety (the old "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater exception").

I believe in my right to keep and bear arms...but also in the rights of me and others like me to at least keep an eye on who else is bearing arms. I think many gun control advocates take it to the point of paranoia...but I also think the NRA is run by a bunch of raving whack-jobs.

I could go on...but I'm tired of typing...

So, in essence, you really don't believe in anything.

[fireguy919]

Did not matter if you claimed a party or not, I got calls from all sides too in this past election.

What you trying to say Dennis. I wasn’t the only one. But they told me I was very important. I can’t believe this. I feel so used lol

[DennisTheMenace]

Borrowing at record levels is not ultimately bad for the economy, but potentially a national security issue.

The GOP controls all aspects of the federal government and is running our country towards economic disaster.
If the GOP has such strong control, why is the radical right complaining that the leadership can't get anything that they want done? Is it because the majority of the GOP is not realy as radical as some would like to paint them, or because the Constitution is set up to give no single group absolute power?

[scfire86]

If the GOP has such strong control, why is the radical right complaining that the leadership can't get anything that they want done? Is it because the majority of the GOP is not realy as radical as some would like to paint them, or because the Constitution is set up to give no single group absolute power?

Because the group in power always has a vested interest in maintaining spending to pay back the constituents who put them there in the first place.

You think its an accident that a state like Alaska which sends minimal dollars is on the receiving end of a much higher rate of federal spending than other states when Sen Stevens is doing all the arm twisting? It's easy to blast away at tax and spend liberals when the blue states are paying the freight of the red states.

[jasper45]

You think its an accident that a state like Alaska which sends minimal dollars is on the receiving end of a much higher rate of federal spending than other states when Sen Stevens is doing all the arm twisting? It's easy to blast away at tax and spend liberals when the blue states are paying the freight of the red states.


This is precisely my point regarding problems with the political system of today, " he who gives the most, gets his way."
This is a problem plagueing both sides of the aisle.
As far as the tax and spend liberals, I recieve a much larger federal tax refund now, as opposed to the '90's, even though I have refinanced to lower interest rates a number of times since then. My mortgage is my primary tax credit.

[scfire86]

As far as the tax and spend liberals, I recieve a much larger federal tax refund now, as opposed to the '90's

Look here (http://brillig.com/debt_clock/) to see why.

[jasper45]

Look here (http://brillig.com/debt_clock/) to see why.

I know exactly why. People spend too much time with the whole "tax cut's for the rich" squeal. I'm not rich, the tax cuts benefitted me quite a bit, they also were very welcomed by my co-workers. We each had a good sum of extra money to spend as we see fit, thanks primarily to the Bush tax cuts. In fact, alot of that money went to support our troops in the form of cash donations, and now much will probably go to help the hurricane victims. That's purely guess work, based on conversations at work. Either way, or none of those ways, it's money I will gladly take back, and I put back into the economy in a positive way, as opposed to some useless handout program that does nothing but waste it.
I live through enough of that every day at the local, and the state level. That's what happens when you live in a "blue" state. You get over taxed, and you watch your money get pissed away, with no benefit to anyone.
Are there problems at the federal level? Absolutely, but we need to look back through time, and see when this defecit began. If I'm not mistaken, it didn't start in January of 2001, or even January of 1981, for that matter.
Every president, in recent history has run with a defecit. Clinton ran with one as well. He may have had a balanced budget, on paper, but in all reality it did nothing with our debt.

[scfire86]

Clinton ran with one as well. He may have had a balanced budget, on paper, but in all reality it did nothing with our debt.

WRONG!!!! When a budget is balanced. The debt doesn't increase. Nor does the interest on the debt. Both of which have occurred under Bush.

[DennisTheMenace]

WRONG!!!! When a budget is balanced. The debt doesn't increase. Nor does the interest on the debt. Both of which have occurred under Bush.
How does the interest on the debt not increase? As long as money is not going towards paying down the debt, the interest will always be compounding. Show me where Clinton paid down the debt at a rate higher then the interest accumulation.

[scfire86]

How does the interest on the debt not increase? As long as money is not going towards paying down the debt, the interest will always be compounding. Show me where Clinton paid down the debt at a rate higher then the interest accumulation.

Interest is a function of priniciple. If the principle doesn't increase, the interest upon it doesn't increase. This is simple finance. If the principle increases, the interest increases. If the interest is compounding as you put forth in your scenario, it is compounding at a lower rate since it based upon a lower principle.

[DennisTheMenace]

Interest is a function of priniciple. If the principle doesn't increase, the interest upon it doesn't increase. This is simple finance. If the principle increases, the interest increases. If the interest is compounding as you put forth in your scenario, it is compounding at a lower rate since it based upon a lower principle.
What Econ class did you fail? As long as interest is accumulating, the principle is growing and thus the next interest payment will be that much higher. Clinton did nothing to lower the principle when he had the oppertunity. Neither did the GOP Congress, but they have not been running around for the last five years complaining that it had not been done either.

[scfire86]

DM: You asked:

How does the interest on the debt not increase?

If the principle doesn't increase, say because you haven't added to the principle because the budget is balanced, the interest won't increase either. Pretty simple.

[DennisTheMenace]

DM: You asked:



If the principle doesn't increase, say because you haven't added to the principle because the budget is balanced, the interest won't increase either. Pretty simple.
Yes but you ignore the fact that the interest has not always been paid, it accumulates and we are forced to pay interest on the interest, each interest payment defered, which is something that happaned a lot during the Clinton administration, adds to the principle on which the interst is based. The "debt clock never came to a complete stop, and never reversed direction, it just slowed down enough to not be as dramatic as it once was.

[scfire86]

The "debt clock never came to a complete stop, and never reversed direction, it just slowed down enough to not be as dramatic as it once was.

Compared to its current spinning like a top, which is preferable?

[DennisTheMenace]

Compared to its current spinning like a top, which is preferable?
Doesn't matter in this discussion, I was right and you were not, nahhnahhnannaahhnann ;) :D

[DaSharkie]

Doesn't matter what party anyone is. Neither party cares about the citizen.

No politician cares about the individual either. They care about 3 things: Power, money, and keeping their jobs. They will do anything to get as many of the three as possible.

Both parties are full of politicians. Very few public servants (yes there is a difference between the two) exist in either party.

Don't believe me? Watch the news or the Sunday morning politics shows. Politicians up there yammering away against the other side, not saying a damn thing about the people affected - us. The taxpayer. The citizen.


My Merriam - Webster's defines politician as:

1) a person experienced in the art or science of government.
2) a person engaged in party politics as a profession.
3) a person interested in political office for selfish reason t other narro, usually short-sighted reasons.

Pretty much sums up the dirtbag twits we have in office at all levels of government. The longer we keep letting these twits stay in office the worse our country will get, regardless of which party is in power.

The citizens have given up our power and given it to the politicians. Many of us are too stupid to realize it.

[FireAndy]

I consider myself a conservative, however, there are some things I am conservative about and others I am liberal about.

I vote based on best candidates and the best things for me and my community. I don't let my party affiliation automatically cast my vote.

[xploded]

Conservative thru and thru. Not tied to GOP or Dem.

[DaSharkie]

Oh, I probably should have answered the question originally posted in the question huh?

I am a registered Republican, but when my schedule allows in a few weeks I will most likely head to the County Courthouse to change it to Libertarian (if I actually remember to.)

[DennisTheMenace]

Doesn't matter what party anyone is. Neither party cares about the citizen.True, a party represents its members, not the individual citizens.

No politician cares about the individual either. They care about 3 things: Power, money, and keeping their jobs. They will do anything to get as many of the three as possible. False, you must not know any politicians personally. There is little money in it and power takes a very long time to accumulate. Almost every politician has taken that road of life because they do want to help individuals and have an oppertunity to have a positive impact on society. Their philosophies on how to help may very greatly, but their end goals are almost all the same. To make America(or what ever country they are in) a better place for all.

Both parties are full of politicians. Very few public servants (yes there is a difference between the two) exist in either party.The word you are looking for is NOT "Public Servents", anyone that serves qualifies for that, teachers, town garbage men, firemen, police, street sweeper, guy who sets the timeing on stop lights, etc. The word you are looking for is "Statesmen", and yes we are lacking that in our elected officials who sometimes put party ahead of constituents, but they do exist, you just have to look with an open mind.

Don't believe me? Watch the news or the Sunday morning politics shows. Politicians up there yammering away against the other side, not saying a damn thing about the people affected - us. The taxpayer. The citizen.You must not listen too much, because that is all that they are talking about, how they can help better then the other guy. The solutions just get hidden in the debate sometimes.



My Merriam - Webster's defines politician as:

1) a person experienced in the art or science of government.
2) a person engaged in party politics as a profession.
3) a person interested in political office for selfish reason t other narro, usually short-sighted reasons. Your third definition is actually a "b" not a third category. Seems that you know the art of spin and are being a little political here yourself for your own philosophical reasons.

Pretty much sums up the dirtbag twits we have in office at all levels of government. The longer we keep letting these twits stay in office the worse our country will get, regardless of which party is in power. Could say the same of cops and firefighters that abuse the trust placed upon them that makes the front pages too often.

The citizens have given up our power and given it to the politicians. Many of us are too stupid to realize it. The only citizens that have given up their power are those that do not get involved in the process and those that refuse to vote for what ever reason.

[DaSharkie]

1 - I don't know them personally. Politicians are career folks. Public servants wish to actually help folks.

I have yet to see a politician make the lot in life better for many folks. If you take a look at the political stances of a party and its politicians, they do not seem to solve an issue as then they lose that issue - but they will rail like heck about it.

Personally, there is a difference between a politician and one who holds a political office. Just how I feel, like it or not.

2 - If I meant "Statesman" I would have said it. You are paid to serve the public (whether you do or not is a different story) therefore you are a public servant.

You can call them what you want, but I will call them as I wish to.

I have not seen a "Statesman" in a very long time, if ever.

3 - OK. SO they talk about the "little guy" but I have yet to see them help the "little guy."

4 - So it is a "b." It is still a listed definition. Taken on it's own, it is a definition.

I was not trying to spin anything. I was listing the definitions. Do you really think that it would make a difference if I had put a "b" in front of it instead of a "3?" Thank your for your attempt to interpret my mind.

5 - I do say the same thing about police officers and firefighters on the front page. I don't see a whole lot of stuff about politicians there. When I do, I say the same thing.

6 - We are both correct. If you do not vote, you have given up a right. If you continue to elect people who chip away at your rights by passing laws, you have done the same thing.

Either way, we all lose. Nothing will change, the politicians are counting on it.

[stm4710]

Toga Party!!!!!!

http://supak.com/images/posters/Animal_House_Belushi_Toga.jpg

[medicmaster]

I'll ressurect it!

1 - I don't know them personally. Politicians are career folks. Public servants wish to actually help folks.

I have yet to see a politician make the lot in life better for many folks. If you take a look at the political stances of a party and its politicians, they do not seem to solve an issue as then they lose that issue - but they will rail like heck about it.

Personally, there is a difference between a politician and one who holds a political office. Just how I feel, like it or not.

2 - If I meant "Statesman" I would have said it. You are paid to serve the public (whether you do or not is a different story) therefore you are a public servant.

You can call them what you want, but I will call them as I wish to.

I have not seen a "Statesman" in a very long time, if ever.

3 - OK. SO they talk about the "little guy" but I have yet to see them help the "little guy."

4 - So it is a "b." It is still a listed definition. Taken on it's own, it is a definition.

I was not trying to spin anything. I was listing the definitions. Do you really think that it would make a difference if I had put a "b" in front of it instead of a "3?" Thank your for your attempt to interpret my mind.

5 - I do say the same thing about police officers and firefighters on the front page. I don't see a whole lot of stuff about politicians there. When I do, I say the same thing.

6 - We are both correct. If you do not vote, you have given up a right. If you continue to elect people who chip away at your rights by passing laws, you have done the same thing.

Either way, we all lose. Nothing will change, the politicians are counting on it.

I'm with ya Sharkie....I agree with you 100%!!!!

To quote Hunter S. Thompson--"Don't take any guff from these f*cking swine!!"

[scfire86]

The only citizens that have given up their power are those that do not get involved in the process and those that refuse to vote for what ever reason.

Great point DM. Colin Powell has a great line. "Decisions are made by those who show up". And looking at voter turnout, many are abdicating their right to make decisions by not showing up.