Will someone please simply explain the differences in the political parties? Republicans, democrats, libertarians, and any other party, conservative republican, liberal democrats, etc.? Thanks

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), August 06, 2000

Answers

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." I would also enjoy a lesson!! Thanks for asking this question, Cindy.

-- Cathy Horn (hrnofplnty@webtv.net), August 06, 2000.

Cindy, I am sure you will get better answers to this question than what I can offer, but in my understanding of the differences it comes down to what each party believes the role of gov't is. I will briefly cover these differences as I have 3 bushels of tomatoes calling my name!! Democrates = Big gov't is good. The great equalizer. Feelings and perceptions are what matter. The great unwashed can not, will not do the right thing without gov't "making" them. Liberal democrats, in my humble opinion, agree to all of the above but would add "socialism" in it's purest form. Rid themselves of the outdated/overused constitution and begin anew....with socialist principles at the core of our government. Republicans = Small gov't (tho I am sure as you will hear from the libertarians, not as small as it should be). People are what make this country great, not gov't. Self responsibiltiy to family, church, community, country, etc.., but usually with a "standard" of morality involved. Gov't should protect borders, uphold that which we as a country hold valuable, and get out of the way of those who wish to succeed. Libertarians (You will certainly get a better definition of libertarians than I can give you) are more "strictly" constitutionalist's, without the morality, either supported or not supported by gov't. I am a conservative bible believing christian, who finds most often the republican party upholds the values and ideals I believe in. But must add, I genuinely enjoy libertarians ideals and find myself in agreement (or close to it), whereas I am hardly EVER in agreement with democrats or liberals (socialists). This is a very quick analysis, and does not cover near the differences that do exsist nor am I commenting on the reality of these ideals, held by each party, being put into action. Just my 2cents. Looking forward to reading the responses, but for now....tomatoes!! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), August 06, 2000.

Golly, the answer to this question probably has filled several books.

As I see it, it's a difference in philosophy. Republicans say earn as much as you can and you can keep as much as possible. Democrats say earn as much as you can and we'll take as much as we can away to give to the poor and down-trodden (e.g., those qualifying for welfare). A redistribution of wealth so to speak. However, as far as I know when this has been tried in other country the concept collapsed. Libertarians believe in less government is best, which fits the Republican philosophy more than the Democrats.

Within the major political parties there are off-shoots. Probably the most famous of these were the old Southern Democrats who voted with the Republicans about as often as with fellow Democrats. They have largely been replaced by Republicans. Heck, Tennessee has a Republican governor and two Senators.

Probably it would be a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat.

American politicals can be ugly, but it is still be best system in the world today. One reason I wouldn't support a third-party. You can see how multiple political parties work in countries such as Italy and Israel.

I had the option of running for a state-wide office one time. Received a call from someone asking me to consider running as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio on the Libertarian ticket. Flattered, but I am a strong Republican (as if you couldn't tell from the above) and as a federal employee at that time couldn't run for something like that without resigning. Even if I been a Libertarian - for a hopeless cause - I don't think so.

-- Ken S. (scharabo@aol.com), August 06, 2000.

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's, the product of both anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers. The term "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to the liberty and equality Thomas Jefferson envisioned through his Democratic-Republican Party in 1800. John C. Fremont was nominated by the Republicans in 1856 under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Abraham Lincoln was, of course, the first Republican candidate elected to the presidency.

From Lincoln to Eisenhower, the Republican Party advocated a strong central government, while the Democratic Party -- until Franklin Roosevelt -- advocated a decentralized government and strong states' rights. After World War II, the Democratic message shifted left dramatically, as post-Roosevelt liberals became the advocates of a socialized national government -- far more powerful than the central government envisioned by our Founders, the Federalist defenders of our Constitution, or the Republicans.

The new Democrats initiated classist rhetoric (of the variety that gave rise to the Bolsheviks) and used the distribution of government largess to increasingly enslave their Democrat constituents. They further divided Americans along racial lines at every opportunity, shifting their advocacy from segregation to racial quotas. This reversal in the Democrats' message gave rise to a new breed of Republicans endeavoring to return the nation to its rightful owners -- the People.

From Goldwater to Reagan, the Republican Party has been a platform for thwarting the advance of Socialism -- with limited success.

-- walt (longyear@shentel.net), August 06, 2000.

Explaining the difference between all the political parties is like trying to explain the difference between kinds of corn, such as sweet, dent, yellow, white, hybrid and so on. It's all pretty much the same. Does better when a lot of manure is applied, and becomes a lot more valuable when fed to the hogs. Professional politicians take notice...

-- Ed Copp (edcopp@yahoo.com), August 06, 2000.

In practical terms I don't see much difference at all. The rhetoric is different but where the rubber hits the road its tweedle dee or tweedle dum. There seems to be alot of conservatives here on this board and the conservative viewpoint has some legitimate issues. On the other hand so do the liberals. Personally I'm disgusted with both of them because it seems to me that they disagree with the other just to drive the wedge in deeper between the people.

The republicans would have us believe they're out for the common person yet when they draft legislation its usually slanted in favor of the super rich who tend to more heavily finance the repub rather than the dems.

Personally I think i'm gonna vote third party this year.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), August 06, 2000.

My goodness Cindy! I think if the forum was a political teeter toter it would be sunk 3 feet underground to the right!! Ha Ha. All the democrats have long fled except me and I'm to chicken to give my opinion out of fear of being cyber stoned!! Anyway if your serious, research the web for a fair assessment....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), August 06, 2000.

Kirk, I am sitting here giggling still, cute post - don't worry I dont know how to throw cyber stones. Hang in there!! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), August 06, 2000.

I myself am a newly minted member of the Natural Law Party, founded be a nationally reknown quantum physicist named John Hagelin, which is trying to encapsulate (or be incapsulated by) the Reform party. The main platforms of the NLP are fiscal responsibility, tax relief through preventative, rather than curative, measures with regards to social issues like health and crime, environmental protection, innovative educational program innitiatives, ending of special interest control of politics, and a focus on cooperative (rather than competitive) foreign policies. The NLP has been referred to in this forum as the Rose Colored Glasses Party, mainly because the person felt that given our the present society's make-up, the goals of the NLP were essentially pipe dreams. Although I respect that seemingly pragmatic opinion, I would like to point out that we are in a period of nearly unparalleled change and paradigm shift vis-a-vis society's outlook on what it wants in its near and far future, and that the same dismissal was handed out to the abolitionists, the sufferagettes, and the civil rights advocates of Martin Luther King's time. In all these cases, although the odds seemed overwhelmingly against them, society was unwilling (as a whole) to tolerate the alternative statum quo. perhaps we shall ride a similar wave of popular discontent with the way things are to a, no doubt slow and halting but nonetheless palpable, "kinder, gentler" future for real this time.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), August 07, 2000.

Democrats are socialists and think the government should control every part of your life including what to do with your money. The Republicans don't.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), August 07, 2000.

"Will someone please simply explain the differences in the political parties? "

Mostly, the way the names of their parties are spelled. Some of the Framers argued against "parties" because the danger they posed when unqualified or individuals dangerous to liberty are supported by the constituency based on the principles that a given party supposedly represents. To give you some idea of what I mean...recently, after the impeachment, a representative who was a democrat switched to being a republican. Do you believe that this fellow abandoned the communist principles which had driven his career and suddenly took on the beliefs of a conservative? Of course not. He was aware that no one in his constituency was going to vote for a democrat for a long time, he was saving his own neck. This election then when the sheeple wander into the voting booth, the ones who think they are republicans will pull the republican lever and thereby elect a democrat. The party switching of this character is not an isolated incident, a number of congressman have done it since the last round of elections. Dont forget the guys who dont follow the principles that they supposedly represent and actually vote for "the other side". Those people have sold out your confidence in that party. I could ramble on for hours but let me cut to the chase.

The question that we all should be asking is, "What is the role of the government?" Many will respond that it has something to do with defending our borders or stealing...Im mean...taxing the fortunate to pay for some social program. Those people would all be wrong. The answer is, "...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just power from the consent of the governed," or in modern parlance, to secure and defend our Creator given rights which supercede the government. When in the booth then, the only responsible vote as a citizen is for the person who best supports those rights.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), August 07, 2000.

William: If the democrats are comunists as you assert the republicans are fascists. Lets can the name callin folks and stick to the facts. We all have different opinions so lets show a little respect.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), August 07, 2000.

I awoke in the middle of the night last night, so grabbed the headphones and listened to some talk radio (always puts me right to sleep). Can't remember the program, but it was pretty amusing. They played W. Bush's recent acceptance speech, and then read excerpts from Clinton's acceptance speech 8 years ago. They were remarkably similar, so much so that they joked about how there must be a "template" for these speeches. (i.e.: mention the fall of the Berlin Wall, mention thanking your parents, the success of the economy due to our (insert whatever party/policy) efforts, ad nauseum)... Sorry to be cynical, but as the Who once said: "meet the new boss...same as the old boss"....(I'm in a rock'n'roll mood tonight I guess...)

IMHO, The political posturing is there to keep us little folk busy chatting to each other as if it mattered. The big stuff is entirely driven by money/power, the likes of which neither you nor I will ever come close to seeing. If you want to influence politics, I suggest you do so at the county level or below. Otherwise, just pray for some noblesse oblige.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), August 07, 2000.

Good one, sheepish ! Please sing the rest--We'll be fighting in the streets with our children at our feet, When the morals should be worshipped ,we'll be gone ! And the men who spurred us on ? will sit in judgement of our wrong--they decided the shotgun saved us all ! We won't get fooled again ! IMHO, the Republican party have always been a party , Hell bent on world domination. War is profitable and the republicans know it. Am I a democrat ? nope. Try Anarchy party. I don't need any form of government to tell me anything. How did Doreen put it ? Bullitts not Ballots !--yep--pass the ammo.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), August 08, 2000.

Well, the actual saying is "When ballots won't, bullets will." That is the biggest problem and has been in this "free" speech country for the past 75 years or so...As William said regarding the Dems and John said regarding thePubs and as Sheepish so elegantly expressed, they are ALL most one and the same.

Soni, I am the culprit that called the Natural Law Party the Rose Colored Glasses party. But seriously, it is much more of a social ideology than a workable political stance. In the debate I saw, the founder of the NLP was basically pushing for extreme socialism. I say that because he was so adamant about making everyone realize that we are all ONE through massive Government education and social programs. That kind of awareness, ie. that we are all in this together, is not something to base a political party out of. He was viewing society as a whole, which is fine for generalizations, but it doesn't work in real life application. You can't fix the whole without having good individual parts to start with. More than we are all "one", we are individuals and we need to be responsible in ourselves before we can have a responsible society. It just sounded like a kinder, gentler, communism to me. I am sorry, but society isn't responsible for everyone, everyone is responsible for society.

At any rate, I am wondering if Cindy is getting a better idea of the parties?

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), August 08, 2000.

Cindy: I recently tried to define the two major parties for a much larger audience than the one here and had a heck of a time doing it. Briefly put, there isn't a lot of diference anymore between the Dems and the GOP, especially at the national level but also at most state levels. Both pay lip service to their respective "founding principles," but look to their actions -- both can now fairly be described as pro-business, pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT, pro-taxes, pro-big government, anti-individual rights, and anti-environmental, and controlled by the big megacorporations.

(Don't let Gore fool you. I read his book; it was the only reason I voted for Clinton in '92. Gore promptly abandoned even the most crucial environmental issues as soon as he was elected, and he brings them up only when he faces a new election. He's in serious trouble with that wing of the party now, because most of them are gravitating toward Nader.)

So, leaving the Republicrats out of it, you're left with the Libertarians and the Greens. Libertarians believe in absolute individual rights -- they would decriminalize drugs and "victimless" crimes such as prostitution, sell all government-owned land except that needed for military purposes, and repeal all gun-control and environmental laws, among many others. They would also dissolve almost all government agencies except Defense and State, and I'm not sure about State. They have excellent Web sites and I suggest you visit them. The Greens? Pro-environment, natch, but also against big corporations, corporate government influence, GATT, etc. They're the original Small Is Beautiful crowd, and if they weren't so disorganized as a party they would be a force to be reckoned with in politics.

I don't count the Reform Party because it's been taken over by Buchanan's Brown Shirts and the neo-(White)America First crowd. If the past is any sort of prologue, it will dissolve in its own excesses soon.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), August 08, 2000.

I really like the Constitution Party, and after this upcoming election I wil consider changing my party affiliation from Republican to this party. Here is the preamble to their platform. If you would like more information you can go to: http://www.constitutionparty.com Preamble

We, the members of the Constitution Party, gratefully acknowledge the blessing of the Lord God as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of this Nation. We solemnly declare that the foundation of our political position and moving principle of our political activity is our full submission and unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Divine Providence as we work to restore and preserve this Nation as a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic under God, rather than a democracy.

Our Republic is a nation governed by a Constitution that is rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens.

In a Republic governed by Constitutional law rooted in Biblical law, all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

 That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of the individuals personal interest;

 That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of Property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individuals unalienable rights;

 That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;

 That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the peoples rights; and

 That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.

The Constitution Party calls on all who love Liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles. We speak for Americans: hardworking, productive, taxpaying men and women who constitute the backbone and the heart of the American Republic and its economy.

These are the producers; these are the ones who should be "first considered and always remembered." It is on their backs that government is carried, and it is out of their pockets that government is financed. Without them and without the product of their skills and their labors, there would be no source to fund the legitimate functions of government nor would there be charity to support the private institutions helping those in need.

No nation can survive if it fails to honorably address the problems which concern these citizens. To these productive but generally forgotten Americans, we offer this platform. It responds to their desires; it is the voice that speaks of them and for them, as does that of no other political party.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), August 08, 2000.

"If the democrats are communist as you assert the republicans are fascists. Lets can the name callin folks and stick to the facts. We all have different opinions so lets show a little respect.

You may assert whatever you wish, however, it does not necessarily have any bearing on reality. I assume that this was supposed to be a poke at me but, you missed, Im not a republican.

Unlike the First Felon, I am aware that words have specific meanings. I know what the meaning of the word "is" is. Try these facts:

Com7mu7nist (kom' ye-nist)
adj. Abbr. Com.
1. Often communist. Relating to, characteristic of, or held to
resemble communism or Communists.
2. communist. Supporting, advocating, or serving to further
communism: communist propaganda.

com7mu7nism (kom' yu-nizm) n. 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. 2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Well, what does that have to do with democrats?

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which was not properly ratified in 1913; The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933;

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920"s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call "public" schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education".

Do I need to tell you who was in power when these things were enacted? One of these days I may be lucky enough to see the demise of the communist party and then I can work on the republicans. They are not saints but a slower road to tyranny than the democrats.

The following is what would be referred to as an opinion:

Respect is something that is earned. I have no time or compassion for liberals. There are basically 2 kinds of liberals. Firstly, there are those that want rights but will not take on its responsibilities, like educating themselves about our form of government and the reasoning behind each of the Bill of Rights. They primarily vote for the demagoguery party because the positions they take sound "nice & fair." They are too lazy to consider the real effects of their actions and take what the pols say on face value. They do not vote on facts and are easily swayed by a competent speaker resulting in votes cast supporting their emotional frame of mind regardless of its effect on this nation. Historically speaking, these are often the same ones who come to support tyrannical regimes, actively marginalizing dissenters, supporting increasingly harebrained and childish dreams of a government utopia, never realizing that eventually the beast will turn on them too. The first type is why our nation was not set up as a democracy (no it isnt, we are a constitutional republic). The second type are those who do study the founding documents but only because they realize that manipulation and revisionism of these documents is the key to achieving their traitorous goals. They see opportunity and personal gain in damaging this nation and its founding principles. They know that it will be easy to influence the first type and thereby achieve their personal agenda. These are the FDR's and Clintons among us.

You certainly have a right to your opinions but lets not confuse those with facts. You have a right under the 1st and 9th amendment to be a member of an enlightened republic, take advantage of it.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), August 08, 2000.

To the above post I say, Bravo!!!. I have often wondered why we bother to call ourselves free anymore. William is absolutely right! Liberalism is communism. This is not calling names. this is stating a fact! Liberals like to call themselves nice things because it makes them feel good. They want to be thought of as the good guys, because they believe in helping people, and giving to people. the only problem is that all of the major dictatorships, and totalitarian regimes wanted to think of themselves that way too. Reading Marx and Lenin is like reading the do gooders manual. Supposedly Communism was supposed to help the little guy. Ha! Some help. Supposedly Hitler was also supposed to have the first registration of Guns and reduce crime for the little guy. Ha! Some help. Wake Up! I see no problem with saying that democrats are communists, because their whole party plank revolves around communism. I say get comfortable with it folks. That is reality. People need individual responsibility. You cannot save them(only God can). You can only help them by giving them the freedom to pursue their happiness without prevention. The last hundred years through communist principles the only thing we have done for the poor man is push him down where he can't get out again. We won't let him hold a job, we stop him from building on and using his own land, we financially enslave him, and the we take his rights to protect himself.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), August 08, 2000.

I believe John Stuart Mill and others are more directly linked to liberal thought than others recently mentioned. btw, it was a lot of this concept that inspired many of the Enlightenment thinkers, which in turn inspired our forefathers.

As a somewhat still liberal, it totally pisses me off to read the slander that people say about a concept which was at one time nobel,and maybe still is, and which origin is obscured by all the reactionary commentary. It has been corrupted just like everything else that big money and power brokers touched. Give me a break. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter what platform your party is, what color your hair is, or whatever. Conservatives have their own legacies to bear....it just seems to be going out of fashion to talk about them these days. Everyone is slamming liberals.

Here's a thought: A liberal concept is one of public schools. A lot of people are upset with the (lack of) quality of education being offered. Well, so am I. It doesn't mean the concept sucks, just the application. The point of public schools is that ALL kids have a chance to learn and to better themselves...not just the kids with parents who care (thanks, Kim). If you want a better society, you should hope that the general populace has a chance to learn a few things! We are getting behind a lot of other countries with our education levels. If we have allowed the schools to run rampant with bad decision making, whose fault is it? Ours, the taxpayers, that's who! Not the system, per se. How about public libraries? Don't we benefit from them? Etc.

I'm not talking about Bill Clinton's sex life, which has nothing to do with liberal thought. I don't want to get all crazy about this, but please use a measure of balance when discussing liberals. Sheesh, you would think they are all a bunch of sexual deviants, drooling miscreants and God knows what else. Yeah, a few of them are, but then I recall a few conservatives who got in a lot of trouble over the years.

Thanks for letting me vent. We all have our place on the planet. And no offense to anyone in particular, as you all know me and know I respect you all. Just my $.02.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), August 08, 2000.

Sheepish, I'm sorry but when it comes to public schools, I think the concept stinks. I believe in private schooling. In private schooling, if a parent doesn't believe what is being taught to their children is healthy then the parent's word is law. They pay for the education, they have control. The concept of public schooling takes the child out of the natural environment of the home and places the child into the hand of people the parent does not know, and often times the parent does not have any control over the garbage being taught to their child. Public schooling has been about parents abdicating their responsibility to raise and nurture their children. This has happen as a direct result of the child being taken out of the home and the parent becoming desensitized to what their child is being taught. In addition, once a child leaves the family and start public education, the child is no longer under the leadership of their parents, but under the leadership of the government, and their peers. It totally blows me away, how we send our children into graded education and make their peers their primary influence and then when they get to be teens we say "Just say No"! Then we proceed to rant and rave about teens getting involved with drugs, sex, and violence. The negatives of public education are far reaching. The issue of public education is not about education at all. It is about making sure we get the propaganda to the audience before they are old enough to think for themselves. It is about making sure those evil parents can't teach their children unapproved material. It is about $$$$$$$. Those dollars come and go from everywhere. Those children are the future moneymakers for the State(and I mean the State in the communist sense). In order to keep those social programs going and those $$$$ coming into the coffers, we have to get them early. Go back and read some Marx and Lenin, if you don't believe this is the purpose. I don't send my child to public school because I want them to be able to reason. I don't want them taught that abberant behavior is acceptable. I don't want them taught that abortion is good. I don't want them taught that The historical documents this country is founded on are worthless. I don't want them taught that their government should take care of them. I want them to be independent, strong, and most of all Godly.

Little bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), August 08, 2000.

Hey, don't be sorry at all. You have a right to your opinion. I imagine there are also parents who are teaching garbage and propaganda to their kids at home, too. Imagine that!

It was an example, anyway. And I haven't read Marx and Engels since college, which was about 23 years ago or so...and likely much more recently than most I talk to have. I didn't like their philosophies then, and I still don't. I certainly am not communist, socialist or even close. But not much for labels, anyway.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), August 08, 2000.

Just so you know Sheepish, I was not saying that you or any specific person was a communist. I was saying that the principles of liberalism are based in communism. William's post is an excellent example of that. It is true that parents teach their children what they believe. The difference is that God gave them their children to teach. It is right and proper that parents teach their children. It isn't right or proper that the governemnt is allowed to turn our children into little robots of the State.

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), August 08, 2000.

William and Little Bit, YES, YES, YES!! Thanks! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), August 08, 2000.

Oh Goodness I've just been called a commie twice in one thread!! Oh well My liberal cat and I need to get back to the New World Order problem so see ya....Kirk....

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), August 08, 2000.

Here's a few quotes from John Stuart Mill, one of the founders of "communism"..rather Classic Liberalism. :) (btw, liberal thought predates communism, so it might be the "father" of communism to some, not the other way around): (does this sound like communism? I ask you!)

"Freedom

The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.

Individuality

What ever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called.

Knowledge

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.

Opinions

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Repression

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and even if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."

*****

See, what "we" have been told is "liberalism", really isn't, but it is politically expedient to get us to think that it is!...it keeps us talking about all this philosophy, and in the meantime, the powers that be go do their work with us distracted. They are manipulating us by the divide and conquer strategy! Get it?

With love and my last $.02,

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), August 09, 2000.

AMEN Sheepish! And Kirk. The NWO can wait. We need you here! Only twice you were called a communist?

Checks and balances---thats how our government is structured but big $$$$$$ has corrupted the process and it has us right where it wants us. William, you say in essence, "lets get real and call a spade a spade". Fine lets do that. Around here the unemployment rate is less than 4%. That sounds good until you learn alot of those jobs are slightly better paid than minimum wage. Average cost of housing is somewhere around $400/mo for an efficiency apartment. If you've got a small family plan on spending $500/mo or more. At $6-$7/hr do the math. You may say, put both of them to work. OK. Now pay for child care and routine expenses of operating a household and it kinda puts the american dream outa reach. You may say find another job that pays better. Fine but someones gotta do the job that pays squat.

Its easy to paint the liberals with a broad brush and say they're communists. Its just as easy to paint the conservatives with a broad brush and call them fascists. Put a dress on a sow and shes still a sow.

My opinion on the following from william WI

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.

AGREED, I don't like it either. curious tho. When the white house and both houses of congress were controlled by the "conservatives" I don't recall any effort to repeal it tho, do you?

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which was not properly ratified in 1913; The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933;

Again I ask, any corrective measures attempted by the conservatives when they had a chance?

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

Seems to me the "conservatives" controlled congress in 97. Don't know about 86.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

I've heard this before. Don't know much about it.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

Ditto here.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

Personally I think its the other way around these days. The corps control the government. Consider corporate welfare etc.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920"s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

National debt wasn't caused by the communal bank. It was caused largely by an irresponsible congress and white house, mostly "conservative" republican white houses btw.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

Agreed. It pisses me off too, along with the zoning laws.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call "public" schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education".

Personally I'm in favor of EFFECTIVE public schools. Its the only opportunity for the poor to work their way out of poverty.

Do I need to tell you who was in power when these things were enacted? One of these days I may be lucky enough to see the demise of the communist party and then I can work on the republicans. They are not saints but a slower road to tyranny than the democrats.

Maybe, Maybe not. As to who was in power, nothing gets to the presidents desk for signing without getting thru congress first. Thats been controlled by the "conservatives" for quite a while now.

The following is what would be referred to as an opinion:

Respect is something that is earned. (personally I think its a birthright---remember all men are created equal?----disrespect is earned by violation of those inalienable rights) I have no time or compassion for liberals(people who disagree?). There are basically 2 kinds of liberals. Firstly, there are those that want rights but will not take on its responsibilities, like educating themselves about our form of government and the reasoning behind each of the Bill of Rights. They primarily vote for the demagoguery party because the positions they take sound "nice & fair." They are too lazy to consider the real effects of their actions and take what the pols say on face value.(A conservative would never do that-----or would they?) They do not vote on facts and are easily swayed by a competent speaker resulting in votes cast supporting their emotional frame of mind regardless of its effect on this nation.(Ditto above!) Historically speaking, these are often the same ones who come to support tyrannical regimes, actively marginalizing dissenters, supporting increasingly harebrained and childish dreams of a government utopia(gotta give you that one---some of the "self-esteem" exercises going on in schools is completely out of touch with reality), never realizing that eventually the beast will turn on them too. The first type is why our nation was not set up as a democracy (no it isnt, we are a constitutional republic). The second type are those who do study the founding documents but only because they realize that manipulation and revisionism of these documents is the key to achieving their traitorous goals. They see opportunity and personal gain in damaging this nation and its founding principles. They know that it will be easy to influence the first type and thereby achieve their personal agenda. These are the FDR's and Clintons among us.

You certainly have a right to your opinions but lets not confuse those with facts. You have a right under the 1st and 9th amendment to be a member of an enlightened republic, take advantage of it.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), August 08, 2000.

Bottom line William, we'll just agree to disagree. But some closing thots first. Its all in the balance folks. Liberals are not the boogey man any more than the conservatives are. They each have something of value to contribute to political dialog but sadly neither are too prone to listening to the other persons point of view and most idealogues lack the intellectual integrity to "give the devil his due" so to speak.

I personally don't have a problem with sharing a portion of my income with someone who has a genuine need, whether its thru a government program, a charity or whatever. But if I see my tax money going to "help" someone stay drunk for a week I get unhappy with that.

But then I'm not too happy seeing someone making $7/hr, trying and working hard to make a go of it while the CEO's of the corp are getting huge bonuses, huge salaries, perks galore, without ever actually producing anything but shuffling papers.

Aren't ya'll just thrilled to see me back for a bit??

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), August 09, 2000.

John,

If you reread my original post, you may start to see that the contentions of your second post are not necessarily true. The point where your argument breaks down is that you are using republican and conservative interchangably. They are not the same. There had not been a repbuplican majority in the house for 40 years until this administration and we are still waiting for a conservative majority. The republicans do in fact have now a majority but 1/3 of the republicans are neo-cons and aisle crossers, in other words, liberals. Neo-cons are idividuals like Greenwood and Shays that were elected on the republican ticket but in fact do not follow the republican planks and most often vote with the democrats but had to run as republicans to get elected in their area (to be fair, there are a couple of individuals who run as democrats who vote with republicans but there are far fewer of those). The aisle crossers, theres six or so now, are those that had been democrats their whole lives and then during impeachment spontaneously transmogrified and became republicans. So it is not true to say that conservatives have had the house and not repealed anything, the fact is that the party called the republicans does have the majority in the house (for the first time in 40 some years) and it is also true that the liberals have the majority in the house because representatives of parties do not necessarily actually behave according to the priciples that a party represents.

There are distinct differences between the neo-cons and we paleo-cons. Neo- cons, while socialist like the communistic democrats, are more of a fascist strain. They both believe that big government should be in charge and that sovereignty is an outdated concept, the only real difference between those two groups is whether we should abandon the Constitution and become enjoined in tortured slavery under the UN like the democrats prefer or if it would be better to send our youth to other shores as slavemasters and carpet bomb the rest of the world into the American way of conspicuous consumerism like the neo-con republicans prefer. When and if the paleo-con republicans (who are very similar to libertarians except for trade positions) or libertarian types take control of the house you would see a flood of changes. I will continue to work toward that goal, that is, a return to a constitutional republic where individual rights are respected, instead of allowing us to suffer under the socialist democracy we have become.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), August 10, 2000.

John,

BTW, yes, it is nice to see you back. Another thought...how does one say that "fine, you can have the last word" without getting in the last word? ;)

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), August 10, 2000.

dunno!

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), August 10, 2000.

In reading this thread (which began to look like a rope), it turned into a rather good political science model. Party line politics while sounding simple , is quite complex and ever changing, Todays democrats would more resemble the republicans of 100 years ago.. To me party politics is practically anarchy with gentlemanly manners. All the preceeding responses should help you to understand the concepts of the parties.

-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), August 10, 2000.

Not trying to get the last word here William, honest! You're right--- I see the incorrect assumption of republican=conservative and understand the distinction you make and agree with it. Its an easy mistake to make when you consider the Reagen revolution and all the neo-conservative republican reps. riding to office on Reagens' shirt tails.

Maybe I'm one of those commitment-phobic people because I'm really reluctant to put any label on myself because I don't think the liberals have all the answers any more than the conservatives do. They each have some valid points and issues.

I just got done listening to John Hagelin/Natural Law party and the walk-out chairman of the Reform party. I was very impressed with Hagelin. He didn't say anything I disagreed with. The mans got vision as far as I'm concerned and I think he's exactly on track for the 21 century. The walk-out reform party chair, after a brief discussion of fusion politics(the joining of two or more third parties) heartily endorsed Hagelin, the Natural Law Candidate.

Buchanan will likely be the "official" Reform candidate and thats good. He'll draw votes from Bush so should off-set Gores losses to Nader.

I think if Hagelin gets to address more people he could be a viable candidate. His platform is broader than Naders whos pretty much a johnny-one-note---anti-corporate-influence and pro-environment.

It'll be interesting to watch.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), August 11, 2000.

John, it is really nice to see you back!

I agree that it will be interesting to watch, although I think it's mostly like watching the WWF at this stage in the nation's life. Even with the lessor parties drawing votes from the majority it will still be GW BUSH as the winner. He was picked a long time ago and unless he jumps out of the closet with an entourage of 10 or 20 teenagers of both sexes claiming sexual victimization by him, he will be the one.

There are still way too many people who feel that they are casting their vote against someone....like my parents who are giving me a hard time as usual about voting third party. They feel that voting for anyone but Bush gives the edge to Gore. They may be right, but I can't sleep at night voting for the lessor of two evils.

-- Doreen (liberty546@yahoo.com), August 11, 2000.

Doreen,

You are in good company.

Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.-Thomas Paine

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), August 11, 2000.

Doreen: I'm probably gonna have to don my cyber-stone helmet for some of the following. To be honest I probably would have voted for Gore because I don't see him as being any worse in fact than GW. I don't buy the rhetoric from either of them and I like to believe the democratic party is a little more for the common man on the street. Thats my story and I'm stickin to it!

But for me things have changed. Its official---Buchanen is the reform candidate---which frees me up to vote my conscience and I really think its gonna be John Hagelin. He made so much sense to me and at least its not tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum. I just started exploring their web site at www.natural-law.org

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), August 11, 2000.

William and John, you two are funny! I wonder who will get the last word!

John, I explained further up the thread to Soni why I just don't think the Natural Law Party has political veracity. But I also don't see that they have any sense of God....that is of course a very sensitive issue here in cyber stoning terrotory. But I don't care if I get stoned.(Double entendre really wasn't intentional) I cannot see anything working for government other than the laws laid down in Judeo- Christian teaching. If we as a nation forget God, then nothing that we attempt will move us toward a true greater good.....I am vacillating between Howard Phillips and Harry Browne. If Gore or Bush were the only ones on the ticket I would light my ballot on fire in the courthouse in protest. Maybe I will anyway.

-- Doreen (liberty546@hotmail.com), August 12, 2000.

Despite whatever we vote, I think its gonna be GW. Big Oil has spoken, and Big Oil will get its way. Has nothing to do with who the candidates/parties are. Still, I'm not sure who I'm gonna vote for....

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), August 12, 2000.