What party am I?

[Pekka]

Yeah but Lancerman, look at it like this. No groups owns you. You are you.. you believe in what you believe and that's it. Now, there are groups you can join fi you want to.. but they are stupid. You are not stupid. Don't join the babylon! I mean it's like.. if the democrats would state tomorrow 'we like ice cream', and you go 'hey I like ice cream too!', would you join the party? I mean sure, but... you know what I mean?

[RGBVideo]

at morons who actually think the republicans give a **** about abortion.

FFS, they've controlled all three branches of goverment for over four years now and haven't done anything to that mass murder. It's pretty damn clear that they only push it as an election issue, being pro-death in private.

[snoopy369]

Lancer, I'm going to tell you you're a republican (well, more than a democrat anyway) ... for two major reasons.

1, Pro Life. If this is truly the single most important detail for you - the Republican PARTY is pro-life, the Democratic PARTY is pro-choice. Of course some members of each party go the other way, but the PARTY LINE is such, and that's what determines your personal party affiliation.

2. Pro Military. The Republican party, for many reasons, is the party of the Military. They are pro-international action, and pro-military funding. The military generally increases in funding during Republican administrations/congresses, and decreases during 1992-1994 type Democratic dominated periods. (Note: not 100%, but this is the GENERAL trend.)

The rest of your beliefs seem to be more populist - not dissimilar from Democrats, but not entirely with them either. You're probably pro-REAL unions, and not pro-Hoffa, if I had to guess ... and the Democrats are pro-Hoffa, as a party. (IE, corrupt unions who do nothing for their membership and just steal money and political power) ... I'm the same way, I believe unions when run RIGHT are good for the nation.
Pro-environment depends on how you stand such - many republicans are very pro-environment, except that they believe that the government has no place forcing people to give up huge amounts of money or property for meaningless environmental issues; they prefer private action, such as the Sierra club (which has many Republican members, although it tends to be a Democratic supporter of course).
Worker protection you could be either party - it depends on how you want to protect those workers. Republicans prefer to protect them via decreased immigration and lowered corporate taxes (thus increasing corporate expansion); Democrats prefer to protect them through tariffs (and possibly other ways, i'm not as familiar with this area). However, neither party meaningfully objects to globalization; both are far too much into the pockets of corporate America to object there.
Finally, higher minimum wage; there you're a democrat.

Anyway, I'd say because your two primary deciding factors are republican - so if you force yourself to be tied down to a specific party, it's Republican. Otherwise just vote for whomever you prefer in each election, or "Independent".

On a sidebar, I'd almost call you an antilibertarian. Pretty much all of your beliefs are anti-libertarian ... just there's no concrete party who believes such.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by VJ
at morons who actually think the republicans give a **** about abortion.

they don't

this is easily seen

and honestly, what needs to change is that people need to really think about it

as long as people don't think about it, or are selfish (Because the baby doesn't have a voice), it won't end

and also honestly, I would rather abortions were done by doctors then in back alleys

JM

[Jon Miller]

yuo can't say that this current admin is pro military

maybe pro using the military to futher the aims of certain industry... but you can't say pro military

JM

[Stefu]

You can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. You can support the right to choose and be opposed to the actual event (like, say, "I think it should be an option but I would do everything in my power to convince otherwise).

Except that I'd trust that Lancer wouldn't take this position because he doesn't want to be the biggest weasel ever.

[RGBVideo]

They are pro-international action

Were you awake during the last decade? The major issue during 2000 presidential campaign was whether US military should be used against other countries even if they didn't necessarily directly attack against them -- with Bush being against intervention. In 1998, when Clinton tried to attack Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the republicans in Congress attacked at him like wild dogs, yelling that the strike wasn't necessary, it wasted taxpayers' money, and the whole strike was nothing but a scheme to divert attention from the sex scandal which the republicans made a big mess out of.

But yes, the republicans are pro-intervention and the democrats pro-terrorism... because... because Bush is a war hero! He landed on an aircraft carrier, remember?

I also think it's pretty ironic that you think that republicans are pro-military simply because they've increased the money they spend in Congress -- equipment amount and quality has actually decreased lately while the money has been re-directed towards hopelessly corrupt pork projects awarded to the companies which give campaign gifts to The Party -- consider, f.e., the "new" xm8-rifle or the half-armored humvees, which have both eaten ludicrous amounts of $$$ while being at best of mediocre quality.

[snoopy369]

If the republicans aren't pro-life, then why was the Democratic party scared to death that Bush would nominate two pro-life justices???

The Republicans are pro-military. Not only do I hold as evidence the military's clear opinion of this - voting Republican overwhelmingly; why else did Gore try to prevent some military votes from overseas in Florida from counting, and Bush argued aggressively for them (the OTHER florida voting scandal ...); but also I hold Ronald Reagan as strong evidence of this. Reagan built up our military like nobody since Roosevelt (Theodore of course ) during a non-war time. Reagan is the current Republican party's hero, not Bush... and they are very pro-military SPENDING.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by VJ

Were you awake during the last decade? The major issue during 2000 presidential campaign was whether US military should be used against other countries even if they didn't necessarily directly attack against them -- with Bush being against intervention. In 1998, when Clinton tried to attack Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the republicans in Congress attacked at him like wild dogs, yelling that the strike wasn't necessary, it wasted taxpayers' money, and the whole strike was nothing but a scheme to divert attention from the sex scandal which the republicans made a big mess out of.

But yes, the republicans are pro-intervention and the democrats pro-terrorism... because... because Bush is a war hero! He landed on an aircraft carrier, remember?

Clinton WAS trying to divert from the sex scandal ... he had entirely ignored Bin Laden since then. Republicans saw the threat of the USSR, and did something about it - Reagan's massive military buildup was the final straw there - and Republicans wanted to end the menace of Saddam Hussein, and did something about it. Clinton just watched him shoot at US planes and did virtually nothing ... I won't disagree that the Republicans were very partisan in their objection to his action in 1998 ... but nobody (high ranking), Clinton included, realistically considered terrorist acts like 2001. Any other argument is hindsight (well, any other non-factually backed ... )

[chequita guevara]

Because a good chnk of the GOP party base is pro-life and the Dem's feared the Prez would toss them a bone after Roberts, the Katinra payout, etc. Bush is losing his conservative cred.

[chequita guevara]

Snoop, spending lots of money on the military isn't necessarily pro-military. It's pro-military suppliers. Spending lots of money on the soldiers is pro-military. The GOP has never been real good at that.

[Jon Miller]

whatever may be said (And I have serious issues with Bush 1 and Reagan) they are very different then those current in power for the republicans

Jon Miller

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Stefu

Except that I'd trust that Lancer wouldn't take this position because he doesn't want to be the biggest weasel ever.

Why is this necessarily being a weasel? There is plenty of grey area between either extreme. He can't technically be both, but he can be somewhere in between. Or, more accurately, he can be pro-choice, but believe that some choices are better or worse than others, and have the right to say so.

[RGBVideo]

Clinton WAS trying to divert from the sex scandal

How do you know this?



...Because Ann Coulter told you so?

Republicans wanted to end the menace of Saddam Hussein, and did something about it. Clinton just watched him shoot at US planes and did virtually nothing

Again and again, you're confusing Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden as allies. Before 2000, Clinton tried to focus on anti-terror manhunt undercover. In 2001, republicans cut almost all anti-terror funding as another liberal tax-and-spend project and appointed a foreign policy academic without any military experience as the National Security Advisor of a president -- the job slot which is meant to be given to a person who has a large amount of experience when it comes to protecting America. The republican party only started to portray itself as pro-military intervention after 9/11. Before that, it dismissed all military interventions against nations that didn't directly attack US as hopeless nation building -projects.

[RGBVideo]

Yeah but Lancerman, look at it like this. No groups owns you. You are you.. you believe in what you believe and that's it. Now, there are groups you can join fi you want to.. but they are stupid. You are not stupid. Don't join the babylon! I mean it's like.. if the democrats would state tomorrow 'we like ice cream', and you go 'hey I like ice cream too!', would you join the party? I mean sure, but... you know what I mean?

I agree with Pekka, it doesn't make any sense to label yourself as either "democrat" or a "republican" and then blindly vote for the party, always. Vote for the people you think are doing a decent job and against corrupt or inept suckers. Party loyalty doesn't really matter in a simple two-party system unless you're a part of a special interest group.