Draft the war hawks.

[Cypress]

The Democratic Party too often looks to government to solve issues before they search for a different solution. When I see how poorly run government programs can be, I fear such solutions. Too often, instead of seeking a personal responsibility, they are willing to give more to the government to solve...

This could have come from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh

Damo, the notion that the Democratic Party, or anybody on the center-left wants government to "run your life" is absurd.

Government is merely a tool. A tool which can be used effectively, or ineffectively. The whole point of the New Deal and subsequent programs, was to reduce risk for americans, and invest in opportunity for them. Not to "run their lives".

Can anyone credibly make the case that loans and grants for students and veterans for college is "running anyones life", as opposed to providing more opportunity to more americans? Can anyone say that a retirement insurance program (SS) or medicare for americans isn't merely reducing risk and uncertainty, rather than running someone's life? Can anyone credibly say that FDRs rural electrification program and public works programs weren't intended to equitably build infrastructure across the country, and stimulating economic growth?

Damo, America became the richest nation on the planet in the decades after the new deal. And we became a fairer, more equitable society in relative comparison to the Gilded Age of the late 19th and 20th century.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, the notion that the Democratic Party, or anybody on the center-left wants government to "run your life" is absurd.

Point out the "run your life" portion of my post. I'll wait.

 

[Damocles]

I say, "too often look first to government to provide solutions".

You read, "they want to run your life"?

Come on. That is so much the strawman it hardly bears mentioning. It has to be the worst rendering of what I meant that I have ever read. I have been miscontrued before, but not to this level.

 

[uscitizen]

The republicans want to run your life on a personal level but not on a corporate level.

 

[uscitizen]

Damo show me where the Republicans have reduced govt ?

 

[Cypress]

Point out the "run your life" portion of my post. I'll wait.

Okay, fair enough. You said Democrats look to goverment to "solve problems".

I don't see how giving americans more opportunity to succeed on their own, through educational grants, and health care when they get old is "solving their problems". I see it as extending opportunity to a wider swath of americans, and reducing risk to them. That was the whole point of moving beyond the Gilded Age. Unfettered lassaize faire capitalism created inordinate amounts of risk, and an unlevel playing field of opportunity for most americans.

 

[Damocles]

The republicans want to run your life on a personal level but not on a corporate level.

The religious right wants to run your life at a personal level. This is like saying I stated that "Democrats want government to run your life". I didn't. It's absurd.

 

[Damocles]

Okay, fair enough. You said Democrats look to goverment to "solve problems".

I don't see how giving americans more opportunity to succeed on their own, through educational grants, and health care when they get old is "solving their problems". I see it as extending opportunity to a wider swath of americans, and reducing risk to them. That was the whole point of moving beyond the Gilded Age. Unfettered lassaize faire capitalism created inordinate amounts of risk, and an unlevel playing field of opportunity for most americans.

And once again, "too often" IMO doesn't mean that government should do nothing. This is once again a misconstruction.

There is a fundamental center that every time some portion of a conceived problem exists, the first thing that I see is "there oughtta be a law". IMO, in most cases, there oughtn't be so many laws...

 

[Cypress]

And once again, "too often" IMO doesn't mean that government should do nothing. This is once again a misconstruction.

There is a fundamental center that every time some portion of a conceived problem exists, the first thing that I see is "there oughtta be a law". IMO, in most cases, there oughtn't be so many laws...

Sorry that I hijacked the thread Darla. It's my fault. If this goes on, we can start a new thread.

Damo, now your talking about laws, as opposed to programs. There are a lot of laws. And local center-left legislators certainly have been responsible for a lot of laws libertarians don't like: seat belt laws, smoking laws, etc. These are at the local and state level.

As far a laws that truly impinge on personal freedom and civil rights, I'd say that it's the Cons that are most guilty. Patriot act, laws against homosexuality, drug laws, abortion laws, wiretapping, spying on americans, curtailing free speech, etc.

So, are we talking about goverment programs in the areas of education, healthcare, and consumer protection? Or are we talking about the myriad of laws at the local and state level that piss off some libertarians?

 

[Cancel7]

Sorry that I hijacked the thread Darla. It's my fault. If this goes on, we can start a new thread.

Damo, now your talking about laws, as opposed to programs. There are a lot of laws. And local center-left legislators certainly have been responsible for a lot of laws libertarians don't like: seat belt laws, smoking laws, etc. These are at the local and state level.

As far a laws that truly impinge on personal freedom and civil rights, I'd say that it's the Cons that are most guilty. Patriot act, laws against homosexuality, drug laws, abortion laws, wiretapping, spying on americans, curtailing free speech, etc.

So, are we talking about goverment programs in the areas of education, healthcare, and consumer protection? Or are we talking about the myriad of laws at the local and state level that piss off some libertarians?

Is this my thread? What was it about?

I dont care! Threads have lives of their own, and I'm a threadbuster from way back. No worries. It's an interesting discussion.

 

[Damocles]

Sorry that I hijacked the thread Darla. It's my fault. If this goes on, we can start a new thread.

Damo, now your talking about laws, as opposed to programs. There are a lot of laws. And local center-left legislators certainly have been responsible for a lot of laws libertarians don't like: seat belt laws, smoking laws, etc. These are at the local and state level.

Really it is both. Democrats consistently take a position that I believe to be too government-centric.

As far a laws that truly impinge on personal freedom and civil rights, I'd say that it's the Cons that are most guilty. Patriot act, laws against homosexuality, drug laws, abortion laws, wiretapping, spying on americans, curtailing free speech, etc.

Especially with the drug laws, homosexuality, I'd agree in some cases. However, less often are they at odds to my central belief to look elsewhere for a solution first, government should be the last not the first resort.

We'll take a current example. Instead of just taking and making it even more illegal to own guns (already illegal at campuses in Virginia) by making more laws I would look to the policies that allowed the man to continue shooting people unafraid of being assailed by somebody equally armed as well. Why are there not teachers that can volunteer to be trained for just such a circumstance and armed to harden rather than soften the target by insuring that even less people would have the means to protect the kids if somebody decided to do this at another school?

So, are we talking about goverment programs in the areas of education, healthcare, and consumer protection? Or are we talking about the myriad of laws at the local and state level that piss off some libertarians?

We are talking about both.

 

[Cypress]

Damo, can you give me a few examples of where Democrats tried to use the government, to solve a problem that either didn't exist, or that was already being adequatly handled through the free market or the private sector?

I need to know what you're talking about, before I respond.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, can you give me a few examples of where Democrats tried to use the government, to solve a problem that either didn't exist, or that was already being adequatly handled through the free market or the private sector?

I need to know what you're talking about, before I respond.

I really don't need another person to attempt to convince me to be a Democrat, Cypress.

Anyway, laws such as non-smoking in bars where instead of giving business owners a choice they went right from requiring that if they served alcohol a place for smokers was to be provided to denying them a place.

I gave the example with gun control.

Here in Denver, the Mayor is running a program where he gives houses to the addicts in the streets and thinks it will solve all the problems of homelessness, every republican that I know consistently says that we must first deal with the main problem of the homeless, the primary addiction before we just give them apartments without requirement.

Every republican, except those that are elected it seems, believes that closing the border before amnesty is the way to go, and that the requirements for staying be far stricter for those that return and apply legally. The Ds are sending a bill up that Bush loves, and that means no border and amnesty....

On and on. In almost every case the D Party is on an opposing side to mine, shouting and pointing fingers and attempting to make me evil.

One of the reasons I created this site was to be a place that people could realize that neither of the parties are evil. That almost all americans usually agree on principal. We all want to help the homeless, we just disagree on policy, and I find that in almost every case the Ds are on a different side than me on that.

The Rs sometimes are as well, but they more often will align with my beliefs. Since we have a two-party system I align with the party that more often will align with my belief.

 

[uscitizen]

The religious right wants to run your life at a personal level. This is like saying I stated that "Democrats want government to run your life". I didn't. It's absurd.

and which party has been hand in hand with the religious righ for quite a few years now ? Surely not liberals who many of the religious right link with satan.

 

[Cypress]

Anyway, laws such as non-smoking in bars where instead of giving business owners a choice they went right from requiring that if they served alcohol a place for smokers was to be provided to denying them a place.

Okay, but smoking laws is almost a trivial example of local government policies. And even repubican mayors support smoking bans in public places. I don't see how this is a fundamental example that keeps you from being a democrat.

I gave the example with gun control.

Here in Denver, the Mayor is running a program where he gives houses to the addicts in the streets and thinks it will solve all the problems of homelessness, every republican that I know consistently says that we must first deal with the main problem of the homeless, the primary addiction before we just give them apartments without requirement.

I don't know anything about this. I can't even address it, since I don't know the details. Again, it's a local issue that is totally under the radar, in discussing the national policy and core platform of the Democratic party.

Every republican, except those that are elected it seems, believes that closing the border before amnesty is the way to go, and that the requirements for staying be far stricter for those that return and apply legally. The Ds are sending a bill up that Bush loves, and that means no border and amnesty....

Either way, you're talking about a governement solution - whether it be closing the border, or adopting a more comprehensive policy. I was asking about where the Democrats look to government for solutions first. That was your complaint. This example you cited, involves both parties looking for a government solution.

 

[Damocles]

and which party has been hand in hand with the religious righ for quite a few years now ? Surely not liberals who many of the religious right link with satan.

Yet they are only a portion of, not the entirety of, the party.

 

[Damocles]

Okay, but smoking laws is almost a trivial example of local government policies. And even repubican mayors support smoking bans in public places. I don't see how this is a fundamental example that keeps you from being a democrat.



I don't know anything about this. I can't even address it, since I don't know the details. Again, it's a local issue that is totally under the radar, in discussing the national policy and core platform of the Democratic party.



Either way, you're talking about a governement solution - whether it be closing the border, or adopting a more comprehensive policy. I was asking about where the Democrats look to government for solutions first. That was your complaint. This example you cited, involves both parties looking for a government solution.

Which is why I said it was a "generic" explanation.

Look, two other people went on rhapsodic about how evil the Rs are and opposite to their views, I am not going to spend hours typing responses to their beliefs and attempting to convince them they are wrong. Because I know them to be intelligent enough people to realize what they are voting on. Either you think I am some 'tard without the capacity to understand, or you are just arguing for argument's sake here.

It was a response to the "I don't understand why he is a republican" remark and not meant to be a deeper inquiry into what I think is wrong with the Democratic Party.

 

[Cypress]

Which is why I said it was a "generic" explanation.

Look, two other people went on rhapsodic about how evil the Rs are and opposite to their views, I am not going to spend hours typing responses to their beliefs and attempting to convince them they are wrong. Because I know them to be intelligent enough people to realize what they are voting on. Either you think I am some 'tard without the capacity to understand, or you are just arguing for argument's sake here.

Either you think I am some 'tard without the capacity to understand, or you are just arguing for argument's sake here

I don't think you're a tard. I simply asked you for examples of where Democrats, in knee-jerk fashion, look to governement solutions to problems. It was the reason you stated you couldn't vote democratic. Smoking laws is not a great example to hang your hat on.

 

[Damocles]

Okay, but smoking laws is almost a trivial example of local government policies. And even repubican mayors support smoking bans in public places. I don't see how this is a fundamental example that keeps you from being a democrat.



I don't know anything about this. I can't even address it, since I don't know the details. Again, it's a local issue that is totally under the radar, in discussing the national policy and core platform of the Democratic party.



Either way, you're talking about a governement solution - whether it be closing the border, or adopting a more comprehensive policy. I was asking about where the Democrats look to government for solutions first. That was your complaint. This example you cited, involves both parties looking for a government solution.

And it isn't just "closing the border" or "adopting a more comprehensive policy" that is deliberately disingenuous. In both there is an adoption of a "more comprehensive policy", it is just in one dealing with the source as well as the end result is apparent.

And I stated before that not all government response is wrong, just that it should be the last resort. In this case, it is a power granted in the constitution to the government to secure the borders.

 

[Damocles]

Either you think I am some 'tard without the capacity to understand, or you are just arguing for argument's sake here

I don't think you're a tard. I simply asked you for examples of where Democrats, in knee-jerk fashion, look to governement solutions to problems. It was the reason you stated you couldn't vote democratic. Smoking laws is not a great example to hang your hat on.

I didn't say I "couldn't vote democratic" that is an overstatement. It was a response to the remark of Darla's "I don't understand why he is a republican"...