[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

What you mean is that less people will die in Iraq. There is no guarantee that less Americans will die under a Democratic president than they will under a Republican one.

I'm guessing that's what he means by "one hopes".

Of course, the statistics bear him out pretty well... but past performance is no guarentee of future performance.

By making any sort of promise for universal health care they are making a promise for larger government.

So you assert that increasing spending in one area must, neccessairily, mean that the entire government would grow? That's silly.

The Dems are also promising an exit from Iraq... smaller government.

Personally, I'd rather subsidize healthcare for children than ethanol plants for corn farmers.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

TMaybe the party at large, but Huckabee sure talks about them a lot.

I'm not sure I understand this comment. If I do, I think Huckabee has paid lip service to conservative values, but many of them are ones that are not historically conservative, and others are ones he doesn't have a record of delivering.

Isn't that an odd reason to vote for someone? Less death? The Democrats just promise some more diplomacy and leaving 75,000 people in Iraq. That doesn't guarantee less death. Who's to say that less troops couldn't cause more death, seeing as how the surge has gone? What is the Democrat vision opposite the Republican vision that you like?

Is Iraq the only place people die? Thank God I don't live there.

I think one of America's problems is that we won't commit to a system. I greatly prefer a decentralized, small government system. The Republican Party does not stand for this system, though they pay lip service to it. They maintain a monstrous government that serves the needs of an elite - not a shadowy conspiracy, but an elite. If I'm going to pay taxes, and I have a choice of a system that helps the military-industrial complex and various corporations get really ****ing rich, how about instead I support the system where people get medicine and care?

I'm not a fan of socialism or socialistic elements by and large, but my money's already feeding a monster. If I can't dismantle that monster and am stuck with taking care of the sick or helping big business, how would Christ vote?

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

No, I guess it's best to try to find the person who will cause the most death, and vote for him.

VOTE DARKSEID

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

What you mean is that less people will die in Iraq. There is no guarantee that less Americans will die under a Democratic president than they will under a Republican one.

Hopefully my answer to Nate will answer this as well - you might not agree, however.

By making any sort of promise for universal health care they are making a promise for larger government.

I agree, this does needle at me. I don't think a bigger government is what we need. But both sets of leading candidates are promising bigger government. I can vote for a write-in to make a statement, or I can support a Democrat whose bigger government may help people by and large.

Note that this isn't an easy decision. I have many disagreements with Democrats. Many. But the leading Republicans are not a viable alternative as of yet.

[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So you assert that increasing spending in one area must, neccessairily, mean that the entire government would grow? That's silly.

Universal health care would mean more government involvement in the economy, thus larger government. Or at least that's what I learned in college. In fact universal health care is actually one step closer to Socialism, which is undeniably larger government.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The Dems are also promising an exit from Iraq... smaller government.

Moving troops from Iraq back to America and other various places does not make for smaller government. It means smaller government for Iraq, not for us.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

Moving troops from Iraq back to America and other various places does not make for smaller government. It means smaller government for Iraq, not for us.

???? We won't be managing new American bases built in Iraq that require expanded bureaucracy. Am I missing something? If we pull back our troops, a number of personnel will have to return to the private sector because there won't be as large of a bureaucracy that would require them.

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by slap_j

2007 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq. If more troops are in combat then more soldiers are at risk of death.

1-2008 19
12-2007 23
11-2007 37
10-2007 38
9-2007 65
8-2007 84
7-2007 78
6-2007 101
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

If I do, I think Huckabee has paid lip service to conservative values, but many of them are ones that are not historically conservative, and others are ones he doesn't have a record of delivering.

What are historically conservative values? (I'm not being sarcastic or snotty, I'm just seriously ignorant)

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I think one of America's problems is that we won't commit to a system. I greatly prefer a decentralized, small government system. The Republican Party does not stand for this system, though they pay lip service to it. They maintain a monstrous government that serves the needs of an elite - not a shadowy conspiracy, but an elite. If I'm going to pay taxes, and I have a choice of a system that helps the military-industrial complex and various corporations get really ****ing rich, how about instead I support the system where people get medicine and care?

Are you basing your idea of the modern Republican off of George Bush, or are all the Republican candidates really not going to make the government smaller?
Also, do you not want a larger army and all the other things the Republican party brings to mind?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'm not a fan of socialism or socialistic elements by and large, but my money's already feeding a monster. If I can't dismantle that monster and am stuck with taking care of the sick or helping big business, how would Christ vote?

Socialism is bad for many reasons. The quality goes down... there would be lines for the emergency room... would Christ vote for that just because some more poor people could be helped at the expense of quality and service?

Originally Posted by Bobthecockoraoch

No, I guess it's best to try to find the person who will cause the most death, and vote for him.

Haha, I was saying I think it's odd to solely base your vote off of how many deaths will occur under a president's candidacy. I'd think there are some principles/policies/values that would be of interest to you.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

1-2008 19
12-2007 23
11-2007 37
10-2007 38
9-2007 65
8-2007 84
7-2007 78
6-2007 101
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Im glad the deaths have gone down in recent months but I think we've already lost enough and gained so little in return that it doesn't justify staying. As George W Bush said: "Our military cannot do this job alone. Our military needs a political strategy that is effective.” And according to Government Accountability Office testimony: "As of August 30, 2007, the Iraqi government met 3, partially met 4, and did not meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks. Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds."

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

???? We won't be managing new American bases built in Iraq that require expanded bureaucracy. Am I missing something? If we pull back our troops, a number of personnel will have to return to the private sector because there won't be as large of a bureaucracy that would require them.

the federal government doesn't let anybody go. If they move the troops back from Iraq, they'll still be in the military and they will find them something to do. That's the problem with government, they never terminate anybody's employment unless they do something bad.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

Universal health care would mean more government involvement in the economy, thus larger government. Or at least that's what I learned in college. In fact universal health care is actually one step closer to Socialism, which is undeniably larger government.

Socialism is a system of economics where the means of producaiton are controlled by the state. I don't see the government expanding healthcare (recall that thegovernment is already the largest health-insurance provider) constitutes socialism anymore than the public defenders office does.

As to "larger". As I pointed out before. Id that's the only change, it's growth... but that's not the only change.

Moving troops from Iraq back to America and other various places does not make for smaller government. It means smaller government for Iraq, not for us.

Huh? So when the government lowers spending on fuel, ammunition, parts, etc; and releases from employment tens of thousands of people (contractors, national guards, those on stop-loss), and reduces its medical needs(no more wounded soldiers), that's not shrinking?

How do you figure? How do you imagine that Iraq adds $80billion a year in spending without growing the government?

the federal government doesn't let anybody go. If they move the troops back from Iraq, they'll still be in the military and they will find them something to do. That's the problem with government, they never terminate anybody's employment unless they do something bad.

Of course they do, and pay varies. Why do you think that the war has a budgett above and beyond the peace budget? See above.

[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Socialism is a system of economics where the means of producaiton are controlled by the state. I don't see the government expanding healthcare (recall that thegovernment is already the largest health-insurance provider) constitutes socialism anymore than the public defenders office does.

As to "larger". As I pointed out before. Id that's the only change, it's growth... but that's not the only change.

By controlling health care the government is essentially controlling the distribution of medicine and hospital services. That meets the requirement of Socialism. Creating universal health care would mean creating new branches of the government, new regulations, etc. That is what makes big government, spending has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Huh? So when the government lowers spending on fuel, ammunition, parts, etc; and releases from employment tens of thousands of people (contractors, national guards, those on stop-loss), and reduces its medical needs(no more wounded soldiers), that's not shrinking?

How do you figure? How do you imagine that Iraq adds $80billion a year in spending without growing the government?

The military is still intact, all the branches are still there, the only difference is that they won't be in Iraq. Government spending has nothing to do with what people mean when they say "big government". For the government to shrink they would have to actually be regulating less, and physically shrinking as far as departments and such go, and as Bryan stated earlier they don't let people go, they just put them somewhere else. You could argue though that since we are regulating Iraq so to speak that pulling out would mean less government regulation, so in that sense yes pulling out would mean smaller U.S. government for the people of Iraq, but not for U.S. citizens.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What makes you assured that the Democratic candidate if elected will pursue the status quo? This is an attitude I've had that recently I'm worried is self-defeating.

Reading back over what I wrote, I think my wording was pretty messy. Lots of pronouns without definite referents and stuff like that. So I'm not sure why you're talking about Democrats pursuing the status quo. I think they'll maintain enough of an empire to keep people happy (and definitely to dangle that carrot into a second term), but move to significantly increase taxes and domestic spending. Now, I don't particularly care about elections, but I certainly don't want my children to carry this horrible of a tax burden, and I know they will because nobody is having babies any more.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The other option is vote Ron Paul as a write-in, but I'm worried that if enough conservatives do that, a Republican will win and the party will assume, yet again, that they have a mandate to do what they want because they were elected. I think if a Republican is elected, they will have no motivation to reevaluate their relationship to their constituency. But if a Democrat is elected, they may have to look at how they lost. Part of that may lead them to examine how candidates like Ron Paul galvanized a significant subset of Republicans.

I'd be more inclined to say that they will see that they lost to the Democrats and therefore try to become more like the Democrats. Reason being that Paul is pushing humility and limited government, and power-hungry people who get elected by promising to solve all your problems will instantly rule out cutting down the government. Did Ross Perot get the Republicans to change? No. After Bush lost, the next Bush made promises of limited government and no nation-building and then broke every single one of them. So at most they'll just change their rhetoric, not their strategies.

The real players (for Republicans) are (a) the War On Radical Fundamentalist Evil Baby-Eating Islam, and (b) big-government assumptions of the American people. Until people are outraged that the government did something, instead of being outraged when the government doesn't do something as is now the case, there will be no pressure on anybody to trim the government down to size. And both sides have urgent issues that undergird big government: The Democrats' utopian socialism and the Republicans' Messianic National Defense.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Also, if their response is to move further toward the liberal/moderate angle of the Democrats, this will further highlight their distance from traditional conservative values (which, admittedly, will lead to gay marriage and a lack of government breaks for religious groups, which scares many values voters) and will perhaps lead to the emergence of a new party.

Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani because of the part he would play in the War On Terror, meaning that the perceived national defense threat is the really defining issue for social conservatives. So they can shift a little bit of the war rhetoric and tack on some socialism to move closer to the Democrats while holding their base. It would be pretty tough to create a major third party, particularly due to the media.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I think if we elect a Republican who doesn't have a drastically different way of thinking than this current administration, the world will receive the message that Americans have resigned themselves to the status quo. I think electing Ron Paul, or Clinton or Obama, will send a message that Americans are seeing the need for change. Do I think Clinton or Obama will be major agent of change? No, but but they'll be more of one than the Republican frontrunners (as much as this might get me shouted down, I'd take Clinton over Obama, but that's another thread).

I don't see Obama or Clinton as serious agents for change in the most significant issue -- the War. Sure, they won't be lock-step with Bush like a Republican candidate, but they're not going to rock the boat too much.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Electing a Republican is not merely electing an individual, it's giving validation to the party. The party hasn't stood for conservative values in a long, long time, and needs to reevaluate itself.

I agree. So I'm not saying to vote Republican instead of Democrat. I definitely wouldn't vote Republican (other than Ron Paul). But I wouldn't vote Democrat because I don't want the Republicans to think that the way to win is to take some of the worst parts of the Democrats and add them to their War rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Also, despite my concerns that they won't follow through, a Democrat is more likely to get us out of Iraq than a Republican (save Mr. Paul), and that's important to me.

Most definitely true, but they won't leave Iraq any time soon. What was Hillary's estimate? 2013 or something? Around her second term?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Asking me to pay higher taxes as a trade for hopefully atoning for recent American injustices overseas, well - it's not a trade-off that bothers me. We're talking lesser of several evils here, not just two. How much do the lives of others matter to me in relationship to my taxes and finances?

I've got no problem with that. But (a) I don't believe the Democrats actually will fix much of the foreign policy mess, and (b) the issue is trajectory -- what our children will pay in taxes -- not how much I have to shell out next year.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Obviously, Dems have proven cowardly in many ways in recent years in regards to taking stands and standing up to the administration. They make me nervous. But if given power, they're more likely to dismantle the Patriot Act, the torture, the War in Iraq, etc. than McCain or Huckabee.

More likely, sure. But still extremely unlikely. Well, unless we count Kucinich.

[Chrysostom]

So, that post was really, really long. Why don't we just forget it? But let's talk about what is the most interesting thing to me -- a new party. You suggest above that if by voting Democrat you get the Republicans to move toward the Democrats (albeit in all the bad areas of the Democrat party, not the good ones, in all likelihood), this creates room for a third party to emerge. It will grab a couple of Democrats, a chunk of the Republicans, and a whole bunch of people who are at present too disillusioned to vote. I, for instance, am not necessarily disillusioned, but if there were a viable party that actually supported small government and low taxes then I would definitely go out to vote. I would even give a significant campaign contribution.

So, tell me about your vision for a new party. What could it look like? How would it form? How could it get around the power of the mainstream media? What's it going to do about the existent parties?

the only other thing I said of much substance in the post above was that I don't trust the Democrats to leave Iraq. Quicker than the Republicans, sure, but that's like saying that the pot is really dark charcoal gray while the kettle is black.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

What are historically conservative values? (I'm not being sarcastic or snotty, I'm just seriously ignorant)

Small government, general isolationism, privacy from government oversight, power at the state level, etc.

Are you basing your idea of the modern Republican off of George Bush, or are all the Republican candidates really not going to make the government smaller?
Also, do you not want a larger army and all the other things the Republican party brings to mind?

Certainly off Bush, since he hasn't had much opposition from his peers in the party. The Republican-supported army (since it's the legislative branch that passes and funds these things) has cut benefits, allowed corrupt private groups to get involved, has stretched our military too thin to complete not occuption (as in South Korea's border) but removal of foreign hostiles, etc.

Socialism is bad for many reasons. The quality goes down... there would be lines for the emergency room... would Christ vote for that just because some more poor people could be helped at the expense of quality and service?

Christ seemed pretty unconcerned with reforming His government, and the Apostle Paul was fairly mute on the whole issue of the role of government beyond "They bear the sword" and "Submit to them." Christ told us to render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's.

I have my own fear of socialism. Like I've said elsewhere, I lean Objectivist. So the idea of creating too great of a safety net that it doesn't reward the active frightens me.

However, I don't hear too many Republicans calling for the privitization of the police and fire departments. Somehow, that social service has seemed to be perceived by the public as working. Perhaps we can identify how they are serving their constituencies.

Haha, I was saying I think it's odd to solely base your vote off of how many deaths will occur under a president's candidacy. I'd think there are some principles/policies/values that would be of interest to you.

Preserving life isn't a value? But beyond that, it's not the only value. My point is just that neither party is representing my values, so should I just vote for someone that has no chance, or should I vote for the party who represents the most actions I support, even if the motivations are suspect to me.

[Jeffrey]

This one's a doozy. My responses may be brief.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Reading back over what I wrote, I think my wording was pretty messy. Lots of pronouns without definite referents and stuff like that. So I'm not sure why you're talking about Democrats pursuing the status quo. I think they'll maintain enough of an empire to keep people happy (and definitely to dangle that carrot into a second term), but move to significantly increase taxes and domestic spending. Now, I don't particularly care about elections, but I certainly don't want my children to carry this horrible of a tax burden, and I know they will because nobody is having babies any more.

Well, I don't intend to have kids, but I see what you mean. I think one of the great sins that the Lord will hopefully hold us accountable for the rampant pollution of the past century of the developed wealth. We're handing poor health to our kids.

On the same token, do we want to hand the War in Iraq to our kids?

But going on my previous post to Nate, if neither party represents my values and voting for a third party will have no effect (arguably, voting Democraft will have no effect, since I live in Texas), shouldn't I at least vote for the party whose actions I approve more than the others?

(though my big fear is that the Democrats will further weaken the dollar and our economic status in relation to China - though the Republicans have gotten deeper and deeper into that quagmire)

I'd be more inclined to say that they will see that they lost to the Democrats and therefore try to become more like the Democrats. Reason being that Paul is pushing humility and limited government, and power-hungry people who get elected by promising to solve all your problems will instantly rule out cutting down the government. Did Ross Perot get the Republicans to change? No. After Bush lost, the next Bush made promises of limited government and no nation-building and then broke every single one of them. So at most they'll just change their rhetoric, not their strategies.

Ross Perot wasn't a Republican. But at least the Democrats aren't liars. They're not afraid to discuss raising taxes and things like that. We've been lied to by the Republicans. Not just about Iraq - like you said, smaller government, new foreign policy, etc.

The real players (for Republicans) are (a) the War On Radical Fundamentalist Evil Baby-Eating Islam, and (b) big-government assumptions of the American people. Until people are outraged that the government did something, instead of being outraged when the government doesn't do something as is now the case, there will be no pressure on anybody to trim the government down to size. And both sides have urgent issues that undergird big government: The Democrats' utopian socialism and the Republicans' Messianic National Defense.

Until people are outraged? I'm ****ing out of my skull. Bernanke has no idea, and all that. Is there nothing I can do?

I don't see Obama or Clinton as serious agents for change in the most significant issue -- the War. Sure, they won't be lock-step with Bush like a Republican candidate, but they're not going to rock the boat too much.

I think that if the Democrats don't pull us out of Iraq, they'll easily lose a second term. They'll also lose any chance of gaining the legislative branch. I don't think you understand how much Americans want us out. If the Dems say "We're leaving," but don't, then they'll lose their chance for re-election.

This could be where the third parties get a chance. If the Dems **** up their time in the White House, folks could still have a fresh distaste for the Republicans, and starting voting third party.

I agree. So I'm not saying to vote Republican instead of Democrat. I definitely wouldn't vote Republican (other than Ron Paul). But I wouldn't vote Democrat because I don't want the Republicans to think that the way to win is to take some of the worst parts of the Democrats and add them to their War rhetoric.

I don't know. I think if enough Republicans contact their party and let them they're voting third-party or Democrat not out of support for Dems or more odd third-party positions, but to show the Republicans their frustration, they'll listen. Once I decide how to vote, I intend to write my representatives in the legislative branch and let them know how and why I voted. Sure, they won't read it necessarily, but if enough folks do.

John, I'm not saying I don't agree with you on a lot here (we clearly both like small government, low taxes, etc. - not sure where you stand on foreign policy or social issues like gay marriage), but I think without meaning this as an insult, that your position is fatalistic. Or rather, it would seem to be until I understand how you intend to vote.

Do you envision yourself as a force for change to create or empower viable third parties? Or rather, to be more blunt, who do you plan to vote for, if anyone?

I'll admit, I have no interest in voting for a Republican, but I fear third party unless I think there's a third party ready to step up.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

By controlling health care the government is essentially controlling the distribution of medicine and hospital services. That meets the requirement of Socialism. Creating universal health care would mean creating new branches of the government, new regulations, etc. That is what makes big government, spending has nothing to do with it.

Providing more governmental healthcare would not require new departments. It would not be control of hospitals, doctors, or medical services, As to new branches... you do know that the government only has three right?

You don't seem to understand the definitions of any of the words in play, nor te governments current role in healthcare, nor the proposition expanding it.

The military is still intact, all the branches are still there, the only difference is that they won't be in Iraq.

Tens of thousands currently on government payrolls will no longer be. The government will shrink by about $80,000,000,000 per year.

Government spending has nothing to do with what people mean when they say "big government". For the government to shrink they would have to actually be regulating less, and physically shrinking as far as departments and such go

Then expanding state healthcare to all Americans would not be big government and you've disproven your original assertion.

I'm glad we could come to a consensus. Better luck next time.

[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Providing more governmental healthcare would not require new departments. It would not be control of hospitals, doctors, or medical services, As to new branches... you do know that the government only has three right?

You don't seem to understand the definitions of any of the words in play, nor te governments current role in healthcare, nor the proposition expanding it.

You're right, I used the wrong word. Substitute my incorrect use of the word "branch" with "department" and you'll find it to be true. The government will have to create new departments in order to expand the health care system, and that is larger government.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Tens of thousands currently on government payrolls will no longer be. The government will shrink by about $80,000,000,000 per year.

Yes government spending will decrease, nobody is denying that, but government spending is not the same thing as the government size.

I don't see why you feel the need to be sarcastic about this, you're having an argument about government with somebody whom you don't even know, yet you feel the need to try and insult me. We shouldn't take this so seriously.