Reflective Party, a Possibility? (414 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.56 on 13 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by calbearspolo (View user info) at 2004-07-23 17:00:17 EDT
While this post has a political theme, it is not, and I repeat NOT, about either why I love/hate Bush or Kerry. It's merely some thoughts with a hopefully humorous edge.
*****
As long as I have known politics I have been on the conservative side of most issues. For most people in my shoes, they are forced to identify with the Republican party. I, however, can't stand the Republican party. I find it an ultra-religious, hide-behind-the-flag patriotism, power hungry elitists. Their perpetual insistence on family values tied almost exclusively to the Christian church pisses me off to no end. Their motto has pretty much become "If you disagree with us, it must be that you are unpatriotic (or gay and therefore a sinner)."
On the other hand, the Democratic party represents almost nothing I find politically worthwhile. Having grown up and attended school in Berkeley, California (arguably the most liberal area of our country), I have heard almost every argument for a Democratic cause, many by extremely intelligent and thoughtful people, and still find them lacking. Not only that, their recent political stance has been the figurative equivalent of "If you have to pick the lesser of two evils, at least we're not Bush and therefore the lesser." Poor argument at best.
I am a conservative without a cause.
The thing is, the way I see it, is that a lot of the Democrats I know would be "conservatives" if they truly examined their political stances on many issues. Maybe it's because I am a conservative idealist.
"-2 you ass-wipe, you're a peener who doesn't know anything about politics!" you might say.
Maybe, but follow me for a moment, if you would. I believe in the smallest federal government we can possibly muster. Next to no social programs at all, tiny tax rate, and minimal bureaucracy. The federal government's purpose is defending the nation, setting a basic education requirement, stabilizing a common currency,... and that's about it.
"That's so ignorant you ghey menz!" you scream.
Not really. Shouldn't the states have more power? If a state classifies certain social programs, infrastructure, and socialized health-care in its best interest, let the STATE have higher taxes and tax benefits to pay for it. Imagine, portions of your paychecks not going to some unknown person across the country unemployment or housing or flu shots, but someone in your very own community. This way, the person who you are financially assisting through the local government can make a positive impact in your community by getting back on their feet in a manner that also directly helps you as well. Understand that this is truly a conservative point of view, conservation of state autonomy.
Now it seems a lot of the liberal platform these days is trying to point out how we are all the same and should all be treated equally. This, most recently, has manifested itself in the form of "gay" marriage argument for "equal rights." My question is: what is wrong with accepting that people can different from each other, but equally able? Yes, white people and black people ARE different (shocking I know), but are equally capable of any aspiration or job. Gay couples ARE different than strait ones, and are currently treated the same under the law (Before you argue, hear me out for two more sentences: two men, no matter what sexuality, cannot marry. Two strait men cannot marry, two gay men cannot marry). But what we need is a UNION between all couples that is treated equally by government, health care providers, insurance providers, etc.
"ATTENTION GHEY MENZ! This man is craptastic and hates you!" you slander.
Realistically, this might mean NO ONE can get married by the state, only a religious institution can perform such an act. The state, then, could then have the ultimate power to grant these "unions" to whatever couple requires one, gay or strait. This would "save" the institution of marriage for the religious right, AND treat all couples equally under the law. The key here, is again, preserving the ultimate power of the state. Make the state's union the supreme word, leaving the federal government out—like the fat kid during dodge ball.
"Your [sic] still a GHEY MENZ, please die!" you -2 me.
Alright. Perhaps a political commentary isn't always well received. But my proposition is this: why not have another party? Surely there is someone who sees value in the arguments I have made, a conservative who dislikes the GOP's base or a liberal who knows inherently that the Democrats don't represent you particularly well.
"Fine, let's call it 'Put it in your POOPER Party!'"
For fuck's sake, I can't win with you people.
User Reviews
Submitted by calbearspolo (user info) at 2004-07-26 13:13:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-07-24 15:45:56 (#)
Ranking: -2
The thing is, the way I see it, is that a lot of the Democrats I know would be "conservatives" if they truly examined their political stances on many issues. Maybe it's because I am a conservative idealist.
____________
Or maybe it's because you're incredibely arrogant, misinformed, and presumptuous. Jackass.
________________________________________________________________
I'm sorry, this could be the funniest post I have ever seen. I honestly have tears in my eyes. She basically states the exact next line from my original post, which was me saying that someone would -2 by insulting me then calling me "misinformed." I may have used the phrase 'stupid peener,' but the effect was the exact same. *chortle*
Alright, I'm done.
BAAWAAAHAHA!
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-07-24 15:45:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The thing is, the way I see it, is that a lot of the Democrats I know would be "conservatives" if they truly examined their political stances on many issues. Maybe it's because I am a conservative idealist.
____________
Or maybe it's because you're incredibely arrogant, misinformed, and presumptuous. Jackass.
Submitted by Brianthetruthspeaker (user info) at 2004-07-24 15:04:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No matter what you want Buch will win this election because Hillary Clinton wants to run for President in 2008, If Kerry wins she can not, its that simple.
You might not like Buch; we have him for four more years.
And if you think that Mrs. Clinton can run even if Kerry is elected you need help.
Submitted by gibberish (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:57:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Great political commentary. I agree 100%.
I'd join your party.
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:38:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
utter and complete fucking garbage.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:24:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Not bad. Develop it more and you'd have the beginnings of a real political philosophy.
Submitted by calbearspolo (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:20:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:11:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think your aim with this post was to, so to speak, shoot a funny paintball at a single target. Instead you've managed an unfocused and uninspired arguement that looks more like shitty ugly abstract art. It isn't funny at all, either.
______________________________________________________________
Hugely political rants are rarely received well here, this was purposefully just brushing the subject. I could point out the huge reasons why I am ultra conservative, but then people would miss the overall statement because they are pissed at my political views and -2 on that alone. By staying to a more general topic (and somewhat non-controvesial stances), hopefully people will at least read the whole post before whipping out the -2 gun.
My approach was intended, scattered as it may seem (although I appreciate your comments).
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:19:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by disAbled (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:14:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You are a libertarian.
+1 for advocating limeted government
+1 for advocating relinquishment of federal power to the states.
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:12:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:05:51 (#)
Ranking: 2
I like the part where you stopped writing."
That part was funny, okay.
Submitted by Murphy1844 (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:11:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think your aim with this post was to, so to speak, shoot a funny paintball at a single target. Instead you've managed an unfocused and uninspired arguement that looks more like shitty ugly abstract art. It isn't funny at all, either.
In terms of granting more power to state's... TIRED. Heard it before. It's a good idea and it's non-partisan. Aren't you supposed to be proving why you are a conservative? Then you think the idea of a third party is better!? Huh? But wait, in between these two polar-opposite and unrelated issues, you managed to write something and nothing at the same time about gay marriage and black people. Once again, huh? Cut taxes but retain worthwhile educational and social programs, right? Heard it before. Doesn't make sense.
But you went to a UNIVERSITY!? YOU MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY! Wrong. This is a fatal assumption on your part.
Murphy
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:05:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I like the part where you stopped writing.
Submitted by calbearspolo (user info) at 2004-07-23 17:02:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Obviously there are other current political issues that have not been discussed here, but an 18 page post is a terrible idea and hopefully the point is still made.