Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans The Internet United States Politics

How the GOP (and the Tea Party) Helped Kill SOPA 857

Posted by timothy
from the two-party-narrative dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Strengthening intellectual property enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for the past 25 years, but Stewart Baker writes in the Hollywood Reporter that when the fight went from the committees to the floor and Wikipedia went down, the Democratic and Republican parties reacted very differently to SOPA. 'Despite widespread opposition to SOPA from bloggers on the left, Democrats in Congress (and the administration) were reluctant to oppose the bill outright,' writes Baker. 'The MPAA was not shy about reminding them that Hollywood has been a reliable source of funding for Democratic candidates, and that it would not tolerate defections.' That very public message from the MPAA also reached another audience — Tea Party conservatives. Most of them had never given a second thought to intellectual property enforcement, but many had drawn support from conservative bloggers and they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them." (Read on, below.)
Pickens continues: "Pretty soon, far more Republicans than Democrats had bailed on SOPA, the Republican presidential candidates had all come out for what they called 'Internet freedom,' and now for Republicans, opposition to new intellectual property enforcement is starting to look like a political winner. 'It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, Hollywood and Silicon Valley,' concludes Baker, adding that unfortunately for Hollywood, as its customers migrate to the Internet, it is losing not just their money but their hearts and minds as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How the GOP (and the Tea Party) Helped Kill SOPA

Comments Filter:
  • Breaking news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh&gmail,com> on Friday February 03, 2012 @09:55AM (#38914039) Journal

    Dems backed by Hollywood and green tech, Repubs backed by fossil energy and military tech; parties found attacking opposition's supporters. Film at 11.

  • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hijacked Public (999535) on Friday February 03, 2012 @09:56AM (#38914063)

    Facts do make a lot of people angry.

  • Holy shit... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:00AM (#38914101)
    Did some politicians just say that it sometimes helps to listen to the electorate?

    MY HEAD A SPLODE.
  • Re:It's True (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:02AM (#38914113) Homepage Journal

    I don't agree. I think it shows that they are pretty much the same. Republicans "listened" because they weighed the potential political gain to be greater than the risk.

    Read mainstream press about anything involving the US government any more and you'll see that they don't skirt it - it's all about being elected, re-elected or gaining political leverage, apparently for it's own sake. Doing something with the military somewhere? Decisions based on strategy or national interest? No - they are based on political considerations. Setting fiscal policy. Is any of it based on anything other than if it helps or hurts your party? No.

    This shows a lot more of the same going on.

  • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:03AM (#38914115) Homepage Journal

    I don't think so; It looks to me like both parties are pretty damned sleazy here. Dems: "we have to support this because hollywood id paying us to." Repubs: "Hollywood is financing the Dems to pass this bill, so we must oppose it." Note they were for it until they realized opposing it was political gold.

    A pox on both their houses. BTW, the opportunity to "mod" a submission is in the fiirehose.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:08AM (#38914157)

    "they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them"

    seriously, it's taken the gop & tea nuts HOW many years to figure this out? I'm no fan of either but it's always amazed me how enthusiastically they've greased the rails for laws designed to divert cash-flow to their opponent's biggest donors...

    who knows? maybe there's hope that in another few decades they'll figure out fraud & forgery actually ARE crimes when committed by banks (not just individuals) or that molesting children & microwaving their parents doesn't make flying any safer or maybe even that spending $ arresting/prosecuting/incarcerating people for THC is basically setting it on fire...

    yes, I'm a wild optimist at heart...

  • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hijacked Public (999535) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:10AM (#38914179)
    Note that supporting it was literal gold.
  • Re:It's True (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:10AM (#38914187)

    Yes, because the Republican party has been very responsive in repealing the PATRIOT ACT and abolishing the TSA.

    And of course, the Tea Party has absolutely no problem with the government forcing their interpretation of Christianity down everyone's throats, e.g. no gay marriage, thus intruding into their lives.

  • Re:It's True (Score:1, Insightful)

    by cptdondo (59460) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:10AM (#38914189) Journal

    Unfortunately the Tea Part also showed its utter lack of understanding of government with the debt ceiling fiasco. It's one thing to say you HATE HATE HATE and want LESS government but it's another thing to argue from a point of total ignorance of realpolitik and global economics and just simply HATE and act like a 2 year old in the middle of a temper tantrum.

    Also, if the tea party wants LESS government, why is it so interested in using government to shove their religious/moral beliefs down my throat?

    Face it, the tea party is just another political party interested in using government to establish its own agenda and impose it on the rest of us.

  • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:10AM (#38914191)

    Facts do make a lot of people angry.

    They do me and I'm no better than anyone else - which also pisses me off because I want to be better than everyone else.

    Anyway, I have been making a concerted effort to read and understand the "otherside" myself. As a result, I've become quite moderate - I no longer consider myself libertarian; although my social leanings are quite liberal.

    But the thing that annoys me to no end is when I see folks parrot shit they heard or have seen in the electronic media.

    "Obama's socialist policies are ruining America!!"

    "Really? Which ones?", I ask.

    Of course, I very rarely get a conherant answer.

    On the other side, last night I heard about a Congressional testimony about Al-Qaeda and how it has become virtually nothing on a global scale and at least on a global scale, the threat of terrorism has declined dramatically. I couldn't help but "blame" Bush, Jr for that or at least getting the ball rolling.

    being a moderate in America is very lonely.

    Being an Atheirst Moderate means I have to live in a cave - with interent connectivity. I'm sub-leasing Bin Laden's.....

  • Re:here we go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX (665546) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:14AM (#38914213)

    Yeah, I love it how people these days forget that in politics, one has to look at the options, actually evaluate what these candidates have done in the past and what they claim they'll do now, and pick one that has the most in common with the realistic goals that they share.

    This, "Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening. I know that I am not going to agree with everything that is espoused or even actually held as a belief by a candidate that I choose from. I have to pick the candidate that I think will do the best job all around, and issue-politics and muckracking doesn't help me see the bulk of the positions that a given candidate takes, only the ones that the opponents of the candidate think will be the most onerous.

  • Re:It's True (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PortHaven (242123) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:14AM (#38914219) Homepage

    Yes, but the difference is that the Republican party is a divided party.

    1 Part - entrenched political corporate interest and bourgeois.

    1 Part - libertarian small government movement

    1 Part - religious conservative

    As such, it is often in more internal turmoil and conflict due to the divisions, but more likely to be pushed and changed on an issue due to the need of all three groups to support in opposition to the Democrat party which is over all more homogenous.

  • by TWX (665546) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:21AM (#38914287)

    Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.

    In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster than the Democrats do.

    As far as your commentary on restricting rights, BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.

  • by gweihir (88907) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:22AM (#38914307)

    You do realize that is how some of the most dangerous people ever were voted into office?

  • Re:It's True (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HBI (604924) <kparadine@@@gmail...com> on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:25AM (#38914351) Homepage Journal

    You're thinking about this, but you aren't coming to the right conclusion. The Democratic party is actually *more* fragmented than the Republicans. You could do similar to what you did for the Republicans for the Democrats:

    1 - Upscale liberals
    1 - Blacks
    1 - Union voters
    1 - Hispanics (the fuzziest part of all since they are only 60-70% for Democrats)

    As a Democrat, depending on the demographics of your area, you probably have to please at least two of these constituencies to get re-elected. You have to please all four in a national election year. Especially, you have to pander to Hispanics who aren't a solid bloc anyway (ask a Mexican and a Puerto Rican whether they feel any close bond...) and are likely to bolt the party if you offend them.

  • Re:It's True (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:26AM (#38914375)

    Really? Are you still trying to smear the Tea Party with that shit? It has nothing to do with their message. Neither does white supremacy or some of the other bullshit the press and some people have tried to associate them with. If it makes you feel better to make stuff up so you can demonize them, go ahead. Let me guess: you probably think OWS is the cat's meow, too.

  • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lorenlal (164133) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:27AM (#38914383)

    Are we shocked that this was the reaction? I mean at least it was nice to have the opinion of the public hit the ears (or wallets) of our Congressmen and Senators and they actually did something with it. But I think we've known for a long time that most of the people in those chairs are more concerned with staying there instead of doing something "in the interest of the country and citizens."

    Let's face it, they would have supported this thing right until the end without giving a single thought about the consequences beyond the cash flow from the people who tried to buy this through. This isn't a Rep/Dem issue except where they'll try to leverage it in the next election cycle. I still say kudos to the entire public effort to raise awareness, and I'll just take the small bit of good news that came from this effort to stop PIPA and SOPA. I know the war's not over by any stretch, but it was nice to be heard by our federal lawmakers.

  • by MBGMorden (803437) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:28AM (#38914393)

    Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.

    When the entire POINT of political parties is to lump people into categories so that their positions become similar, broad generalizations come with the territory. Assume that everyone of a particular race or creed has a drinking problem and you're a bigot. Assume that everyone who attends AA has a drinking problem and you're likely pretty close to on target.

  • by RoLi (141856) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:29AM (#38914409)

    The problem is just that the Democrats have more or less taken over the GOP [in-other-news.com] and Ron Paul is the only real Republican left.

    I know it's hard to believe after 12 years of Bushes, but the GOP used to be a party of small government, non-interventionism and individual rights.

    When Clinton reduced social spending [wikipedia.org] while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?

    So as far as I am concerned, it is either Ron Paul or a big-government-pro-war-bread-and-circuses president. It does not matter whether his name will be Obama, Romney or Gingrich.

  • Re:It's True (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:30AM (#38914423) Homepage

    Tea party hammered? LAST I saw it was national outrage spurred by the EFF and nerds. You Tea Party people were late to the game.

    Where the hell were you and your members when the rest of us were screaming NO to it back in September and October?

    The GOP did not Listen to you, they saw a giant mass of people angry about it and realized that in an election year it's stupid to piss everyone off. SOPA is "tabled" until everyone is distracted and it will pass quietly attached to a "limit puppy killing to two per day" law.

    I am grateful that you guys finally got around to dealing with it, but dont you even think that you were the knights in shining armor. You were the horde that got in on it after the rest of us have been yelling about it for months.

  • by gambino21 (809810) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:31AM (#38914435)

    And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans

    I'm not sure why you say this, it sounds like Dem/Repub propaganda. Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters. You may not agree with much the Tea party platform, but the protests did demonstrate that a popular movement (even when they are later co-opted by a major party) and non-mainstream candidates actually can affect the outcome of elections.

  • Re:here we go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBGMorden (803437) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:32AM (#38914455)

    This, "Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening.

    I depends. Different issues have different levels of importance to different people. It could be the the person in your quote has a preferred position on W, X, Y, and Z, but doesn't care that much, but A and B are their key issues of concern. In such a case, they rightly shouldn't support the candidate.

  • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stevew (4845) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:32AM (#38914457) Journal

    Obamacare - Government run health care because the Government knows better than you or your Doctor.

    Bailouts of GM. et al, i.e. government ownership.

    Support of Unions over the best interests of the country - Specifically SEIU.

    There's three.

  • by Nutria (679911) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:35AM (#38914521)

    When Clinton reduced social spending [wikipedia.org] while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?

    The Republican who worked closely with Clinton to pass PRWOA? Hint: he's a 2012 presidential contender.

  • by Dotren (1449427) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:38AM (#38914583)

    And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans

    I know I mentioned Tactical Voting [wikipedia.org] the other day in another article and I know some of the responses indicated it's a very effective tool. However, I still maintain that if everyone who felt like you do on this actually just voted for who they actually wanted to be president, we might end up with someone in office other than the mainstream Dem and Rep candidates we always end up with.

    Food for thought.

  • by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:41AM (#38914611) Homepage

    The Republicans deserve credit for how they stand up for freedom in general and against SOPA in particular. If I were a single-issue voter, this would make me vote republican. They have the correct position on this issue.

    Of course, I'm not a single-issue voter, and the Republicans are pants-on-head-retarded about almost everything else. But give them credit for being right this once.

  • by crmarvin42 (652893) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:43AM (#38914625)
    I think the point should be to focus on the CANDIDATE instead of the party affiliation.

    I'm registered with one party for the sole purpose of being able to vote in their primaries (Which is all ANYONE really gets for party registration unless they are a candidate). However, I've spread my vote pretty evenly across the two parties over the years because at the end of the day I vote for the best person for the job. It doesn't matter what the local comptroller or county commitioners view on abortion? global warming? evoloution? etc. What does matter is their qualification for, and ideas about topics relevant to the job they are asking me to hire them for. If that job has no chance of touching on those topics, then their oppinions are irrelevant.
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:44AM (#38914639) Homepage

    sure. unless they can force a theocracy onto the US.

    You obviously didn't notice the distinct lack of concern over social conservative issues at most Tea Party rallies. The uniting issues across the Tea Party movement are fiscal policy, civil liberties, immigration control and strong national defense. In fact, some of the major Tea Party figures have openly said that the Tea Party as a movement is welcoming to social conservatives, but that it simply does not have a social issue stance as a movement.

  • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alranor (472986) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:45AM (#38914655)

    I love how it's always "because the government knows better than you or your Doctor", but I never see "because the insurance company whose main purpose is to make as much profit as possible knows better than you or your Doctor"

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:46AM (#38914669)

    I don't think it's so much that the Democrats took over the GOP, but that the religious right has. The GOP candidates, except for Ron Paul, seem to think that laws should be made based on religious views. Santorum really scares me with some of his talk about banning abortion even in cases of life of the mother (he thinks it's an "excuse") and banning contraception. For the latter, he would leave it's legality "up to the states." Translation, you'd have states where posessing a condom would be a crime even if you were married and simply didn't want another child. Is it any wonder that the Duggars support him? (For the record, I'm religious - Jewish - but don't feel the need to force my religious views on anyone. I want my politicians to be religiously neutral.)

    I wish there were more Ron Paul-style GOP members. I might actually vote Republican then. As it stands, I vote Democrat because I agree with them more. Not 100%, but more than with the usual Republican offerings. Maybe Ron Paul and other classic small government Republicans should leave the GOP and form a new centrist party. A good centrist party would quickly pull voters from the Republicans and Democrats. (Precisely why both parties would make sure said centrist party never happens.)

  • by Moryath (553296) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:49AM (#38914719)

    Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters.

    Except in a system where every vote is plurality takes all (sometimes called "first past the post"), even a 10% share (which Libertarians poll at but rarely get) is unnoticed by the main parties. They're not worried about attracting Libertarian votes, they're worried about getting 45%+1 out of the 90% who vote for one of the two main parties, and they don't give a shit about the rest.

    And they're entrenched. Gerrymandering has made it even LESS necessary to have a majority. Look at Texas: Republicans are maybe 35% of the electorate, but thanks to careful gerrymandering they control 2/3 of the state legislature and 2/3 of the congressional delegation, and careful disenfranchisement - witness their neutering of early-voting this year after they realized enhanced access to the polls meant democrat voters, who actually have to work on election day rather than being greedy lazy assholes, went and voted on the available weekend days and almost threw a number of the GOP-constructed "52/48" districts to the Dems - takes care of the rest.

  • Re:here we go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:50AM (#38914721) Homepage Journal

    See, you just need to care enough.

    Just imagine that you really believe that abortion (at any point in pregnancy) is morally identical to lining up young children and shooting them in the head. Do you see how that one position could outweigh all other considerations?

    One issue voters are people who care very, very deeply about that one issue. I don't understand why anyone would resent that. The key is getting them to see that there may be more than one way to address their key issue.

  • by wygit (696674) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:50AM (#38914723)

    Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.
    And I not only voted for him, I campaigned for him.

  • Re:It's True (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mr_gorkajuice (1347383) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:50AM (#38914727)
    You clearly don't know british politics.
  • by AJH16 (940784) <aj AT gccafe DOT com> on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:52AM (#38914765) Homepage

    It isn't that the republicans get corrupt faster so much as they wear it on their sleeves more. Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich. This is very easy to see and very easy to blame. The democrats on the other hand are just more subtle, but no better overall. They tend to serve special interest through either restriction of rights or providing broad funding to over-bloated graft. It doesn't become readily apparent until you look at their spending habits. Republicans don't like to tax for what has to be spent and democrats like to spend what they don't have, all to try and serve their special interests without upsetting anyone enough to raise a shit storm.

  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Friday February 03, 2012 @10:57AM (#38914835)

    The Republicans deserve credit for how they stand up for freedom in general and against SOPA in particular.

    Let's see:
    Republican Lamar Smith authors SOPA.
    Public is enraged.
    Republicans back off.
    Bizzaro World conclusion: Republicans deserve credit for being "against" SOPA

  • by JobyOne (1578377) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:02AM (#38914907) Homepage Journal

    Is that increased payment to lower earners a product of getting more actual value in the form of better health care and benefits? Or is it just from the rising cost of those benefits -- as their actual usable return value stagnates or even drops?

    The poor having more and more of their economic gains eaten up by the rising cost of benefits -- while what they actually get from those benefits stagnates -- is *not* something to brag about. That's just more money creeping from the powerless to the powerful.

  • by allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:03AM (#38914921)

    Yes, there is corruption in both parties, yet every time I watch Fox News or hear people like Glent Beck, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh talk, I wonder how it is possible for any sane person to support the Republican Party.
    There are some decent folks in it, for sure. But the signal to bullshit ratio is so extremely low.

    Also I believe that Republicans are the worst offenders in partisan politics. Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle. There is no common ground in the interest of the american people, ever.

    Also, Republicans like to preach how they want to have a smaller government, cut expenses, less debt, etc. In reality what they do is funnel public tax money directly into their favorite corporations, usually oil and military-industrial, with contracts, subsidies and wars. All the time speaking of tax cuts, never mentioning that they apply only to the rich and corporations.

    The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance.

  • by HeLLFiRe1151 (743468) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:08AM (#38914979)
    Republicans may experience it faster but Democrats experience it way longer. Democrat voters don't care how long a politician serves (Byrd), how corrupt (Dodd) or stupid (Frank) they may be. As long as they keep getting re-elected and can keep telling their people at election time, how much of a fight they are putting on for you.They say that they are fighting the good fight, that our country would be going to hell in a hand basket if they weren't there and they will continue to fuck you over with a smile.
  • Re:here we go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:17AM (#38915131) Homepage Journal

    I disagree - but I'm unaware of any way we could come to a conclusion as it is merely the opinion each of us holds about what a whole bunch of people we don't know "really" think.

    I do know people who I am absolutely convinced do hold the position I've described, but I don't expect that to sway you. And I can easily imagine that there are people who actually view it the way you describe. So it seems to me we'd just be talking about immeasurable percentages.

  • by HeckRuler (1369601) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:17AM (#38915133)
    Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
    Oh gee, you put it that way and I'm freaking estatic that I'm now paying an arm and a leg to keep my arms and legs.

    Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
    And who fought them tooth and nail, and are still trying to get it anulled? Yep, that's the republicans.
    So THANKS.

    Everyone else, fyi:

    The Cato Institute is a proprietarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States

    Just so you know where this little blurb is coming from. Corporate Kochs.

  • by niko9 (315647) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:18AM (#38915141)

    ..Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry,...

    Let me preface my reply by saying that I am born and raised New York City liberal.

    What good are you "closer to home issues" if the inalienable right to defend your very life and possibly defend your country and constitution from tyranny if your right to arms are severely curtailed or outright banned?

  • by d3ac0n (715594) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:20AM (#38915175)

    how about liberty from religion ?

    Depends on how you mean it.

    If you mean: freedom to be an Atheist, then yes. Absolutely. Freedom of Religion also means the freedom to be an Atheist or an Agnostic or simply not care one way or the other.

    If you mean: Freedom from ever having to hear or be influenced by anyone else's religion and actively preventing religious people and politicians from acting upon their religious conscience or proposing laws in line with that conscience, (IE: Freedom FROM Religion) then no. That would mean impinging upon someone else's freedom of religion and freedom of expression and would be a violation of the Constitution.

  • by PortHaven (242123) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:21AM (#38915185) Homepage

    Really, that's funny. Cause that's how I feel when I listen to David Letterman, Barbara "pass it then we can decide what's in it" Boxer. Chris "congressmen should do what the campaign donors tell them" Dodd.

    "Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."

    Really, really, are you that blind. How many of President Bush's top judge appointments were blocked. Versus how many of President Obama's.

    You think this, because you only hear when Republicans block stuff, because you read news from sources biased to your views. Likewise, Republicans feel the same way, cause they get news biased toward their view. So they feel the Democrats are always blocking things.

    Like President George W. Bush's request to regulate Fannie & Freddie years before the collapse.

    "The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance."

    Serious, that's the tactic of both parties. I've listened to Democrat politicians tell inner city folk that Republicans want them dead and their children in prison.

    Oh, and let's not talk about fear mongering. George Bush's medical lawsuit reform would leave you with only $250,000 if you lost your sight or a limb from malpractice. Total BS lie, but it was what the Left propigated.

    Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.

  • by phlinn (819946) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:24AM (#38915231)
    I somewhat agree with your concerns about social conservatives. They don't actually seem to control the republican party, and definitely do not control tea partiers. Since overall on those issues government is getting better, not worse, while on the issues I have with democrats the government is getting worse, I tend to vote republican unless there's an actual libertarian option. I do find that displaying a cross or celebrating christmas for government agencies is much, much, less intrusive into my life than decreeing that I'm not allowed to cary a gun, or that I have to agree to a virtual strip search to fly on a plane, or that insurance companies aren't allowed to offer low cost high deductible personal medical insurance plans, or that employers can't decide who to hire/fire based entirely on an objective merit, etc.
  • by ArcherB (796902) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:28AM (#38915279) Journal

    Most of your comment is spot on, but this one little point jabbed me:

    Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich.

    Here we have Republicans supporting consumers over business and small business over big business, which is the exact opposite of what you said. It's not just you, but it seems to me that no matter what Republicans or conservatives do, they are going to have the standard criticisms heaved upon them. If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists. If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots. If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex". If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich. If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business. If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.

    No matter what conservatives do, those opposed the conservatives, not even necessarily their programs, will find a hyperbolic stereotype to label them with. Even when conservatives do something that is completely counter to the stereotype, the old stereotypes as still applied. Granted, the Shiite is flung both ways, but I tend to see a lot more of being flung at conservatives.

  • by ganjadude (952775) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:41AM (#38915433) Homepage
    Well to me, the democrats are
    A - in my gas tanks = forcing green energy before it is commericaily economical is costing us all, rather than waiting for the technology to mature. Can you imagine if the government mandated that the model T had to have 10 airbags, and get 50 MPG?
    B -favor union leadership over workers rights. See when I work directly for an employer, I negotiate with said employer. The company is my boss. But if I am in a union, than I pay my "boss" for the ability to work for a 3rd party?? It almost sounds like the soparanos "oh, you want to work for ford? well you need to pay us protection money if you want to work for ford, every paycheck. If we decide we dont like what ford does, than we force you to stop working,even if you agree with what ford is doing."

    so while you may look at it that the democrats are the ones "for the people" I see them, using the same information you have to draw a different conclusion
  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:43AM (#38915473) Homepage Journal

    At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice

    For the record, Operation Gunrunner was started by the (G.W.) Bush administration; it wasn't until a border patrol agent was killed that it garnered public attention.

  • by Shakrai (717556) * on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:44AM (#38915493) Journal

    That would be Paul who is running as a Republican in the primaries. But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war, but yet Obama is a very pro-war president.

    If Paul were somehow to win he'd rightfully be classed as a non-interventionist. Were the United States directly attacked I have no doubt that he would respond forcefully and decisively. Interventionism is an entirely different animal and much harder to classify than simply saying someone is "pro" or "anti" war. For better or worse both major parties have been interventionists since FDR and WW2. Pearl Harbor and the specter of Communism after WW2 conspired to neuter the isolationist/non-interventionist wing of both major parties. I doubt that's likely to change in the next generation or so.

  • by ArsonSmith (13997) on Friday February 03, 2012 @11:50AM (#38915567) Journal

    Smaller difference than you may think. I am very libertarian when it comes to federal government, less and less so as government gets closer to me down to being 100% for a benevolent dual-dictatorship within my own house over my family.

  • by ArcherB (796902) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:00PM (#38915703) Journal

    Please allow me to reply as a conservative.

    A - Want a presence in my bedroom, and I absolutely can't stand that.

    No one really cares what you do in your bedroom or with who. It's what you do on the park bench that offends us. It's what you want to teach our children. It's Girl Scouts admitting gender confused pre-teens. It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping. It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids. It's explaining to first graders that it is OK to explore your sexuality.

    It's not what you do to whoever or whatever in your bedroom. It's the fact that you want to force me and my kids to accept it, and before we can do that, you have to tell us what it is. Frankly, we don't want to know.

    B - Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.

    I assume you are talking about "right to work" laws. Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union, or paying union dues whether they join the union or not. It also prevents companies from taking retaliatory actions against workers who want to start or join a union.
    What's the problem? Do you really believe that I should I be forced to pay union dues that will contribute political money to an organization I disagree with just so I can have a job? That's a clear violation of my rights in favor of unions, which is exactly of what you are accusing the Republicans of doing.

  • by mjr167 (2477430) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:00PM (#38915711)

    What criteria should we use to create our laws? How do we know that murder and theft should be illegal? Why is rape a crime? We as a society have to decide that certain activities are unacceptable. It was not that long ago that a man could not rape his wife. We believed as a society that men had certain rights over women. We have since decided that that behavior was immoral and wrong so we updated the laws to make it illegal. There are still people who believe those new laws infringe upon their rights and other countries have vastly different laws.

    Does it matter why I believe that something should be a crime? Is it important if I believe something is wrong because of a strong religious background or simply because I feel it is wrong and immoral? The OMG HES RELIGIOUS BURN HIM! attitude is kind of silly. Non-religious groups come up with inane laws and ideas all the time. Can we simply judge the idea on its merits and not on why it was inspired? Ultimately our society will decide if a law is good and just. It may take a while, be we outlawed slavery and we outlawed beating your wife and kids. Prohibition was passed and then repealed. All those legal movements had religious arguments for and against them.

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:02PM (#38915729) Homepage Journal

    He's a States Rights-er.

    You say that as if you think that's a bad thing; it's not. In fact, if you actually read the damn Constitution [archives.gov], you'll note that the founders were also big supporters of state's rights and limited federal government.

    *sigh* How far we've fallen from the lofty ideals of our Republic's fathers...

  • by tmosley (996283) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:03PM (#38915747)
    You assume that Gore would have been different from Bush. That is unlikely, especially given the degree to which Obama has been no different from Bush.
  • by pclminion (145572) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:14PM (#38915907)
    Fuck Godwin's law. All it was was a silly Usenet post decades ago, and we've allowed it to arbitrarily constrain debate ever since. Comparisons with the Nazis are forbidden (maybe I should say verboten) forever more. Nothing could ever be that bad again, right? Until it is, and then we forbid ourselves from realizing it because of some stupid fucking comment made in jest by a guy none of us have ever met. No, fuck Godwin's law. I don't operate my mind according to rules of thumb like that, because I'm not a fucking idiot.
  • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by phlinn (819946) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:15PM (#38915919)
    I can choose a different insurance company, or forgo it entirely, but Obamacare directly penalizes me for not having it and I can't switch governments.
  • by tmosley (996283) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:16PM (#38915933)
    And yet he thinks that his personal religious views should have no impact on anyone else's lives. It is clear from the Church and State comment IN CONTEXT that he is talking about reducing the size of the state, allowing local institutions to take on a greater role in our lives VOLUNTARILY. He does not think that the Federal government should have any say over abortion, as that is purely a state issue. You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.

    Which would you rather have as president, someone who doesn't believe in evolution, or someone who doesn't believe in habeus corpus?
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:16PM (#38915935) Homepage Journal

    Not being able to stand Democrats doesn't mean supporting the Republicans. In fact, standing against restricting the rights of everbody on the planet would mean standing at least as hard against the Republicans.

    Everyone knows Republicans act far more as a unit, voting with their party, than Democrats ever do. Democrats are much more a case of "rotten apples" than Republicans are - Republicans are a rotten apple tree.

    You call yourself "libertarian", but you're just like every other Republican who denies your loyalty to the Republican Party - while standing behind it 100%. It's irrational, no matter what mask you put on it.

  • by ArcherB (796902) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:16PM (#38915947) Journal

    Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.

    Oh gee, you put it that way and I'm freaking estatic that I'm now paying an arm and a leg to keep my arms and legs.

    Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.

    And who fought them tooth and nail, and are still trying to get it anulled? Yep, that's the republicans.

    So THANKS.

    I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?

    You don't want government in your bedroom. Can you imagine government at your dinner table, prodding your to get off your couch or monitoring your alcohol consumption and workout schedule? How long until someone asks a smoker, "Why should I pay the medical bills for your poor life decisions?" At what point does good health become the law?

    Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.

    Everyone else, fyi:

    The Cato Institute is a proprietarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States

    Just so you know where this little blurb is coming from. Corporate Kochs.

    So? Ad hominem [wikipedia.org] much?

  • by jahudabudy (714731) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:17PM (#38915979)
    It's not what you do to whoever or whatever in your bedroom. It's the fact that you want to force me and my kids to accept it, and before we can do that, you have to tell us what it is. Frankly, we don't want to know.

    hey, when heterosexuality is kept quiet and no one mentions it in public, I'll accept your argument here as legitimate. Until then, allowing one view point to be expressed as openly as desired and requiring a different view point to only be held in private is not equality.
  • by crunchygranola (1954152) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:19PM (#38916007)

    Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.

    And yet they were still lower than when he took office. this is the stupidest quote I've ever heard trying to say he was against big government. He lowered taxes farther than he should then slowly raised them to help find the sweet spot, which is how it should be done.

    And yet in today's Republican Party the vast majority of politicians have taken an explicit public oath never to raise taxes at all. Net rates can only ever go down, never up. How can you "find a sweet spot" when only a one-way ratchet is permitted to exist?

    Oh, and Reagan equalized the treatment between capital gains and regular income in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

    The point is dead-on: today's Republicans's exhibit an ideological rigidity, and a preference for special treatment for the rich, that was absent with Ronald Reagan, who would be mocked as a RINO today if judged by his actual policies.

  • by Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:19PM (#38916015) Homepage
    "In our 2 party system it is impossible to lump people together in different categories based on which of the 2 parties you vote for"

    I think this is doubly true now that "the two parties" seem to be largely defined by opposition to each other rather than any clear political platform intended to benefit the country and its general citizenry.

    These days, "The Democratic Party" doesn't really have a clear platform, as it is really made up more or less of everybody who, regardless of their real political views, doesn't want to be "Republican(tm)" but still wants to be affiliated with a large enough political corporation to have a chance of being allowed to win an election (c.f. "Blue Dog" democrats, and President Barack Obama, who is often accused/praised as a good "moderate Republican president"). In short, they're really only definable these days as "not-Republicans". "The Republican Party", on the other hand, does seem to have a very concise and well-enforced political platform. Unfortunately, that platform is "the opposite of whatever 'The Democrats(tm)' want". They're "The Anti-Democrat Party".

    tl;dr: "The Two Parties" are the "Not-Republicans" and the "Anti-Not-Republicans". Also: the US political system is a complete fustercluck, or perhaps just a circus put on by whoever is really running things...

  • by budgenator (254554) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:38PM (#38916259) Journal

    I think one of the causes for the difference is most European Countries are on a form of Parliamentary Government, and in a Parliamentary Government minority parties can wield power through coalitions; right now this happens mainly in the conventions. Now if we moved to a system where a portion of our House of Representatives were elected by popular party votes and you would start see Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Communists sitting in congress with Democrats and Republicans, now that would considerably change the way power worked in our country. The Tea Party and Occupy might even become full fledged political parties. Democrats really aren't as anti-war as you think, to me it seems their anti-Big Business leanings teaming up with the competitions of their beloved social programs for tax money makes them more anti defense-contractor than anti-war.

  • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by forkfail (228161) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:43PM (#38916331)

    Change your insurance company.

    Yeah, right.

    The vast majority of Americans get insurance through their employer, and could not possibly afford the employer subsidized premiums.

    You're as locked in to your insurance as you fear you would be under a government plan.

    You just have an illusion of choice.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday February 03, 2012 @12:46PM (#38916381) Homepage

    To me republicans are....

    A - too uneducated to realize the technology IS there and IS mature. but they throw around dumb statements like " Can you imagine if the government mandated that the model T had to have 10 airbags, and get 50 MPG? " And the US government DID require safety things on the Model T, the hand crank was mandated to be a cam type that would kick out when the motor started instead of whipping around and breaking an arm.

    B - You are complaining about something that is not "Union" but general Politician. The Republicans do this as much as the dems. Hell your Republican Christ figure,Ronnie Regan himself said, "union labor is important to the United states" It seems you guys cant see the corruption and stink that is all over in your own party, but it's clear as day in the Democrats. Everything you say about unions are the fault of lobbying and ALL politicians being dirty. Republicans are as at fault as the Dems on this.

    Both parties are nothing but corrupt scumbags. And you are foolish to align yourself with such people, it degrades what others think of you.

    How about stop frothing at the mouth and regurgitating what others tell you to say and speak for yourself. Learn about something before you spout half truths and outright lies as if they were fact. You end up looking far more credible and people will actually pay attention to what you say.

  • by ArcherB (796902) on Friday February 03, 2012 @01:00PM (#38916615) Journal

    For example, Anne Coulter has written books that accuse anyone who disagrees with conservatives is a traitor to America.

    Have you read her books? Until then, you don't really know what you are talking about.

    But to get back on topic, how much air time does Ann Coulter get? Quite a bit, I'm sure. She writes a book every two to three years and gets a few minutes on a few TV talk shows to promote her new book or being the conservative "talking head" on a panel full of liberals. This lasts for a couple of weeks until the next book comes out. How much time does Rachel Maddow get? How about Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg or Ed Schultz or Bill Maher or Christiane Amanpour or the entire cast of Glee? For every minute Ann Coulter calling liberals traitors on television, any one of these liberals are calling conservatives racists for more than 20 hours. Do your own math.

    I'm inclined to believe, in fact, that the flow is the opposite direction that you believe it flows in (and of course, that could be a result of my own confirmation bias).

    Granted, on both our parts.

    1) Limiting access to abortion and birth control is literally part of the subjugation of women.

    Wrong. You say that, but deep down, you know it's a lie. I'm conservative. I don't want to "subjugate" women. For that matter, I have no problem with contraception. I agree with the President that they should be covered by insurance, at no additional cost to the insurer and no copay. Where I don't agree is that insurances companies must be forced to provide birth control. At the very least, it should have an "opt-out" clauses, even if opting out of insurance provided contraception will not reduce premiums (and it should not).

    Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not? What gives anyone the qualification to determine that? History is full of bad things happening when one group of people determined that another group of people was no longer human, freeing their conscience to justify whatever evil they determined to be necessary.

    Also, you will note that those against embryonic stem cell research are against it because it takes a human life. How is the destruction of a discarded human embryo for scientific research "subjugating" women?

    And finally, and if you read nothing else, read this [washingtontimes.com]. WHY WOULD 51% OF WOMEN BE AGAINST ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL?

    Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.

    Are you saying that 51% of women support the "subjugation" of women?

    3) If the Republicans lower taxes for everyone but a disproportionate amount of that tax break goes to rich, then it's pretty obvious that they are favouring the rich.

    So if you cut everyone's taxes by 2%, that favors the rich? Seems to me that everyone would get the same percentage of tax cuts. How about if a president, say, gave everyone who pays taxes $600? Would that be more fair? Actually, GWB, a Republican, did just that, but he was favoring the rich, right?

    Tell you what. I'm sure you make more than me. Why don't you figure out what you saved from any tax cuts you say favor the rich, and simply send it to me. See, because compared to me, you are RICH! So why shouldn't I have the RIGHT to take what is yours? If you think for some reason I make more than you, you are still still rich compared to someone. Go give them whatever you think you have saved from tax cuts over the last 20 years, because YOU, being rich, has benefited more from Republican tax cuts that whoever is poorer than you.

  • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Friday February 03, 2012 @01:06PM (#38916731)

    We had gridlock in Canada for four years and it was glorious.

    We're the only country on the planet that's not in a recession right now.

  • by Shakrai (717556) * on Friday February 03, 2012 @01:13PM (#38916867) Journal

    Actually Pearl Harbor can be laid square at the feet of FDR who ignored the will of the people to start a war, sound familiar? I would urge everyone to read Herbert Hoover's biography, its free and online in several places, where he lays out how FDR went out of his way to insult the Japanese at every turn and give them NO way out that would allow them to save face

    Even if you accept that FDR was trying to bully the Japanese into a war (a conclusion I found doubtful given that the official policy of his administration was Europe First, read the Plan Dog memo) they still had a way out. Had they simply attacked the Dutch East Indies and Singapore it's exceedingly unlikely that FDR would have brought the United States into the war. The American people would not have marched to war over European colonial possessions in the Far East. Instead they opted to sneak attack a country with eleven times their GDP/industrial plant and were rightfully bitch slapped for it.

    instead he simply ignored how they repeatedly said they did not want their sons dying in Europe and the Pacific and kept bitchslapping both Germany and Japan until they got tired of it. Hoover also lays out how many were telling FDR including him that getting involved at that time in any capacity was not only foolish but gave Stalin all the cards because if the USA would have stayed out Stalin and Hitler would have wiped each other out and Japan was buried in a quagmire in China that was keeping the factions all turned on each other and keeping the communists from gaining an upper hand. Read the book, its quite enlightening.

    And thank god he did in hindsight. Do you really think world history would be better if the United States had remained on the sidelines? You really think that without lend-lease the Soviets could have fought the Germans to a stalemate? Unlikely -- research the logistics of the Eastern Front sometime. Lend-lease is the only thing that kept the Soviets in the war and ultimately enabled them to defeat Nazi Germany. Why don't you ponder how many more Americans would ultimately have died if the United States wound up fighting a Nazi Germany that had successfully conquered European Russia. While you're at it, read Generalplan Ost, the Nazi plan for the Slavs. It would have made the Jewish holocaust look like a warm up by comparison.

    FDR brought us into the war at the right time and place. Our casualties were among the lowest of any country involved in the war. That would not have happened if Germany had attained superiority over the Soviet Union and we had to fight the German Army on our own. Do you honestly think that the United States could have peacefully co-existed with the Thousand Year Reich?

  • And yet he thinks that his personal religious views should have no impact on anyone else's lives.

    ... unless they're women seeking medical care.

    He does not think that the Federal government should have any say over abortion, as that is purely a state issue. You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.

    1. You sound angry. I imagine flecks of spittle dripping from your monitor as you furiously pound your keyboard. I'm sure that Doctor Paul would caution you to watch your blood pressure before you have a stroke.
    2. If he doesn't think the Federal government should have any say over abortion, then why did he vote to ban partial birth abortions? If he thought it was purely a state issue, shouldn't he have voted against a federal ban, or at least abstained?
    3. Ron Paul said: "There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist.” Although he thinks it should be a state crime, not a federal crime, he clearly doesn't think that his "personal religious views should have no impact on anyone else's lives."

    Which would you rather have as president, someone who doesn't believe in evolution, or someone who doesn't believe in habeus corpus?

    Someone who believes in the privacy rights of individuals, which rules out Ron Paul.

  • by sick197666 (974586) on Friday February 03, 2012 @01:51PM (#38917511) Homepage
    "Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?"

    Because they are MY stem cells, MY DNA, and MY eggs. The government doesn't get to tell me what to do with MY cells that make up MY body.

    Being against abortion is not the same as being for the government's control of our bodies. I would never have an abortion, but, I will fight for my right to control myself. With MY second amendment, with MY guns.
  • by ArcherB (796902) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:04PM (#38917817) Journal

    Because they are MY stem cells, MY DNA, and MY eggs. The government doesn't get to tell me what to do with MY cells that make up MY body.

    No, they are NOT! Go give a "fetus" a DNA test. You will find that it is NOT YOUR DNA. Roughly half of it came from you, but it is different than yours. Your DNA was yours when you were a fetus. It has not changed. Is your DNA the same as your mother's? Your child is your body just as you are currently your mothers.

    And yes, the mother donates the egg. But the father donates the sperm. Just as much DNA is from the father than the mother. So, using your logic, shouldn't the father have just as much of a right to FORCE you to have an abortion? Since you are claiming ownership gives you the right to kill the child, the father is just as much an owner as you are, and, based on YOUR logic, should have the same rights. Or do you think that one sex should have more rights than others?

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:10PM (#38917953)

    I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank.

    They guy in the tank has to come out to pee eventually.

    The guy in the tank relies on gas from a guy who is not in a tank.

    Modern military hardware cannot crush an armed populace wholly against you.

    They can easily control an unarmed populace, even without a tank.

  • by Glock27 (446276) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:14PM (#38918047)

    It isn't that the republicans get corrupt faster so much as they wear it on their sleeves more. Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich. This is very easy to see and very easy to blame.

    I'm sure it is "very easy to blame". The problem is, the logic that's what good for the rich is bad for everyone else is crap. In fact, the "rich" are largely the job providers in this country. Just think of some of the tech leaders that are popular on Slashdot...like Bill Gates! (lol, just kidding) Truthfully though, Gates, Jobs, Brin, Zuckerberg and others started companies that directly employ thousands, and indirectly employ millions. The other thing you're missing is that the "pro rich" policies of the Republicans are also "pro business". Watch and see after November (presuming the Republicans win, which I do think is highly likely), you will see a real boom in the economy as business heave a sigh of relief and really get going.

    The Tea Party is also a very healthy movement, since it will hold the Republicans feet to the fire and make sure that "regular folks" are considered as well.

    The democrats on the other hand are just more subtle, but no better overall. They tend to serve special interest through either restriction of rights or providing broad funding to over-bloated graft. It doesn't become readily apparent until you look at their spending habits. Republicans don't like to tax for what has to be spent and democrats like to spend what they don't have, all to try and serve their special interests without upsetting anyone enough to raise a shit storm.

    Well you're sort of close, but you've missed the fact the the Dems have massively expanded the government under 0bama. He's run up over twice the deficit GWB did in eight years, in only a bit over three. Plus he's made some very stupid mistakes with government money, one of the biggest being massive investment in "green" energy when many of the beneficiaries had no viable business plan and went bankrupt. His desire to keep his "green" constituents also made him oppose, and so far block, the Keystone pipeline which from any rational perspective would be a great thing to build.

    Anyone on the younger side should be extremely concerned about the level of debt the government has accumulated, because it will have a major impact on economic progress and the standard of living in the US for many decades - and it will be a disaster if it's not reduced in the near future.

    At any rate, this will be a crucial election - vote Republican because if 0bama is elected he will get to stack the Supreme Court with lefties, and then this country will be in for a world of hurt. You don't want to see what a "fundamental transformation of America" looks like, trust me on that one. ;-)

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:15PM (#38918065)

    In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster

    Note SEEMS.

    You know what that is? Because as soon as a Republican is elected, the press are at them hammer and tongs to find anything that even LOOKS like corruption.

    Meanwhile a Democrat elected has a press that buries stories about ACTUAL corruption or anything negative until it is so blindingly obvious that bloggers are embarrassing the media with reports (Edwards, Fast & Furious, etc).

    If you are truly against corruption you should vote in the candidates the press actually looks for corruption in. Otherwise, you are just part of the coverup.

  • by J3947 (2543110) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:29PM (#38918347)

    If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich.

    It's clear that Republicans want to lower taxes on the rich. For example, it's Republicans who push for flat taxes. This would shift the tax burden off the rich (who pay a higher percentage) and on the poor (who pay a lower percentage in taxes). Isn't it FOX news that was complaining last year about all the people who "aren't paying taxes" because they're too poor? (Actually, they didn't pay INCOME taxes, but they still paid FICA taxes and property taxes and sales tax.) Last year, one of my neighbors, who was a die-hard TEA party fan, was complaining about this and starting saying how everyone should pay a flat tax with no standard deduction. I said: "So, if taxes are set at 25%, then someone earns a million dollars a year they should have to pay 25% or $250,000 in taxes and someone who earns $20,000 should have to pay 25% or $5,000 in taxes?" Yes, she said. Obviously, compared to the current system, it should shift the tax burden onto the poor (who are trying to pay for food and housing) and off the rich (who will be able to buy another yacht).

    Also, several of the Republican candidates this year had tax plans that would eliminate capital gains taxes. Capital Gains taxes are paid almost exclusively by the rich because they're the ones who own stock (the richest 20% of Americans own 91% of the stock). Right now, capital gains taxes are 15% (which is historically low). The reason Romney only paid 15% of his income in taxes last year was because he made virtually all his money from stocks - almost all rich people do. Warren Buffet said the same thing - he makes most of his money from stocks, and that's why he only paid 17% in taxes. Now, we've got Republican candidates talking about eliminating the capital gains taxes? This would mean that ultra-rich people like Romney and Warren Buffet will see their tax rates drop to almost ZERO. Everytime I see Republicans do something like this, I just can't believe how crazy they are, and they just keep managing to get crazier and crazier from year to year.

    And Santorum - who's one of the top four Republican candidates - is talking about the dangers of birth control even when it's used by married people?

  • by Jeremi (14640) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:34PM (#38918421) Homepage

    Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules.

    That's a good rule of thumb, but there's an even more important one that overrides it in this case: When you're sick, whomever has the power to provide (or deny) you health care makes the rules.

    So previously, unless you are rich, that would be the insurance industry, which was free to deny you coverage, cancel your coverage, price coverage as high as possible to drive you into bankruptcy, and/or refuse to pay for needed services even if you had coverage, using whatever technicality they could dream up.

    So while it's fun to imagine potential health care dystopias where faceless bureaucrats control your life through health care, let's not lose sight of the fact that we were already living in such a dystopia beforehand -- it's just that the bureaucrats' primary motivation was to "increase shareholder value". At least when the government is in control, non-rich people have a means to change unpopular policies through voting and political pressure. When it's a private company that's controlling your life, there is no democratic recourse. You take what you get and like it. The standard capitalist remedy of "don't like the service? Switch to a better competing company" doesn't work for health insurance, when you're already sick and no competing company is willing to cover you, and the insurance companies all know that.

  • by Grishnakh (216268) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:53PM (#38921099)

    Anyone who thinks a handful of stateless terrorists with some razor blades is remotely similar to a coordinated military attack by an actual nation, involving ships, guns, ground troops, fighter and bomber aircraft, or anything resembling a modern military force is a moron.

  • by ArcherB (796902) on Friday February 03, 2012 @07:56PM (#38922383) Journal

    By that logic, eggs and sperm have the same rights you do.

    My GOD! What is wrong with people today? The first dumbass stated that her child's DNA is the same as hers, now this moron is saying that eggs and sperm have the same DNA as a person.

    Let me help you out here. There are 23 genes in an egg and 23 genes in a sperm cell. There are 46 genes in a human. Now, since it is obvious that math is not your best subject, let me give you a hint:
    23 != 46

    An intelligent argument can be made for the idea that abortion is wrong. Yours is not such an argument.

    Great! The math major is judging the intelligence of my argument.

    there are too many points where you have to make a judgment call about why things are moral.

    Judgment call? Um, do a DNA test, listen for a heartbeat, scan for brain activity. Where's the judgment call?

"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne

Working...