All I know is, jlprk needs to buy a vowel or he'll never be completely understood. Then again, who am I to talk.
nope... I've just been STOMP for the last 10+ years I've posted with this group. I had quite a few head buttings with that guy in both the main and OT forums over things like politics. I'm pretty sure Papa G was the latest incarnation of an old poster named Terrible as he shared the same manic/confused logic and confrontational to the Nth degree posting style. STOMP
Democrats burned down Tusla Oklahoma in 1921 and were responsible for Jim Crow. They got us into every war since the civil war through the end of Vietnam. I could go on, but you get the gist. I don't see how cleaning up a mess created by govt. using govt. that isn't working well is something to be proud of.
I started as a democrat. Just couldn't take the lies and hatred they have for every point of view other than their own- not to mention huge taxes for government waste. Then I became a republican, but couldn't stomach their stances on the environment and business (to a certain degree). So then I realized that not only does neither party have the answers, but it's often about the individual politicians as well- a few are very honest and decent people, but most could care less about "serving the public". So, I stay a moderate independent and vote my conscience.
If you became a democrat, what would change? Would you suddenly disagree with yourself? Becoming a democrat (or any other political affiliation) is as easy as checking a box, and it has about as much meaning.
While I have no doubt that would never consider becoming a person of hatred (democrat), this was still an interesting thread. Methinks you were actually trying to start trouble again.
See. That's why I switched. I also have to admit, it's a lot nicer not having to support wrong ideals (or being told to) just because I may belong to a certain political party. I support certain ideas and certain politicians (to a certain degree). As an example, I voted for Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith and Kitzhaber as I felt they all had a fair amount of integrity and to me people of integrity usually do a better job of bringing fairness to their jobs.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like if you like a paternalistic government focused on punishment and pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, be a Republican. If you want a maternalistic government focused on caring for the larger group, be a Democrat. At their core, I've always viewed it as a balance between justice and equality. Republicans think of government as a means of ensuring people get what they deserve, for good or ill (justice). Democrats are more concerned about using government to ensure fairness for disadvantaged groups (equality). People get really wound up about portraying the other side in really horrible lights, but the truth is that there's a lot of merit to both outlooks. We'd have a pretty rotten country if one wasn't constantly counter balancing the other.
