The democrats are stupid.
Republicans are stupid.
If we shot THEM all, we would have the greens and the libertarians, the latter being okay, but the former more deserving of the bullet then the shithead donkeys or slow and incompetant elephants.

We just can't win.
This sucks.
Our founding fathers were right to be afraid of political parties.

Homer

Yeah, I hate em all, except members of the Republican and Constitutional Parties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsaxton14:
Yeah, I hate em all, except members of the Republican and Constitutional Parties.

---

Republicans are just as stupid as the others. They just happen to agree with some of the shit you do. You look at other things, they suck.
They take tons of money from very bad people (people like MS).
They believe more than democrats in censorship.
They want to kill abortion.
does the word "neanderthal" bring anything up to you?

Homer

quote:

---

kill abortion

---

...

[This message has been edited by VeneFrigus (edited 11-06-2002).]

Term: ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government). What is an occupation government? Its a government made up of the VICTORS of a war, a government set in place of the defeated country's formely legitimate government. So the victors can lord it over the defeated.
A Zionist is a supremecist jew, which is most of them.
We have USZOG (here), CANZOG (aka Canada aka Soviet Canuckistan), BUNDESZOG (Germany), BRITZOG, etc.

So we have DemoZOG and RepubliZOG, and ZOGlings that lord it over us (until they swing from lamp-posts).

ZOG and Soviet Canuckistan are terms coined (created and made common) by a Mister Eric Thomson, who's words can be found at http://www.faem.com

Screw Republicans and Democrats. They are crap. Fuck the government bureacracy.

If you are sick of government domination, vote Libertarian.

All the government needs to do is maintain a strong army and maintain a sound legal system which protects the people. Thats about it.

Hmmm.. if I were still in America I would probably be voting this party. Unfortunately, Libertarians are suicidal..err..support open borders.

I think this generaliztion is far too extreme. Kinda throwing yourself into one party is stupid. I consider myself hardcore republican (possible Libertarian in some ways) because my issues match up. George Washington warned us about this...

Also, the Republicans get a bad wrap about freedoms. The whole ideaology behind the Republicans is less federal government, and more states rights. As far as censorship goes, they are only in favor on censoring things such as sex, but not political idea and definatly aren't in favor of Political correctness...

[This message has been edited by YouAreNotYourKhakis (edited 11-06-2002).]

YANYK, actions speak louder than words. When it comes to Republicans, they're big government only in a slightly lesser degree than Democrats, especially the Bush Republicans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
Screw Republicans and Democrats. They are crap.

---

I agree I'm getting quite tired of the played out antics of the repulocrats

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
YANYK, actions speak louder than words. When it comes to Republicans, they're big government only in a slightly lesser degree than Democrats, especially the Bush Republicans.

---

I see what you are saying. You mean like the politicians? Fuck them. None of them can accurately represent the people... Most republicans I know (most of the people I associate with) are not the same as those Republicans.

Wow, the America First Party. Kind of like the libertarians but with the bullshit morality and family values thing that the NeoCons shove in our faces.

"Defend the traditional family unit based on one man and one woman"

Justify this being the government's business. Please.

"Recognize the Judeo-Christian heritage of our shared values"

Our founding fathers made a good point of specifying that their values were by no means based on any sort of Judao-Christian heritige. Plus, a political party to restore American values is kind of a contradiction. I always thought our country was based on people being allowed to have whatever values they want!

"Restore property rights and restrict government land confiscation"

Sure gonna make Donald Trump happy. So many people fail to address the thousands of people living and maintaining land they don't own.

"Restore the rights of states in the manner of choosing Senators and Representatives and promote the citizen legislator."

Gee, whiz, don't Texas and Rhode Island have so much in common? *rolleyes* Are these people telling me the government shouldn't regulate the citizen legislator, even if 40 million civilians stand hand in hand to half a million?

"The United States must withdraw from the United Nations immediately and require the UN headquarters to relocate out of the United States."

This is basically "we're big, we're strong, we're America, don't fuck with us." These people are using the Constitution to justify being allowed to completely ignore international law. Terrifying.

"The America First Party is totally opposed and unequivocally rejects the World Court because it violates and claims authority to overrule the United States Constitution."

So the United States Constitution should dictate what we do OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES? I reject political parties that don't believe we have to obey international law.

"The America First Party supports passage of legislation designating English as the official language of the United States. The United States shall, in all instances, restrict itself to the English language."

Let's go back to being colonies of Britain while we're at it. I'm wondering why we're so bent on preserving English as a language if so many of our ancestors busted their balls to be independent of England?

"The United States of America is a Sovereign Republic, subject only to our Creator and not answering to any alien power or foreign potentate."

God says it's okay to invade France. let's invade France.

"The America First Party unequivocally supports the return of all God-given rights for every family to decide how to discipline their children, what their children are allowed to do, and with whom their children are allowed to associate."

Can parents beat molest their kids, raise them on nothing but bestiality porn, force them to eat nothing but cold, unrefrigerated ham, and make them sleep on the floor?

"The America First Party strongly supports the traditional family as ordained by God and built upon the marital union of one man and one woman."

I'm looking through the Constituion, but I can't seem to find anything about this. This party takes 180 turns from individual freedom to the totalitarian imposition of archaic morals.

"Dismantle the Department of Housing and Urban Development."

I'd continue, but after that comment I can't even read this anymore.

Democrats are the the inside what Republicans are on the outside. While democrats are deceptive and dishonest, Republics are blatantly evil. The rest of the US government is comprised of the Green Party, who are basically pussies while while they seem to have views I agree with I can't help but think that if they were elected our ass would be China's.

The Libertarian Party distorts the US Constitution, and although they seem to have good intentions, I see a nation controlled by big business comming with their election. We'd also be crime ridden and citizens would be walking around in fear of our lives, cause it likes like the police wouldn't legally be allowed to do ANYTHING.

Then their are oddball parties like the one I critizied with my last post, that mix the wings but basically show that they can't get out of the 18th century.

When I'm eligible to vote, I'll probably vote for this party - although even they have enough flaws that my desision on whether to vote for them would be based on how long it takes to get to the polls, and how tired I am on election day.

quote:

---

"Defend the traditional family unit based on one man and one woman"

Justify this being the government's business. Please.

---

When you get married, you register with the state.

quote:

---

"Recognize the Judeo-Christian heritage of our shared values"

Our founding fathers made a good point of specifying that their values were by no means based on any sort of Judao-Christian heritige. Plus, a political party to restore American values is kind of a contradiction. I always thought our country was based on people being allowed to have whatever values they want!

---

I don't agree with the "Judeo" part, but America has historically been a country based on Christian sects. Most Americans are Christian. Was America based on Islam or Hinduism? No. It had a Christian heritage.

quote:

---

"Restore property rights and restrict government land confiscation"

Sure gonna make Donald Trump happy. So many people fail to address the thousands of people living and maintaining land they don't own.

---

Why would this make Donald Trump happy? What's wrong with restricting land confiscation by government?

quote:

---

"Restore the rights of states in the manner of choosing Senators and Representatives and promote the citizen legislator."

Gee, whiz, don't Texas and Rhode Island have so much in common? *rolleyes* Are these people telling me the government shouldn't regulate the citizen legislator, even if 40 million civilians stand hand in hand to half a million?

---

I don't quite understand your big beef with this. America was originally supposed to be a set of united individual States, not one big federal monolith.

quote:

---

"The United States must withdraw from the United Nations immediately and require the UN headquarters to relocate out of the United States."

This is basically "we're big, we're strong, we're America, don't fuck with us." These people are using the Constitution to justify being allowed to completely ignore international law. Terrifying.

---

No, it's not terrifying. What's wrong with every nation maintaining it's own sovereignity instead of relinquishing it to a World Government?

quote:

---

"The America First Party is totally opposed and unequivocally rejects the World Court because it violates and claims authority to overrule the United States Constitution."

So the United States Constitution should dictate what we do OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES? I reject political parties that don't believe we have to obey international law.

---

Who decides international law, Uncl? The WTO? IMF? Some bureaucrats no one ever voted for? This isn't saying that the constitution dictates people outside the US, this is saying that joining organizations which dictate what the US does should be opposed. I can give you a Canadian example. BC wants to legalize pot. Someone from the UN said it would violate a UN law. Now, why should the UN dictate what the people in BC want?

quote:

---

"The America First Party supports passage of legislation designating English as the official language of the United States. The United States shall, in all instances, restrict itself to the English language."

Let's go back to being colonies of Britain while we're at it. I'm wondering why we're so bent on preserving English as a language if so many of our ancestors busted their balls to be independent of England?

---

Get real. Americans speak English. A nation of a million languages will turn out like the tower of Babel.

quote:

---

"The United States of America is a Sovereign Republic, subject only to our Creator and not answering to any alien power or foreign potentate."

God says it's okay to invade France. let's invade France.

---

The AF party is actually against any interventionism and warfare that isn't in US national interests. This statement has nothing to do with God saying "Invade France". The statement means "A group of unelected bureaucrats have no business dictating what America does.. only the American people have that right." If you want to check out the warmongers, check out the Democrats and Republicans.

quote:

---

"The America First Party unequivocally supports the return of all God-given rights for every family to decide how to discipline their children, what their children are allowed to do, and with whom their children are allowed to associate."

Can parents beat molest their kids, raise them on nothing but bestiality porn, force them to eat nothing but cold, unrefrigerated ham, and make them sleep on the floor?

---

Straw man. Besides, aren't you the one saying you'd let your kid watch any porn s/he wants?

quote:

---

"The America First Party strongly supports the traditional family as ordained by God and built upon the marital union of one man and one woman."

I'm looking through the Constituion, but I can't seem to find anything about this. This party takes 180 turns from individual freedom to the totalitarian imposition of archaic morals.

---

The traditional family isn't an imposition of archaic morals. The traditional family is the backbone of society. Besides, who said they'd IMPOSE it? They said they're supporting it. What's wrong with supporting family?

quote:

---

"Dismantle the Department of Housing and Urban Development."

I'd continue, but after that comment I can't even read this anymore.

---

I'm looking through the Constitution, and I don't see anything about it being the government's role to build houses ;P

I agree with their being opposed to intervention, but they actually believe in ignoring international law. I'm surprised you can't see how horrible that is. International Law basically exists to regulate power hungry countries. It was the UN Security Council that condemned all the CIA coups committed in the cold war, and the World Court's resolution is the only thing that stopped us from doing it more.

I really don't get the Christian Heritage thing. Our founding fathers were nominally Christian, they didn't follow the religion. They based our nation on Enlightenment ideals - "the government rules by consent of the governed." This is bascailly in complete contrast to the Christian idea that God justifies the State. The majority of people in this coutnry being Christian does not make this a Christian country.

My worst objectiosn to this party is their obsession with the traditional family. Evolution requires the human race to go forward, and people should be able to progress their lifestyles however they want. being bent on traditional family values where parents have complete control over their children as a POLITICAL value is completely rediculous.

Saying that the parents might be horrible parents and raise their kids to think that man/animal sex is perfectly natural is only one danger of keeping the government out of the family.

The world is unifying. Countries are coexisting, and parties like the AF party that base their beliefs on national soveirgnty and traditional values in my opinion live in the 18th century. If you're opposed to progressional, the end result will be a system that clearly doesn't work.

quote:

---

...they actually believe in ignoring international law. I'm surprised you can't see how horrible that is.

---

They don't believe in international organizations trumping national sovereignity. This includes multinational business organizations such as the WTO and IMF, which, as a radical leftist, you should be aware of the dangers. I'll try to explain this to you from a leftist standpoint, since the anti-globalist movement is most active in the left. Country A wants to ban a dangerous chemical in their country. Country B, which sells such chemical, sues Country A based on some international treaty that binds all the countries, yet no one voted for it. Country A loses, and the will of the people in Country A is trumped by international trade law.

Here is an example of the case against World Government from the rightist standpoint. International Organization makes laws which state that each member must send soldiers if there is a conflict in a certain nation. If there is a conflict in the Balkans, like always, Country A is forced to put it's own soldiers on the line when there is absolutely no national interest at stake.

quote:

---

International Law basically exists to regulate power hungry countries.

---

No, it does not, and you should know this. International trade law is made by power-hungry people, and international human rights law is toothless.

quote:

---

It was the UN Security Council that condemned all the CIA coups committed in the cold war, and the World Court's resolution is the only thing that stopped us from doing it more.

---

World Court doesn't stop the US from doing anything. The US is about to go "regime change" in Iraq. The UN couldn't do anything if it opposed that. UN "condemnations" don't mean anything at all. The UN has "condemned" Israel like a billion times. I'm sure Israel really gives a shit that they're condemned. All they do is piss and moan about the UN being "anti-semitic" and go about doing what they've always been doing. UN can't stop them.

quote:

---

I really don't get the Christian Heritage thing.

---

The vast majority of the people who came to the US were Christian. America was colonized by Christian separatists, not Buddhists.

quote:

---

They based our nation on Enlightenment ideals - "the government rules by consent of the governed." This is bascailly in complete contrast to the Christian idea that God justifies the State. The majority of people in this coutnry being Christian does not make this a Christian country.

---

No, the Christian idea is that our rights are given by God, and that people get their authority from God, not from monarchs and tyrants. If the majority of the people in the country are Christian, the heritage and traditions of the country will be Christian-based.

quote:

---

My worst objectiosn to this party is their obsession with the traditional family.

---

The survival of a nation depends on the stability of future generations. What creates stable future generations? TRADITIONAL FAMILIES, therefore family is the backbone of society and the nation.

quote:

---

Evolution requires the human race to go forward, and people should be able to progress their lifestyles however they want.

---

Sorry, but without families, human evolution will not go foreward because there will be no stable future generations. There will be some kids, yes, but from single parents who are wedded to the state for support. A nation of children dependent on the dole is completely antithetical to liberty.

quote:

---

being bent on traditional family values where parents have complete control over their children as a POLITICAL value is completely rediculous.

---

You would rather have it that the State has complete control over all the children.

quote:

---

Saying that the parents might be horrible parents and raise their kids to think that man/animal sex is perfectly natural is only one danger of keeping the government out of the family.

---

Why should the government be in control of my family? You know what happens when the government is in control of the family? The State uses coercion to create a nation of subservient people. That's why the State thinks it needs to get involved in the family. The State wants to be the Prime Authority. Again, State control over families is antithetical to liberty.

quote:

---

The world is unifying. Countries are coexisting, and parties like the AF party that base their beliefs on national soveirgnty and traditional values in my opinion live in the 18th century.

---

This is Argumentum ad novitatem, and it's a total fallacy. Just because something is "new" doesn't mean something is good. World Government doesn't appeal to me, but I can see where it would appeal to international Communists.

quote:

---

If you're opposed to progressional, the end result will be a system that clearly doesn't work.

---

No, we know that nationalism works because it has worked for thousands of years. We know that traditional families work because that's what our ancestors used to get to this point. It's your new ideas that have no proof of working, and they seem to offer only One World Government tyranny over liberty.

The UN Security council has absolutely no connections to the IMF. I'm just as opposed to globalization as this party is, and I've been to the protests in New York, Seattle, and Washington - most anti-globalization leftists believe that the Security Council needs to take more action with tarrifs and trade laws to regulate foreign imports. The World Court has absolutely no affiliation with the World Bank, and pretty much the only affect it's add on the World Bank was a negative one.

The World Court and the United Nations regulate trade, but are mostly based on political issues that one country can't handle. Internatioanl law is the only deterrend to imperialism that exists at this point, but it recognizes and stops unjust actions taken by countries that violate it. The US has so much military and economic power that withdrawing from the United Natiosn would only increase our involvement with the IMF. Yeah, the AF party wants to withdrawl from these trade organizations, but they advocate granting individual businesses enough freedom that the businesses would proffit none the less.

The only reason the UN can't stop what the US is doing because the US makes up all of the UN's military power. We have the most powerful military in the world, so maintain a sick global dominance over the United Nations. I am all for the democratization of the UN, but withdrawing would only give the beaurocrats MORE power because they wouldn't have to worry about pissing anyone off.

"No, the Christian idea is that our rights are given by God, and that people get their authority from God, not from monarchs and tyrants. If the majority of the people in the country are Christian, the heritage and traditions of the country will be Christian-based."

Not according to history. The Catholic Church and the monarchy went hand in hand. Look at the middle ages. Look at the Manarchies of Spain, England, and France. The Church was the only force more powerful then the government, and they justified the power of a monarch.

The original colonists of this country were Christians, but by the time of the American revolution the majority of revolutionaries were deists. All of them based their ideas of democracy on the enlightenment. The philosophies of John Locke, Jean Jacques Roussou, Voltaire, and other philosophers layed the foundation for American democracy. The Constitution specifically stated Separation of Church and State, and virtually all the founding fathers warned the American people of religion's involvement in the government. Adams and Jefferson both specified that their ideas were not based on Christianity at all. If you wanna insist that Christian values had anything to do with individual freedom, you can but that claim has no historical merit. The church was always on the side of the monarchs and the tyrants, not the people.

The traditional family has played it's role in society, but what's wrong with evolution? The world is changing - women are gaining more influence in a previously masculine dominated society - people are becomming more tollerent of homosexuals, the world is becomming more open to radical ideas involving sex and the media. Trying to prevent change will only keep us in the past. The last few centuries were filled with intollerance in injustice, and the argument against changing it is "it's been working like this for so long it must be the best thing for us." That's bullshit - people need to evolve.

What's so oppressive about a World Government? As far as I'm concerned, natiosn need to keep eachother in check. If national interests come first, then nations will develope too much power and rule over their people with iron fists. If a nation is truly run on behalf of the people, it needs to goexist with the world so ignominous leaders don't have absolute power to do whatever they want.

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 11-07-2002).]

First you say...

quote:

---

I'm just as opposed to globalization as this party is, and I've been to the protests in New York, Seattle, and Washington

---

Then you say, in the same post...

quote:

---

What's so oppressive about a World Government?

---

*sighs*

quote:

---

Not according to history. The Catholic Church and the monarchy went hand in hand. Look at the middle ages. Look at the Manarchies of Spain, England, and France. The Church was the only force more powerful then the government, and they justified the power of a monarch.

---

Protestants changed that, and the people who colonized America were Christian separatists.

quote:

---

The traditional family has played it's role in society, but what's wrong with evolution? The world is changing - women are gaining more influence in a previously masculine dominated society - people are becomming more tollerent of homosexuals, the world is becomming more open to radical ideas involving sex and the media. Trying to prevent change will only keep us in the past. The last few centuries were filled with intollerance in injustice, and the argument against changing it is "it's been working like this for so long it must be the best thing for us." That's bullshit - people need to evolve.

---

A nation of children with one parent dependent on the State isn't evolution. Also, if the birth rates collapse (which has been happening in the liberalized Western Nations), the country will just be full of elderly with not enough young to support them or keep the nation alive. That's not evolution. It might be "fun", "new", and "exciting" in the short-term (thus fooling people into believing that it's progress), but will have very bad long term consequences.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 11-07-2002).]

The protestants did brake the Roman Christian Catholic Church�s "monopoly" of Christian power, but the different protestant churches that replaced Catholicism continued to support the kings etc, in the tradition of the Catholics.

The first attempt that was made to politically separate the state and the Catholic Church was a part of the French revolution, wich failed.

The first attempt to separate the state from (foremost) Protestant churches, was during the paralell revolution in what�s now USA. This was also the first successful attempt to separate church and state.

FoxLeonard

A truly democratic World Government would control and restrain globalization, not promote it. That's what I'm trying to explain. Just about all the anti-globalization activists believe that proletarian internationalism is the best approach to limiting the power of the WTO - nations keeping each otheri n check with tarrifs and trade regulations.

And I fail to see how allowing gay people to get married will create any sort of negative affect on our country and our culture. Having a family when the man works and the woman stays home that ethically raises their kids and shelters them from "un-American" ideals sounds very counter productive to me. It has no basis but backward morals which our founding fathers (who were NOT Christian) clearly denounced.

Basing your government on the ways families live can only be justified in a theocracy that rules based on religious beliefs, which the AF party seems to advocate.

What is the differnce between repulicans and Democrates?

Repulicans drill wherever they want,
Democrates drill whoever they want.


I am beinging to dislike the parties altogether.

Sure they have their ups and downs, but it's to the point where most people vote for the party, not the canidates.

It's my understanding that the constitution forbids the federal government from adopting an official language. Can anyone verify this? I'm uncertain if state governments are under the same restrictions.