I was responding to this statement:
I simply asked you to demonstrate, in a fundamental way, how it is you percieve the democrats to be a party that too often looks for government solutions.
other than the trivial example of smoking bans, you focused on abortion, guns, and illegal immigration. All of which suggests that you don't neccessarily have a complaint with Democrats relying on "government solutions" -- but rather you prefer the republicans "government solutions".
So, I think we've resolved that your problem isn't that Democrats rely on government solutions. You just prefer the republican government solutions.
right?
Now, let's see if I was being honest in my response to you...
Damo:
I wouldn't be a D because they have a fundamental difference that is very difficult to overcome.
Generically it can be basically expressed this way:
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...
In that I didn't say I couldn't vote for a D, I said that I couldn't BE a D. This was a loosely structured response to the remark of how somebody didn't know why I was an R.
Notice how I said "generically" and "basic" in that post? Hmmm...
It seems I was precise in my description of my post.
Did you notice what it was in answer to? I was also honest about that.
You are being dishonest about what I said to the point of deliberate disingenuousness.
I then did demonstrate several things on which I was speaking, each were quick and easy responses, basically designed to get the thread back on track. You just automatically assumed I was speaking "big government", when I wasn't, and that I said that I "couldn't vote D". I am pragmatic enough to know that government grows under both parties.
I think Hillarycare was a clear example of looking to the government for a solution to a perceived problem. Instead of "setting the bar" as in your example previous, it relegated to the government much of what should never be relegated to the government. It is a very real example of what I perceive to be a fundamental difference in thought.
I think that your perception of the "government will never ban guns" is good as a pragmatic view, but that your party's restrictions are often a look to the government first response to such things as Virginia Tech. And the position many in your party take is not "they will never be banned". Those positions do not align with my opinion.
And as I stated, it was a very generic description.
