PDA

View Full Version : What is your political affiliation? All new for Dude!


PerfectHandle
04-11-2007, 03:08 PM
We're all Libertarians now!

Patrick
04-11-2007, 03:25 PM
Independent in theory, but I always find myself leaning more toward the left on the majority of political issues. Any vote other than republican or democratic is a waste, unfortunately.

vanshnookenraggen
04-11-2007, 04:02 PM
I'm a Dem but I really have no faith in most of the Democratic leaders in Washington.

Richardson '08!

DudeUrSistersHot
04-11-2007, 05:53 PM
I'm conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. I would not vote for one of today's Republicans because they are the exact opposite of my beliefs - they are social conservatives and economic liberals - and they are also ridiculously bad at governing. While I may align more as a moderate conservative on foreign policy, the Dems seem to understand how to use the military properly - covert ops, strategic strikes, nimble forces, asserting authority while also being reasonably diplomatic - not invasions, tanks, occupations, pissing off the rest of the world without purpose.

I want Clinton back (but NOT Hillary) because I miss having a conservative as president.

Patrick
04-12-2007, 07:41 AM
How old were you when Clinton was in office, ten?

But seriously, all kidding aside, your post above is right on.

palindrome
04-13-2007, 02:10 PM
I'm basically same as dude. Liberal on social beliefs (Esp. stem cell research.) Conservative on economic issues (i think we need to get spending under control asap) and hawkish on Iran/etc.
:wink:

Patrick
04-13-2007, 05:32 PM
^ so you are hawkish on iran, meaning you support taking a proactive position much like we have tried to do with iraq......but how could we do both this as well as bring spending under control? it seems, besides tax cuts, that the war in Iraq is the biggest cost this country has had since 2003.

I think we should leave Iran alone for now, and if and when it comes down to it, I think full scale action should be avoided, as Iran would be a much more formidable foe than Iraq.

palindrome
04-14-2007, 10:16 AM
I know, how funny is that!



I would only support a multilateral stance on Iran involving nato et al. because we certainly do not need another Iraq mess. From what I have heard, aren't the younger Iranian students mostly against the government as well?

Patrick
04-14-2007, 01:35 PM
I know, how funny is that!

I would only support a multilateral stance on Iran involving nato et al. because we certainly do not need another Iraq mess. From what I have heard, aren't the younger Iranian students mostly against the government as well?

Ok that makes more sense...multilateral action is the only way to go.

Im not sure about the younger students....students always tend to be more liberal, but from what I understand iran is pretty pro-propaganda and low tolerance for dissent. did you hear about what it just did to the U.K. Marines, though? you can tell they are not to be taken seriously, they just want more bargaining power.

Scott
04-16-2007, 07:21 PM
I'm un-enrolled liked the majority of people in Massachusetts.

DudeUrSistersHot
04-16-2007, 10:50 PM
^ so you are hawkish on iran, meaning you support taking a proactive position much like we have tried to do with iraq......but how could we do both this as well as bring spending under control? it seems, besides tax cuts, that the war in Iraq is the biggest cost this country has had since 2003.

I think we should leave Iran alone for now, and if and when it comes down to it, I think full scale action should be avoided, as Iran would be a much more formidable foe than Iraq.

Maybe wars shouldn't cost that much. Personally, I think that the Iraq war, done correctly, should have cost a tenth or less of what we've paid. use covert ops to support locals in uprisings, sneak in Delta Force to take out Saddam, take over his government but keep basic systems - electricity, food, water, etc - in place and running. GET RID OF NO BID CONTRACTS. I'm all for the free market, but these contracts are the opposite of the free market. Basic services such as food need to be provided for by US military personnel, not contractors. The military is one place in government that can run its operations more effectively and efficiently than contractors.

Smuttynose
04-17-2007, 02:49 PM
In New Hampshire I'm a Democrat all the way -- we need some taxes! Many services are lacking - public transportation!? Support healthcare and social reforms that the Dems are pushing up there.

In Massachusetts, I'm Independant, but would lean towards Republicans to shake things up a bit. Mass. seems annoyingly set in its ways - Blue Laws, early T closing times, 6 traffic cops at every single pot-hole repair, car insurance, the evil excise tax - I'm all for reforming these things, and it doesn't seem like the current gov't is going to do much.

Nationally, I lean much more towards the Democrats.

Smuttynose
04-17-2007, 02:58 PM
In Mississippi, I'm with the Green Party.

atlantaden
04-21-2007, 05:07 PM
I find it ironic that Bush and Cheney, who love giving speeches with military personnel framing their background, never saw combat. Cheney, the biggest, big-mouthed hawk of this century received at least 3 deferments (I'm in college, I have children) and our brave president, who challenged the enemy to "bring it on!" seemed to be AWOL for most of his national guard duty. Imagine a President of the United States sending out that sort of challenge to the enemy! I think anyone who is a hawk when it comes to invading other countries without absolute justification, should go right out and sign up in whatever branch of the military they choose. If you're so hell bent on us getting involved a war, then get out there and fight for what you believe!

ablarc
04-24-2007, 09:27 PM
^ They'd probably end up in the path of some friendly fire.

bosdevelopment
04-24-2007, 09:45 PM
registered republican, but now most libertarian.

Everything's free in a-merica