Still though you can debate all you want but when it comes down to government and experience, Mr. Obama has not governed a state or a city or a town or even a village and has been a senator for only 2 years. (3 if you count '08, but I'm not going to count it) And here he expects the Americans to hand him the key to the country and basically have the biggest power on earth. I for one, will never do that and will fight till the end to not let him get the keys. Again McCain might be old, and yes he's a republican, but he knows the difference between right and wrong, he knows that you cannot negotiate with Ahmedinejad and other terrorists like him and will do everything in his power to bring America on her feet again.
Yeah if all the Americans would vote like that but you know that will never happen. So my choice is for the better person, a more experienced politician, a war veteran, and that would be John.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain has no executive experience either. This is why the choice is "none of the above" for me.</div> If I leaned right, like I think you do, I would definitely agree with you on none of the above. It's hilarious to me that conservatives and moderate Republicans are rallying behind a guy that has proven to be a Republican by name only. People are complaining about Obama's vague call for change, but at the same time, accepting complete reversals in attitude and position from McCain as he scrambles to gain the support of conservatives. Essentially, we have two Democrats to choose from in November, and the difference to me is that one will be true to his actual beliefs and the other will try to walk a fine line between acting out what he truly believes and pandering to his party and its supporters.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jul 6 2008, 04:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tim @ Jul 6 2008, 12:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jul 5 2008, 08:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What's funny to me is that if the nominees were Hillary and Mitt Romney, it would be the Democrats in here crying about foreign policy work and political experience. People's opinions change based upon their candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately all they really care about is that their candidate wins the election.</div> While the republicans don't do the same? I respect McCain with all my heart for what he did as a war veteran, but what he has said he plans to do as president reminds me of a certain President Bush, in that he wants to continue the war, keep Bush's tax cuts that benefit the rich, keep restrictions on gay rights (I know not an issue on the same level as the other two, but close to my heart. I have two gay uncles that deserve more respect than they get). And I know many of you don't find George Dubya to be a great president. From what I see here, republicans seem to be doing the same thing by just making sure McCain wins. I'm not saying democrats are innocent in this accusation, but IMO you can't keep republicans out of this. </div> You basically just repeated what I said. Both sides are guilty of it. </div> My mistake. I read it as if the democrats are the only ones doing it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 6 2008, 01:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Many say that tax cuts only benefit the rich, but that couldnt be farther from the truth....lets start with this: Poor people dont pay taxes in this country, atleast not income taxes....for the past 10 years, my tax return has been 100% of what I put in + much, much more....in most years, I pay under $100 during the year and get a return over $3000....so while its true that a tax cut doesnt give me direct benefit, thats because you cant cut $0 and thats what I pay....During the Bush administration, Ive twice been sent a check by the government related to a tax cut that wasnt related to my personal returns....the 1st happend shortly after he took office and was for $600, the other came this year and was for $1800....how does that benifit only the rich???? The basic difference between the two parties is in the size of the Federal Government. Republicans believe in a limited government that covers the basics such as defense and tranquility, Dems believe in a larger government that regulates much more and provides lots of social programs....the truth is, the Republicans want you to keep your money, Dems want to take it and disperse it to those less fortunate....often, that dispersal goes not to those less fortunate, but to those who will not put forth effort, refusing to work for themselves or thier families....the rules are so complex and counterintuitive that they restrict help for those that are literally working themselves to death and give help freely to some who do nothing and collect a living....</div> That's true of some Republicans (most of the ones who post on this forum, for example), but is by no means consistent along the entire party. I totally agree with what Thrilla was trying to say. I've never really been able to understand why people can be such staunch supporters of a single party when, in most cases, elections boils down to which candidate is less phony/corrupt/moronic. Especially in America, where its essentially become two parties spouting the same rhetoric, differentiated only by their history.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jul 6 2008, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain has no executive experience either. This is why the choice is "none of the above" for me.</div> If I leaned right, like I think you do, I would definitely agree with you on none of the above. It's hilarious to me that conservatives and moderate Republicans are rallying behind a guy that has proven to be a Republican by name only. People are complaining about Obama's vague call for change, but at the same time, accepting complete reversals in attitude and position from McCain as he scrambles to gain the support of conservatives. Essentially, we have two Democrats to choose from in November, and the difference to me is that one will be true to his actual beliefs and the other will try to walk a fine line between acting out what he truly believes and pandering to his party and its supporters. </div> It's funny you say that because from what I keep seeing on TV and hearing from Democrats is McCain is not as independent as he was in 2000 and he's nothing more than a third Bush term.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 6 2008, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jul 6 2008, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain has no executive experience either. This is why the choice is "none of the above" for me.</div> If I leaned right, like I think you do, I would definitely agree with you on none of the above. It's hilarious to me that conservatives and moderate Republicans are rallying behind a guy that has proven to be a Republican by name only. People are complaining about Obama's vague call for change, but at the same time, accepting complete reversals in attitude and position from McCain as he scrambles to gain the support of conservatives. Essentially, we have two Democrats to choose from in November, and the difference to me is that one will be true to his actual beliefs and the other will try to walk a fine line between acting out what he truly believes and pandering to his party and its supporters. </div> It's funny you say that because from what I keep seeing on TV and hearing from Democrats is McCain is not as independent as he was in 2000 and he's nothing more than a third Bush term. </div> It's all strategy. If Democrats come out and say "Well McCain isn't so bad, really. He has a history of doing his own thing instead of following the Republican party.", then they're just inviting independents and left-leaners to vote for him instead of Obama. Bush is so unpopular with these people right now that any association or comparison the Dems can make is a positive for Obama. Obama's strength is the Democratic base, and his main focus should be the center. McCain, on the other hand, is strong with the center and needs to focus on the Republican base.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jul 6 2008, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 6 2008, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jul 6 2008, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain has no executive experience either. This is why the choice is "none of the above" for me.</div> If I leaned right, like I think you do, I would definitely agree with you on none of the above. It's hilarious to me that conservatives and moderate Republicans are rallying behind a guy that has proven to be a Republican by name only. People are complaining about Obama's vague call for change, but at the same time, accepting complete reversals in attitude and position from McCain as he scrambles to gain the support of conservatives. Essentially, we have two Democrats to choose from in November, and the difference to me is that one will be true to his actual beliefs and the other will try to walk a fine line between acting out what he truly believes and pandering to his party and its supporters. </div> It's funny you say that because from what I keep seeing on TV and hearing from Democrats is McCain is not as independent as he was in 2000 and he's nothing more than a third Bush term. </div> It's all strategy. If Democrats come out and say "Well McCain isn't so bad, really. He has a history of doing his own thing instead of following the Republican party.", then they're just inviting independents and left-leaners to vote for him instead of Obama. Bush is so unpopular with these people right now that any association or comparison the Dems can make is a positive for Obama. Obama's strength is the Democratic base, and his main focus should be the center. McCain, on the other hand, is strong with the center and needs to focus on the Republican base. </div> Oh believe me I know. One of my fustrations with the Republican party is not only have they strayed from their fiscal conservatism and limited government, but they're also owned by the religious right, just as the Democratic party is owned by moveon.org, environmentalists and other far left groups.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 6 2008, 12:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Oh believe me I know. One of my fustrations with the Republican party is not only have they strayed from their fiscal conservatism and limited government, but they're also owned by the religious right, just as the Democratic party is owned by moveon.org, environmentalists and other far left groups.</div> Agreed. I love to follow politics, but I can only take it in small doses. It's really a shame what it has become.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jul 6 2008, 09:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain has no executive experience either. This is why the choice is "none of the above" for me.</div> If I leaned right, like I think you do, I would definitely agree with you on none of the above. It's hilarious to me that conservatives and moderate Republicans are rallying behind a guy that has proven to be a Republican by name only. People are complaining about Obama's vague call for change, but at the same time, accepting complete reversals in attitude and position from McCain as he scrambles to gain the support of conservatives. Essentially, we have two Democrats to choose from in November, and the difference to me is that one will be true to his actual beliefs and the other will try to walk a fine line between acting out what he truly believes and pandering to his party and its supporters. </div> I don't lean right; I think I'm the just about most liberal person around, though I am certainly not a progressive or social democrat. In my book, the far right is extremely dangerous for the people, while the far left is equally so or moreso but doesn't get called out for it. I've seen enough to realize that Obama is the product of slick marketing and massive amounts of PR spending and weak populist rhetoric. McCain is one of the true good guys, but I see him as a quality VP not president material. Regardless, I think they're both sell-outs and typical politicians you find in either party. Obama is sure to be elected, given all the money he has to spend on advertising and staff, on top of the 95% (ok, that's my gut figure) positive/pro-Obama spin coming from the news media. Like, did you know McCain just went to Columbia and only ABC and Fox sent reporters along, while I fully expect it to be SRO on the flights to Iraq when Obama goes. And certainly, Obama will make similar kinds of gaffes that McCain has made, and they will be shined on. And, like the country and world survived Bush I and Bush II and Clinton, it will survive Obama.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 01:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jul 6 2008, 09:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain has no executive experience either. This is why the choice is "none of the above" for me.</div> If I leaned right, like I think you do, I would definitely agree with you on none of the above. It's hilarious to me that conservatives and moderate Republicans are rallying behind a guy that has proven to be a Republican by name only. People are complaining about Obama's vague call for change, but at the same time, accepting complete reversals in attitude and position from McCain as he scrambles to gain the support of conservatives. Essentially, we have two Democrats to choose from in November, and the difference to me is that one will be true to his actual beliefs and the other will try to walk a fine line between acting out what he truly believes and pandering to his party and its supporters. </div> I don't lean right; I think I'm the just about most liberal person around, though I am certainly not a progressive or social democrat. In my book, the far right is extremely dangerous for the people, while the far left is equally so or moreso but doesn't get called out for it. I've seen enough to realize that Obama is the product of slick marketing and massive amounts of PR spending and weak populist rhetoric. McCain is one of the true good guys, but I see him as a quality VP not president material. Regardless, I think they're both sell-outs and typical politicians you find in either party. Obama is sure to be elected, given all the money he has to spend on advertising and staff, on top of the 95% (ok, that's my gut figure) positive/pro-Obama spin coming from the news media. Like, did you know McCain just went to Columbia and only ABC and Fox sent reporters along, while I fully expect it to be SRO on the flights to Iraq when Obama goes. And certainly, Obama will make similar kinds of gaffes that McCain has made, and they will be shined on. And, like the country and world survived Bush I and Bush II and Clinton, it will survive Obama. </div> My mistake, I guess. You're not a Republican, you just play one on the internet.
LOL I'm not a republican. I'm a registered independent. There's very few republicans I like, and most of them are not in office anymore (like Dick Armey and John Kasich). I voted for Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Ron Paul, Marrou, Browne, Browne, and Badnarik the last 7 presidential elections. I voted for Harry Reid (but won't again) for senator. I donated to Bill Bradley's presidential campaign, as well as Paul Tsongas', both Democrats. I supported Ron Paul this time around (2nd time for me).
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/home/skip/?s=0618 Is who I'm leaning toward right now. As a republican, he was awful, but toward the end he seemed to get it. He seems to have fooled the party into nominating him, maybe he's become a true Libertarian.
I'm not totally familiar with the Libertarian party, what about their beliefs sets them apart from other parties?
The way someone speaks should not dictate who you vote for, but it is clear it has been a huge factor this time around. I'm a Democrat and figured I'd always vote Democratic but Barack Obama is ridiculous. I don't agree with John McCain on policy but I do believe he knows what is right and what is wrong. Obama hasn't ever achieved anything so his promises don't mean anything. I don't think he can equate the plans on his websites to real action if he, God forbid, wins the presidency. This wouldn't be my opinion if the nominee was Clinton, Biden, or Edwards. All three have made promises and have delivered. From Obama I see the Manchurian candidate. If he does become president, I will support him because this country is long overdue for health care reform (interestingly enough, I do disagree with Obama on the importance of mandates). And people mentioned tax cuts earlier in the thread -- Obama's plan (and most of the Democrats who were running) called for tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. The top five percent are the ones who are benefitting from the Bush tax cuts. I agree on this matter. The top five percent should be paying more taxes, not less, while ordinary Americans are suffering.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tim @ Jul 6 2008, 10:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not totally familiar with the Libertarian party, what about their beliefs sets them apart from other parties?</div> Think of what's in the Constitution and the Libertarians are for it. Think of what's not in the Constitution and the Libertarians are against it. Based upon this simple principle, Libertarians don't flip-flop on issues, since they oppose just about all of them. Libertarians would bring all our troops home from everywhere in the world, to protect our shores and do nothing more. The free market should determine things, not govt. programs. Zero or very low taxes. TINY government, the individual controls his own destiny.
Actually, it's short enough to post the whole LP platform: http://www.lp.org/platform Platform National Platform of the Libertarian Party Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado Preamble As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles. These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands. Statement of Principles We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual. We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent. We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation. Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market. 1.0 Personal Liberty Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. 1.1 Expression and Communication We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion. 1.2 Personal Privacy We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. 1.3 Personal Relationships Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. 1.4 Abortion Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. 1.5 Crime and Justice Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. 1.6 Self-Defense The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. 2.0 Economic Liberty A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society. 2.1 Property and Contract Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners. 2.2 Environment We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior. 2.3 Energy and Resources While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production. 2.4 Government Finance and Spending All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. 2.5 Money and Financial Markets We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account. 2.6 Monopolies and Corporations We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets. 2.7 Labor Markets We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain. 2.8 Education Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education. 2.9 Health Care We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. 2.10 Retirement and Income Security Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. 3.0 Securing Liberty The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments. 3.1 National Defense We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service. 3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law. 3.3 International Affairs American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. 3.4 Free Trade and Migration We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. 3.5 Rights and Discrimination We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. 3.6 Representative Government We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. 3.7 Self-Determination Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty. 4.0 Omissions Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
I'm a centrist with a financially conservative lean, and it has been a crappy place to be for a long time. The Republican Party has become more about anti-abortion and anti-gay rights than anything else while creating larger government. The Democratic Party has become more about global warming and bashing Bush than anything else.