Against the grain

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:18 am

The exchange between Mikey and OCMike in the Falling Gas Prices thread, has me thinking about partisanship.

As a registered Independent, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment with this idea. Quite simply I'd like to know of the registered Democrats and Republicans here, what, if anything, do you disagree with, in your party's platform?

The way I see it, surely you disagree with something in your party's platform. Otherwise, why not elect a robot, or have a computer program represent you, based on the platform?

Yeah, yeah, I know. We already have Nancy Pelosi and Jim Inhofe in Congress.

And most of you know, I'm a Democrat-leaning Independent, who doesn't hate George Bush, and agrees with mvscal on many issues, including the drug war, personal privacy, and gun laws, for the most part. I also agree with Dio on many issues, especially fair treatment of women and equal justice under the law.

It's pretty easy for me to pick and choose what I agree and disagree with from both party platforms.

But what I'd like to know is from the Right- and Left-wingers. Name me something from your party platform you disagree with.

And NO, not going far enough to the left or right, doesn't count. It's the easy way out and you know it. Name me something in which you flat out disagree, not something "well, I agree with so-and-so's idea."

Platforms. One thing. Disagree. Go.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:53 am

I'll have to think about this one. It's hard to criticize the Dems, like I said in the other thread, on the federal level because they haven't been able to do anything for almost six years. I honestly agree with most of their platform, though I'm not sure I know all of the details.

It's easier on the state level, because the Dems have pretty much been running California for a while, in spite of the fact that we've had a lot of Repbulican governors. One thing I definitely don't like here in CA is the legislature's kowtowing to the unions. I'm in favor of unions and I think they've done a lot of good, but this is a right to work state and I think the unions try to throw their weight around too much. My prime example...

The California Solar Initiative, which is a program to incentivize solar energy to the tune of $3 billion over the next 12 (I think) years. The rationale is to stimulate the market for solar in CA, where there is a huge potential but the prices are still high. This is not paid for with taxpayer dollars, but a surcharge on electric ratepayers who, allegedly, will benefit from deployment of distributed resources because it defers the expense of building new central plants and expanding the existing transmission and distribution system. Anyway, the whole thing was almost killed by some of the more "union friendly" Dems because they wanted a "prevailing wage" requirement in the program. Nice way to stimulate an expensive technology, by requiring developers and installation contractors to pay union scale for non-union labor.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:58 pm

I don't like the Republicans leaning on religion so much. I tend to lean towards the right however I am very anti-religion. I also am pro-choice. I am not a registered R or D so I consider myself independent but my leanings are toward the right....

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:00 pm

I've stated this before, but I'll say it again...

I hate the way the Bush administration defiantly refuses to take responsibility for anything. I think it's one of the biggest reasons Bush's approval numbers are so low.

I also can't stand Bush's open border policy. It's killing our schools, closing emergency rooms and overcrowding our big cities. If you drive to the latino neighborhoods of LA or other big cities, it looks like little Tijuana: trash everywhere and everything in Spanish. His policy is driving down wages for Americans, which I'm sure is the main reason it's allowed to continue, and is killing the lower class and lower middle class.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:30 pm

If you drive to the latino neighborhoods of LA or other big cities, it looks like little Tijuana: trash everywhere and everything in Spanish.

It's really the economic level, not the neighborhood or race. much of the well establish east LA neighborhoods are not dirty at all in the way south central is or take a trip out to the poor white parts of riverside, you'll see the same dirty shit you see in south central and poor mexican neighborhoods.

Even up in your neck of the woods, you get out to the poor part of town and everything looks like shit, no matter what color the residents are.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:25 pm

If you're looking for the specific Democratic Party platform, if you want an issue I don't totally agree with, abortion would most readily stand out.

On a personal level, I would consider myself opposed except in cases where the mother's life was in danger. On a policy level, I would consider myself reluctantly pro-choice, only because the only viable alternative I see is more frightening. However, I do approve of certain restrictions on abortion which the Democratic Party usually opposes. Most notably, I support parental notice laws.

Now, as far as areas which are outside the official Democratic Party platform, but sometimes lumped in with "the left," the pickings get considerably less slim:

Reflexive criticism of Israel.
Reflexive opposition to any and all free trade agreements (although I agree that free trade agreements ought to have worker protection provisions.
If it were up to me, I would repeal only portions of the Bush tax cuts which affect the wealthy exclusively. Those predominantly affecting the middle class (e.g., adding the 10% marginal tax bracket and extending the student loan interest deduction for the lifetime of the student loan), I would keep.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:49 am

How can we democrats be opposed to our party's plans when, according to you republicans, we don't have any?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:52 am

Among the factors in the falling price of oil:

No hurricane damage to offshore oil rigs in the gulf of mexico

Previously high oil prices catching up with China. They could only afford to subsidize their industries up to a point, and only for so long. They're now having to deal with inflation, and "ease" the population into the idea of MUCH higher prices for... everything.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:47 am

mvscal wrote:The topic of discussion here is platforms not plans.

You may go.

Big difference there.

No, really.

Actually, not really.

:roll:

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:43 pm

anti-affirmative action.

flat tax.

despise emineminemiment domain.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:36 pm

As a follow-up to my post on Friday, I'd point out that it becomes even easier to point out disagreements with certain party officials. In my case, for instance:

Disagreed with Bill Clinton on deregulation, death penalty and welfare reform (in the latter case, not the idea itself but the form that actually passed.)

Disagree with Joe Biden (the only declared Democratic Presidential candidate in '08 so far) on the Bankruptcy Bill.

Disagree with Hillary Clinton on the death penalty and the War in Iraq.

So in sum, I guess that puts me to the right of the Democratic Party on the issue of abortion, to the right of the Democratic Party (or at least certain of its members) on Israel and free trade, and to the left of the Democratic Party (or at least certain of its higher-profile elected officials) on deregulation, the death penalty, welfare reform, the Bankruptcy Bill and the War in Iraq. If that's not against the grain, what is?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:46 pm

You & Joe Bidet have one thing in common: You both masturbate to his picture

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:01 pm

Cuda wrote:You & Joe Bidet have one thing in common: You both masturbate to his picture

Thank you for raising the bar with such an intelligent comment. I'll bet you're the King of Smack in 2nd grade.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:11 pm

At least you're not disputing the content.

Good for you, you're getting smarter

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:56 pm

Cuda wrote:At least you're not disputing the content.

Someone else had mentioned it, maybe he would have. You've shown you've only got booger jokes to offer the discussion.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:21 pm

Do NOT offend teh booger joke, lest you get beheaded!

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:51 pm

Abortion. Bullshit position which has been maintained solely to keep the support of the bible belt.

Oh, and speaking of abortions...

Diego in Seattle wrote:
mvscal wrote:The topic of discussion here is platforms not plans.

You may go.
Big difference there.

No, really.

Actually, not really.

:roll:

Platforms are what political parties claim to stand for...i.e. theory.

Plans are what the same political parties fucking do about it.

It's well-documented that the only plan the libs have is to complain about anything the conservatives do, and offer no solutions.

Again, you may go.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:59 pm

Jimmy Medalions wrote: It's well-documented that the only plan the libs have is to complain about anything the conservatives do, and offer no solutions.

Another documented case of Meds not knowing what the fuck he's talking about.

Where are these documents, fool?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:31 pm

Just off the top of my head I disagree with a majority of the Democratic Party on:

Drug Policy
Gun Control
Free Trade

I also disagree with anyone supporting this fiasco in Iraq, be they Democrat or Republican.

I'm sure if I spent some time thinking about it I could come up with a few more points of contention.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:52 pm

BSmack wrote:
I'm sure if I spent some time thinking .

BWAH! Good one, Monica

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:37 pm

Cuda wrote:Good for you, you're getting smarter

Yep. I figured out your age based upon the quality of your posts.

Of course, in fairness to you, that throws a completely different spin on the unemployment thing.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:53 pm

which reminds me... my unemployment check didn't fucking come today.

Goddam lazy gubmint workers PISS ME OFF

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:49 am

Cuda wrote:At least you're not disputing the content.

Good for you, you're getting smarter

Ironic, since you're here typing idiocy. How about answering the initial question?

Honestly, outside of you being a dumbass on pretty much any topic in which you chose to post or lamely attempt to derail, I don't really know a lot of your political views, other than that you're generally conservative. If so, why not post if there's anything you disagree with via the GOP platform?

Unless, of course, you'd like a robot. In that case, Jim Inhofe's dick is waiting to be sucked, so get to it.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:08 pm

RadioFag wrote: How about answering the initial question? .

Try scrolling up a few, dumbfuck

Cuda wrote:Among the factors in the falling price of oil:

No hurricane damage to offshore oil rigs in the gulf of mexico

Previously high oil prices catching up with China. They could only afford to subsidize their industries up to a point, and only for so long. They're now having to deal with inflation, and "ease" the population into the idea of MUCH higher prices for... everything.

Demand is down + supply is up + supply is more secure = Price is lower

Maybe math isn't one of your strengths.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:09 pm

I'm a mess:

Pro death penalty
Pro-Choice
Pro-alternative energy
Pro environmental protection/public health

Against oil companies dictating foreign policy, energy policy, environmental laws.
Against "prayer in schools" bullshite.
Against unchecked, unregulated, immigration.
Against 60's style peacenik rhetoric as solution to Islamic radicalism.
Against so-called free trade.

On the fence regarding...
School vouchers

Who gives a fukk about...
Gay marriage
Conceal and carry laws

Overriding philosophy:
Social liberal, fiscal conservative

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:59 pm

I'm an American Independent so that's easy.

I'm pro-choice and anti-God in government.

And I would go futher than our platform and ban Public Education and Social Security now (bunch of commie crap that).

But I'm with them on , iner alia, guns and taxes and personal rights.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:16 pm

Uncle Fester wrote:I'm a mess:

Pro death penalty
Pro-Choice
Pro-alternative energy
Pro environmental protection/public health

Against oil companies dictating foreign policy, energy policy, environmental laws.
Against "prayer in schools" bullshite.
Against unchecked, unregulated, immigration.
Against 60's style peacenik rhetoric as solution to Islamic radicalism.
Against so-called free trade.

On the fence regarding...
School vouchers

Who gives a fukk about...
Gay marriage
Conceal and carry laws

Overriding philosophy:
Social liberal, fiscal conservative

Jesus, you ARE a mess.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:33 pm

Moving Sale wrote:I'm an American Independent so that's easy.

I'm pro-choice and anti-God in government.

And I would go futher than our platform and ban Public Education and Social Security now (bunch of commie crap that).

But I'm with them on , iner alia, guns and taxes and personal rights.

Come on over to the Dark Side

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:18 pm

Another area in which I disagree with many in my party: I favor raising the retirement age for Social Security eligibility to ensure that Social Security continues to remain viable. To me, that's less about ideology than about common sense. Life expectancy is higher now than it was when Social Security was first enacted. If people are living longer, to me it makes sense to expect them to work longer.

That would hurt me and people in my age group, but the potential pain would be far less than what some are proposing, such as abolishing Social Security, cutting it off at some random age, or privatizing it. More power to you if you want to retire early, but don't expect me to subsidize your decision.