why i am not a democrat
with advent of two of my favortie democrats getting the oppourtunity of life time-spending a summer with me, working at camp phillip-i decided that i should post some thoughts as to why i am not a democrat. ill also note that im avoiding the topic of terrorism and national security, maybe ill write about that later but now i want to focus on 2 other things: abortion and economics
abortion has been in the news alot primarily because of the bush supreme court appointees which lead to a domino effect. amazing how 2 non elected officials have so much power to decide what the law of the land is not simply how to interrpret the laws. the most fascinating has prolly been a law past in one of the dakotas completely banning aborting, except to save the mother but including rape and incest. i think this is awesome but has been underreported since no one cares about the state of south dakota and not many people in the press believe it is legit. i dont know if it is or not but its definetly progress. the article i read focused more on the pro-choice reaction to women who felt bad about their abortion this really fascinates me because i cant even imagine how a woman would feel after killing her baby. a college student i work with at mcdonalds is a single mom and her name is steph. one girl at work asked steph about being a single mom and being pregnant. steph completely shocked the chick and said that she loved being pregnant and loved being a mom. i could tell this not only by what she said but because her expression completely changed when she talked about it, and she said the words, "one day youll know what i mean." i guess the point im trying to make is that i dont know how a woman could deny that abortion is murder. i mean that fetal tissue could just have easily been me and here i am, werent we all once fetal tissue? furthermore the article noted that most abortion clinics supported both post abortion counseling and parental notification even when many on the pro-choice lobbying groups dont. the clinics want healthy patients and counseling and involved parents can both help. the pro-choice lobbying groups see these as chinks in the armor of abortion legallity. focusing on how women feel after abortion or the process on how to get it are important, because they point to the fact that abortion is the ending of a human life, and that causes the guilt a woman would feel after an abortion. what parent would want their child to experience that kind of guilt? what society can allow people to murder the unborn much less the guilt women experience?
now i understand that being a democrat does not always mean that you support a women's right to an abortion. but the democratic party is the "prochoice" party at the very least. it is highly incluenced by pro choice lobbying groups and if john kerry had been elected john roberts and sam alito would not be on the highest court in the land and abortion would still be legal in south dakota. i could never vote democrat because i know that as minimal as the election is, im voting for the party that supports abortion, and i cannot and will not do that.
the matter of economics is far more complicated but ill explain it as best i can. i support the republicans because the party supports tax cuts that cut everyone's taxes, not just the poor or middle class but heaven forbid, the rich too. taxes represent government intrusion on earnings. now they are necessary and inevitable but i want as little of them as possible, for everyone. when people have more money, they spend more money and the spending of money is the trade that our economy is built upon. the more we tax, the more we stifle people's willingness to work and make money. the more we stifle people's incomes, the more we stifle the economy. this is especially true for the rich, who can sometimes keep more money by taking a lower salary to stay in a lower tax bracket. this person gets more money, but not as much as he could and the government loses money that it could have gotten. what did bush do when he got elected? he lowered taxes. pretty simple and the economy has benefitted. the democrats opposed the tax cuts because they thought the government could not afford it. but despite deficits we have more tax income now, with tax cuts, than we did with higher tax cuts. the cuts stimulated growth, and growth also means more money for the government. tax cuts, for everyone, are good.
ill write more on this later, especially free trade, but right now im gonna go to bed.
posted by schleef at 7:55 PM
28 Comments:
South Dakota has almost made up for electing Daschole for all those years....ok, not quite.
This case, or another one that will be passed soon, will undoubtedly be heard by the US supreme court. My question is does the law have an exception for when the life of the mother is in jeopardy? If it does not, there is not a chance that it will pass the supreme court, nor should it.
The argument that the abortion issue should be thrown off the table is understandable when it comes to representatives, but is absolutely ludicrous when it comes to the presidency. It is absolutely necessary to elect pro-life candidates to the presidency because of the power that office has. It appoints the people that have the ability to determine how the laws are to be interpreted. You also must be careful when electing senators to not vote for d-bags like Kennedy who will not respect even a qualified nominee simply because of philosophical differences. I believe that the Wisconsin senators have done a fair job of fulfilling their role as advisors to the president's nominees, but I still can't stand either of them.
Democrats are socialists. That's all there is to it.
Good post. I'm sure I'll write more later after the democrats get a chance to talk back.
Tue Feb 28, 09:07:00 PM
The thing is schleef, for the most part I know why are you a Republican and I respect why you are a Republican. And at another time (not at 1130 at night) I will tell you why I am a democrat. I will say that gun control is something I feel strongly about, where do you stand?
Tue Feb 28, 09:23:00 PM
I like guns. I believe in the second amendment. In a nutshell, that's where I stand. I could expand if given more specific thoughts on which to expand.
Tue Feb 28, 09:24:00 PM
the laws only exception was on the health of the mother. pretty straightforward. sarah i would love to hear your views on this kinda stuff. i think its a citizen's right to own a gun. but a person can lose that right by convicting a felony. so i also support background checks and other general checks on the system.
Wed Mar 01, 03:06:00 PM
are you one of those "guns don't kill people, people kill people" people? lot of peoples in that sentence.
Wed Mar 01, 03:30:00 PM
pretty much. when i was at david moldenhauer's house we shot 22s in his basement. the only people that got hurt were plastic army men and they had it coming. when i see a gun, i see a tool. just like when i see a knife or a screw driver. the obvious difference is that a gun's one purpose is to kill, its not good for cutting ropes or useful in putting up a sattelite dish but when i want to go hunting, it gets the job done. i dont think banning guns will stop people who want to kill people from killing each other. cain didnt need a gun to do abel in. now a gun does make killing much easier than it would be with a club, but the murderer is responsible in either case. another reason people die from guns is accidental firings, that is their own fault and the government is not going to take away my rights because some idiot got drunk and blew his head off. i guess the biggest problem is that owning a gun requires responsibility. you need to keep it from kids, you need to not shoot yourself, keep the safety on, take care of it. lots of things. if you cant do those things, you should not have a gun. could the government effectively decide who should have a gun and who should not? no way. as a citizen of the united states of america i have the right to either own a gun or not. if we let each individual have a say in who gets to be leader of the free world, i think each indiviual can decide whether or not to buy a gun.
Wed Mar 01, 03:47:00 PM
Do you own a gun? If not, do you plan on owning a gun? Would owning a gun make you feel safer?
Wed Mar 01, 04:52:00 PM
I do not own a gun, but I do plan on buying one whenver I get enough money. I wouldn't really feel safer or less safe. But, maybe that's just because I'm huge. Although, it must be the right of the people to own guns so they can protect themselves from the government. If the government can take away guns, they can take away any of our other rights. This country, like it or not, was founded by people like you and me owning guns and using them against an oppressive government. If a government becomes destructive to those ends, it is the duty of the people to abolish it or alter it. Without guns, that would be impossible.
Wed Mar 01, 06:36:00 PM
i dont own a gun, my dad does and if we hunt i just use his. i dont really plan on buying a gun but one day i probly will for at the very least, recreation (shooting a gun is fun). i dont think having one would make me feel safer, but that has more to do with me living in a village with a population of 5000 than anything else. if i lived in a high crime neighborhood i would probly buy one if i ever had to protect my family.
Wed Mar 01, 06:51:00 PM
Thank you for your response. I did appreciate it that it wasn't just like "guns are cool. I like so shoot small animals." Maybe you are a LITTLE less of a redneck than i thought:)
Thu Mar 02, 02:05:00 PM
you do realize he is not joking
Thu Mar 02, 08:21:00 PM
"ill also note that im avoiding the topic of terrorism and national security..." Way to sound just like Bush!!
Fri Mar 03, 11:43:00 PM
After reading two of his comments, I can conclude that our leader is not very intelligent. At least that's what he's led me to believe. It was quite clear that Schleef was not avoiding those topics because he doesn't feel comfortable talking about them, but because he wanted to focus on other issues.
When you were talking about President Bush avoiding these topics, were you referring to when he, through his leadership, removed the Al-Qaeda from power in the only country they controlled, or when he took out the heart of terrorism in the middle east? They're both excellent examples.
If you want an example of someone avoiding terrorism, you went one president too far. I think that better examples of avoiding terrorism would be when President Clinton pulled out of Somalia because the terrorists attacked, or when the US embassy was bombed and he didn't do anything about it, or when the USS Kohl was attacked. The fact is, because of President Clinton's "leadership" (as well as some of the presidents before him), terrorists got the message that if they would attack the United States that there would be no consequences. They thought, and rightly so, that we would simply run and hide. Thank God that George W. Bush won the election, because now they know otherwise.
Think before your comment, and have your comments pertain to reality.
Sat Mar 04, 06:41:00 AM
Saudi Arabia was the heart of terrorism im afraid, and still is... Hopefully we will bomb that place soon. Bush hasn't bombed anybody in a 'coons age, and frankly im starting to question if his heart is really in the right place. C'mon guys... Al Qaeda is still at large and controls Sothern Iraq.
Sat Mar 04, 09:52:00 AM
For the love of God! Iraq is the geographical center of the middle east and Al-Qaeda did have a huge influence there. Removing Saddam's regime from power in Iraq did a lot more for the safety of the United States than bombing Saudi Arabia would, although I did pick up on the sarcastic tone.
Al-Qaeda certainly does not control southern Iraq, but they are present. I'm glad you realize that. Now would you stop pissing and moaning that we've made a mistake about going in there and we're fighting the wrong war and we need to get out now and all that. We picked the right place to invade and we will finish the job.
Sat Mar 04, 02:12:00 PM
I'm sorry, but who sheltered Osama bin Laden when his family disowned him. Oh yeah, that was the Saudi Royal Family. No connection though, he liked Saddam better. I never said we should get out...we have to finish the job now that we've destroyed the country. Iraq was never the major host for Al Qaeda, but Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia rather. We did the right thing when we took out the terrorist government there, but now Bush has got us caught up in his propaganda.
What would a middle class white boy like you know of suffering and death and wars? The fact is....both sides of our politics are corrupt today...
Republicans/Conservatives disregard the fact that has proven throughout history...power corrupts. They should've picked an honorable, non-corrupted man like Colin Powell to do their business. George Bush disgraces a Republican when he stands for limited government and is doing everything he can to expand his own.
Democrats/Liberals have no better solution, they just try to prove the other side wrong and that is stupid. Oh yeah, and a lot of them are baby killers.
The problem here is...both sides are rotting away. Everyone is so concerned with pleasing their liberal or conservative supporters, they are forgetting what is really good for the people.
Dear Mr. Bush,
Having Civil Liberties does not counter fighting terrorism. There are legal ways to fight it.
Signed,
Law-Abiding, trustworthy Americans
Sat Mar 04, 03:23:00 PM
Iraq was the geographical center of terrorism in the middle east. It connected Afghanistan and Iran to Saudi Arbia. When Saddam was in power, it was very easy for the terrorists to transport whatever they wanted in between these countries. Thus making it the biggest threat, and taking it out has started to weaken the terrorist threat like attacking no place else could. That's why we needed to attack Iraq.
What does me having white and parents with a job have anything to do with anything?
Sat Mar 04, 06:56:00 PM
Just out of curiousity Shinnick, do you think the war is going well? And really there were no sarcastic undertones in that question.
Sat Mar 04, 08:12:00 PM
Because I served in Iraq for the last 2 years before coming home in December. Let me tell you something, the war is not going well...media is highly biased on both sides, but only those who are doing George Bush's dirty work really know what is going on. You are a young teenage boy who reads his highly biased news reports everyday and likes to think that everything is going greatly and George Bush is your savior president. I'm sorry to spoil you little dreamland, son. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some positive things about this war. But the people are still in mass fear, and neither side is doing their people justice.
Sat Mar 04, 09:09:00 PM
I really don't like your tone. I do believe that if someone refuses to leave their name, they have no place in a conversation. If this were my blog, your posts would be deleted, but it's not so I can live with it, just try to be more respectful.
Is the war going well? I don't know. In reality, there are very few people that do know what's actually happening in Iraq. Not even this big bad anonymous can tell us how the war is going because they see it from one person's perspective and do not see the whole picture. If I had to guess, I suppose it depends on what your definition of "well" is. Is our military effective? Well, we have killed over 50 of our enemies for every one of our soldiers that's died, so there is absolutely no question that we have an extremely effective military. We have liberated a country. In my opinion, our country is safer now than it was three years ago. So, I guess I would have to say that from what I've seen the war is accomplishing what it was intended to do, so I would say it's going well.
Sun Mar 05, 08:38:00 AM
Shinnick, did your opinion of the war in Iraq change when it was discovered that Iraq had no WMDs and no connection to 911? Again, just trying to keep an open mind to the opinions of Republicans. So enlighten me, big guy.
Sun Mar 05, 12:13:00 PM
Iraq did have a connection with Al-Qaeda. That's pretty well documented. We have been capturing and killing many Al-Qaeda in Iraq. So, in my opinion, in Iraq we are fighting the same terrorists that attacked us on September 11th.
I still have not been convinced that there are not or never have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but just for your question's sake, let's assume that there are none and never have been any. Yes, in that case a large part of our incentive to go to war was based on faulty intelligence. (By the way, George W. Bush did not make that up. The entire world believed it to be true because there was actual intelligence supporting it.) Anyway...I still do believe that Iraq was a threat to our national security and was the next place we needed to fight the war on terror. So, in answer to your question: I do still support the war regardless of whether there are or ever have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Sun Mar 05, 12:26:00 PM
i find it rather ironic that so much comment space was spent on the topic that i specififically avoided. my conservative views go beyond national secruity and i wanted to highlight those views and give them some focus instead of the over beaten debate on iraq. furthermore the war on terror and the war in iraq especially, are incredibly emotionally charged topics and because of that it is hard for me to view them on a purely logical level. i do support the war on terror and the war in iraq. the president had enough reason to go to war in iraq as stated by kansas senator pat roberts who headed a commission on the intelligence leading to the war, "Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president as well as the Congress and the public that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade," the fact that no weapons have been found does not change the fact that the reasoning behind the war was a good one and we gotta finish what we started.
all that being said i still prefer talking about economics and abortion. they just seem to make more sense to me. life starts at conception. if it doesnt start there, then where does it start? lowering taxes helps the economy grow and expand while high taxes stifle growth. and as far as the war goes, ill keep praying for our soldiers, like my brother, and hope we can finish the job and accomplish some good for the people of iraq.
Mon Mar 06, 03:18:00 PM
By the way Jones, I will never be offended by you disagreeing with me. So go ahead and tell me what you believe and try to convince me to take your side. I really don't mind. I do realize that an opinion is something that a person possesses, it is not the person themselves, but something they hold on to. I wouldn't be so foolish as to be angry at someone or dislike them for their opinion. You never have to apologize for differing from my views, ever.
Mon Mar 06, 08:33:00 PM
in the words of relient k. "opinions are immunity from being told you're wrong. paper, rock and scissors, they all have their pros and cons."
Mon Mar 06, 09:09:00 PM
If we lower taxes during a time of war, where does the government get money? WHat happens when they don't have the money? Oh yeah, schools and government programs suffer. Then the same people don't want to pay taxes are ticked off. None of us want to pay high taxes, but during a time where we are spending close to 450 billion a year on the war, sometimes it is necessary to keep our country running efficiently.
You ever notice that every time a Republican screws up the economy a Democrat comes in and makes it better?
FDR, Kennedy, Clinton...
Yeah, damn those economically horrible Democratic presidents.
I hate the fact that a lot of Democrats stand for abortion, just as much as I hate the fact that a lot of Republicans are for capital punishment. Neither of them are right.
Tue Mar 07, 07:27:00 PM
the government's budget is so huge that the war could be covered by reduced spending and still have tax cuts. however we are inevitably going into debt but the majority of americans. id say its better long term to have low taxes and go into debt in the short term than raise taxes to stifle the debt but stifle the economy in the process.
as far as the presidents you mentioned, fdr's new deal was a failure. it boosted morale and did some good stuff but did nothing to get us out of the great depression, wwii did that. kennedy lowered taxes which was pretty sweet for a democrat. of course his vice president lbj skrewed up america with his "great society" and then skrewed up vietnam too. clinton's economy had more to do with the technology bubble than anything he actually did as president.
i believe murderers and pedophiles should be put to death. if you murder somebody you have destroyed the life of an innocent person and the only punishment befitting this crime is death. i have even less sympathy for pedophiles. if you rape a kid the government should kill you. it destroys the child's mental development and society should not tollerate the existence of someone who would prey on the innocent in such a manner.
Tue Mar 07, 08:03:00 PM
For an accurate religious view of the death penalty, check out my blog at http://stratman42.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-you-kill-someone-well-kill-ya-back.html#comments
I agree that George W. Bush has not taken the necessary actions to balance the budget. True conservatism means that if you spend extra money for something (like a war), then you cut elsewhere. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has not done that and that fiscal irresponsibility has driven this country further into debt than we've ever been before. Don't get me wrong, George W. Bush is the best man to lead our country right now, but his fiscal policies do tick me off. We certainly could conduct this war without running up a huge deficit or raising taxes. Conservatives are a dying breed....There needs to be another Ronald Reagan. Pressure your republican representatives to carry out the fiscal discipline that they preach!
Tue Mar 07, 08:13:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home