?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Chief Jack's Galley

There's a place for people who laugh at nothing...


September 7th, 2006

(no subject) @ 01:54 pm

Tags:

I don't know where this came from.....



You Are a Liberal Republican



When you tell people that you're Republican, they rarely believe you.

That's because you're socially liberal - likely pro-choice and pro-gay rights.

You're also not so afraid of big goverment, as long as it benefits people and not politicians.

You are the most likely of any Republican type to swing over to the Democrat side sometimes.



I'm no kind of Republican, and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for a Democrat. I think the government is way, way, way too intrusive, regardless of who "benefits". Sorry, this quiz is whack.

EDIT: This pretty well explains where I am politically.

FURTHER EDIT: I swear, I put in the same exact answers this time and got this:



You Are a "Don't Tread On Me" Libertarian



You distrust the government, are fiercely independent, and don't belong in either party.

Religion and politics should never mix, in your opinion... and you feel opressed by both.

You don't want the government to cramp your self made style. Or anyone else's for that matter.

You're proud to say that you're pro-choice on absolutely everything!

 
Share  |  |

Comments

 
From:dafne99
Date:September 7th, 2006 08:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I knew it.

You Are a "Don't Tread On Me" Libertarian

You distrust the government, are fiercely independent, and don't belong in either party.
Religion and politics should never mix, in your opinion... and you feel opressed by both.
You don't want the government to cramp your self made style. Or anyone else's for that matter.
You're proud to say that you're pro-choice on absolutely everything!
[User Picture Icon]
From:john_holton
Date:September 7th, 2006 09:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That's typically the result I get. I don't know what the hell I did differently this time.
From:jaklumen
Date:September 8th, 2006 08:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
I am fiercely Independent. I have usually voted Republican, but usually because I didn't like the alternative.

This quiz gives me the same result, although in another quiz, I was defined as a New Democrat (fiscally conservative- they are more or less the Democrats of Eastern Washington state).

I cannot align myself with the Libertarians yet. I disagree bitterly (although I have not openly said so as yet) with an anarchocapitalist friend of mine concerning the government safety net. I go along because I have struggled too much to make it on my own. Many may think "but you don't look sick," but I will accept welfare and later Social Security for now, even though I would prefer to work.

It is human nature to be greedy-- and therefore we have 'haves' and 'have nots'. I refuse to agree with him that the wealthy are sufficiently generous. To play the capitalist system, you must have a significant amount of capital-- and I don't think that can be evenly and fairly distributed to everyone in such a system.
[User Picture Icon]
From:john_holton
Date:September 8th, 2006 12:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
My alignment with the Libertarians is due to a couple of things: frustration with the Republicans and outrage at the sort of destruction the Democrats have brought down on the economic well being of this country and the hopes and dreams of the very people they claim to work for the protection of. I am registered as a Republican, as are most of my neighbors, but since the departure of Newt Gingrich (who was my Representative until he screwed himself, literally, out of a job) I have little to do with them.

Having grown up in Chicago and having seen the Democratic Machine in action (many in my family are ward heelers, I have a cousin running for Illinois state senate as a Democrat in November, and my mother was a Chicago public schoolteacher), I've come to the conclusion that most of what the Democrats do to "help" people are intended first to serve their own selfish needs. The worst of the Chicago housing projects, the Robert Taylor Homes, were built on the other side of the Dan Ryan expressway from Mayor Daley Sr.'s Bridgeport neighborhood. Both the projects and the expressway were built to separate Bridgeport from Bronzeville, the black neighborhood to the east, and in fact destroyed much of it for the projects so that Daley could keep the blacks from moving into his neighborhood. "The City That Works" was built first to work for the Democrats and their army of patronage workers and political appointees, and whatever benefit the rest of the city saw was largely a coincidence. I've seen this on a national scale as well, where the likes of Kennedy, Kerry-Heinz and Edwards pontificate about the poor and how the wealthy don't pay their "fair share", while they themselves live the life of utter luxury that they would deny to anyone else and that they would work tirelessly to reserve to themselves and their loved ones. They're phonies and bigots, have corrupted the notion of "rights" and "privileges" so that no one will notice that they are slowly turning each right granted by the Creator into a privilege granted by them, privileges that can be revoked at any time if it suits them.

The Republicans used to stand for limited government, lower taxes and strong defense, but have in recent years learned what the Democrats have known since the New Deal: you can use tax money and legislative power to buy votes and ingratiate yourself with the voters, and big government is good as long as it's your big government and not the other guy's. They've become as bad as the Democrats in this respect. I'm convinced that's the real issue that the Democrats have with Bush: He's managed to trump them at their own game. The sound you hear is Barry Goldwater spinning in his grave.

I'm not sure that leaving everything to the private sector would be a valid solution, either, at least not until we were able to break the pattern of dependence that our politicians have created. But I'd be willing to give it a try. As the two accepted political parties in this country represent fewer and fewer interests, voting for the lesser of two evils still gives you evil. My vote for a Libertarian, or a third-party candidate, isn't a wasted vote; it's a vote taken away from someone who doesn't deserve it.

Sorry to unload on you, Cap'n. Thanks for listening.
From:jaklumen
Date:September 8th, 2006 09:45 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Something that I forgot to mention:

The current problem with voting for a third party is that all too often, those that do draw votes away from one of the two main political parties.

For example, many people that would have voted for Nader in 2000 forsook their votes to vote for Gore instead. They reasoned if they did otherwise, it would tip the balance to Bush.

There are other examples, but if I read those few articles correctly, if Libertarians had been voting Republican before, it will more than likely tip the balance to the Democrats if they vote for their own party.

It's the downside of a bipartisan system that emerged with the original creation of Congress. It works very well for political debates, but it squeezes out the alternatives.

Now even in parlimentary systems, the balance tends to shift between two major parties (in the UK I believe it's Conservative and Labor), but the system is still set up for power sharing. Your vote for a candidate will still count for power in representation.

An interesting sidenote: A political newspaper article I've read recently suggested that checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches have dissolved. To an extent, Congress is simply rubberstamping executive orders. W has almost completely avoided any sort of presidental veto. Now the virtues and evils of the line item veto at the federal level are more fit for another discussion, but although this is what he appears to want, he's still making sure Congress complies with his wishes.

The other point of the article was that the Republican controlled Congress has refused to act for the good of the party even if it meant going against the wishes of the presidency, as the Congress has done in times past regardless of the party in power.

The columnist's suggestion was that the presidency and Congress be of differing political parties. They suggested a Democratic president since the Republicans don't seem that they will relinquish control of Congress anytime soon.

I think our most recent example was with Bill Clinton-- when Newt Gingrich was at the height of his influence and the 'Contract with America' legislation was proposed. Although Bubba can't keep it in his pants, he is a fiscal conservative, and we did have economic prosperity with that set of government. There were actual government shutdowns (much to the annoyance of my mother, who is an SSA claims rep), but otherwise, I think it worked okay.

Although both the Clintons are willing to negotiate with the Republicans to get what they want, and tend to be moderate, my vote will be on John McCain again if he decides to run. Hillary leans further to the left than her husband, and McCain is a good bet as a war veteran during this time, especially one hard-bitten by Vietnam. Although draft-dodging by politicians is nothing new, he's not W, and he's not a flake about his service like Kerry was.

I'm not sure what your position on the Iraq war is, but I think he'll do the right thing there, even if it means antagonizing the neocons in charge.

Back to the political parties- I believe that the Democrats are a broken party. Reversing segregation failed- it simply took another form. Along with the quota system, the entities that entered the party have generally served to divide it. Although Kennedy, Kerry-Heinz, and Edwards may realize that playing the capitalist game and placating big business is politically advantageous, their party is still divided by many interest groups that aren't exactly harmonious. It's not as simple as "forced diversity", but I can say immediately that black churches and Latinos aren't too likely to go along with the gays. W, the Texas transplant, knew how to court their vote, more especially the Latino one. I don't think Al Gore is going to get into office (although some Demmys dream of his return), because I think they believe it would be political suicide to tell the middle/upper middle class they can't drive an SUV, and impose legislation on business that it believes will destroy profits.
From:jaklumen
Date:September 8th, 2006 09:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)

Another quick note: A few fiscally conservative Democrats actually proposed forming another party at one point.

As for the neocons, their current open obsession with democratization abroad and their coziness with evangelicals have indeed alienated segments of the Republican party. The disregard for separation of church and state in a number of matters I blame squarely on W. As a recovering alcoholic (whether or not you'd say he's a 'dry drunk'), he pitched courting evangelicals to Bush Sr. during his second campaign. He extensively advised that campaign on how to do so.

I was sad when Colin Powell left the Cabinet. It was the expulsion of the last moderate, and the complete conversion to all neocons. Condelezza sounds too much like a puppet to me-- her strategy for political debate (all to often) is to simply tout the party line and more or less repeat herself.

I'm going to go ahead and stop here. Don't be sorry about unloading-- it's a good discussion. If anything, I apologize for saying so much here on your space instead of my own. I don't often discuss politics in my LJ because most of my LJ friends don't much care to.

That may change-- besides yourself, there is one other (who discusses the anarchocapitalist viewpoint) who may be interested in a discussion-- I'll have to create a friends group to lock those posts to.
[User Picture Icon]
From:john_holton
Date:September 9th, 2006 01:12 am (UTC)
(Link)
Gridlock is indeed a good thing. As long as the White House and the Capitol are fighting with each other, they're not concentrating on finding ways to screw us. The only reason Clinton is considered as much of a centrist is that he couldn't get anything past Congress for most of his term. He's typical of the sort of elitist know-it-all that the Democrats have been attracting since 1980, when they effectively wrote off most of their more conservative members after they "deserted" Jimmy Carter. (Who, to my mind, is one of the most sanctimonious, prissy individuals we have ever elected and the most ineffective president in my lifetime. There was a man who deserved to lose, and it helped tremendously that John Anderson ran as an independent. I don't care that he is from my adopted Georgia, he's a swine.)

Most Libertarians vote for one of the major candidates, though it's generally out of a desire to keep one or the other out of the White House. Virginia Postrel made the comment in 2000 that Bush was a mixed bag, but Gore was pure evil. I wouldn't go as far as to call him evil, just out of his mind (This quiz came out during his Presidential candidacy, and this was one of the better comments on his more recent work). As for Kerry, I have little patience for gigolos, and his whole attitude appeared to be "VOTE FOR ME, YOU PEASANTS! I FOUGHT THE WAR FOR YOUR SORT!" Frankly, I was so concerned that he'd be elected that I voted for Bush.

I don't look forward to 2008. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have strong anti-2nd Amendment records. (My aforementioned cousin started his career in politics by running an anti-gun group; I have been a member of the NRA ever since.) Hillary is hardly a centrist, as the press and other Democrat apologists have tried to paint her, and McCain is further proof that military men don't have the temperament to be politicians. He would be a much better president than Clinton, or Giuliani, or anyone else that the Democrats would run, but that's not saying much. As I've said, I will probably vote for the Libertarian unless the Republicans run someone I think can do a good job. If you come into it with the attitude that whichever candidate wins will screw things up, it doesn't much matter.

I'll be interested to see what sort of traffic this generates. I often refer to my friends' page as my own personal DemocraticUnderground....
From:jaklumen
Date:September 9th, 2006 03:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, but dis Habitat for Humanity, and you lose my respect. Social Security probably won't allow it, but it's the only thing that draws near to giving me a shot at home ownership.

I indeed voted for Bush, twice, because I didn't want either Gore or Kerry. As far as 'leftist environmental fanatics', ah yes, I have met them-- I went to Whitman around the time Environmental Studies was hitting it big. Flakes and hypocrites, all of them. Having met keesan and djeigert (from Grex) personally, I also think that it's unfeasible to preach the doctrine of Simple Living to the masses and believe they will convert. It's even unrealistic to believe that a majority will follow much of any of it.

I think the 3 R's are still worthy ideals, but we won't accomplish anything significant until the business world believes it to be sound and ultimately good for profits. In other words, it has to be pitched to them as cost efficient when all the hidden costs are factored in (i.e. ever-increasing landfills will be harder and harder to maintain).

and McCain is further proof that military men don't have the temperament to be politicians.

Preposterous. To say that says that you believe a number of presidents and other politicians are likewise unfit. How do *you* figure on Eisenhower? Kennedy? Johnson? Ford? Bush Sr.? Truman? Read on: http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_1/milsvc_II.html

I will never be a member of the NRA, ever. I agree with their assertion that laws on the books should be enforced, but I disagree that their policies should be adopted for everyone. You can't indoctrinate an inner-city mom, or even a suburban mom with the beliefs of the gun owner out in the country. The demographics are different. The community interaction and deployment of government services are different. Sorry, sport, it ain't a one size fits all.

The few folks I know of that are NRA members either live in cow towns, or in suburbs and are law enforcement. You can't tell me they can move to downtown Seattle at best or Oakland at worst and tell me they'll fit in just fine.

One thing that I believe the Libertarians might do right is allowing farmers to grow hemp again. We'd have to tweak drug enforcement laws on marijuana to be a bit looser in some areas, and tighter on others. But the fact that hemp paper, for starters, must be imported to Seattle from the Phillipines (to give an example of one market) is just pathetic and stupid. It's naturally white with no dioxins, and has longer fibers, which means it is both stronger and can be recycled more times before it turns to mush. I've handled it in my hands, and I found it could be easily torn along a creased fold.

My grandfather says that it would take away farming land that could be used for other things. Bah. The government is paying a number of farmers *not* to use the land. No excuse.

I'm sure you know this isn't the end of the discussion by far... I have a post in my LJ referencing this post if it helps to continue things there.

Chief Jack's Galley

There's a place for people who laugh at nothing...