When 2 conservatives share a POV with 80% of liberals - it's still a liberal, not a conservative position, isn't it? And it a known fact that Clinton was a DINO. I am still puzzled why he was hated so much by right wingers. Not really: Pro Life 38% Pro Choice 56% http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm
That's too convenient for you to have republcians move to the right and the dems move to the right, isn't it. Isn't that what conservatives really want - that the entire political spectrum move to the right. Expecting the dems to move to the right exactly when republicans have disgraced themselves by supporting Bush and all his stupid policies is wishful thinking though. Besides it just does not work that way, I doubt the dems would attract moderate republicans but they would definitely piss off half of their core constituency. What the dems need to do is to have a very solid message, i.e. "Get out of Iraq now", Universal Healthcare, Labor protection, Pro-Choice etc and start educating the public (especially disillusioned republican voters) regarding the merits of their platform instead of appealing to republicans by becoming Republican light that they already are.
as a prochoice (unlimited right for adults to access abortion in the first trimester) repub, i am very interested in the polling data that sight is weak a much more comprehensive meta-polling site is www.pollingreport.com read the abortion polls, crime polls, etc. very enlightening seriously, a great and unbiased (meta) site
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 20-25, 2006. N=1,229 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted." . Generally Available Stricter Limits Not Permitted Unsure % % % % 1/20-25/06 38 39 21 2 12/2-6/05 38 39 20 3 4/13-16/05 36 38 24 2 3/21-22/05 35 37 25 3 2/24-28/05 35 40 23 2 1/14-18/05 36 35 26 3 11/04 34 44 21 1 7/04 34 42 22 2 1/03 39 38 22 1
Massive political change requires massive pychological change. For decades now, people have assumed that big government is okay and that the governement can be trusted with more power. People believe this despite evidence to the contrary. For decades now, growing government size and power has slowly destroyed families and communities all over America as people rely more on government burecrats rather than on each other. And wealth is concentrating in fewer hands as government makes life harder for small businesses while giving out welfare and bailouts for big business. You have to destroy people's faith and complacency with big governement if you want small governement. And currently the only hope for that to happen is for the truth to come out about 911. We need a president that will let the sun shine on all of the government cover-ups, fraud, and negligence is out there. Let there be outrage, distrust, and hatred towards government...then and only then can you start cutting down its size and power. If we don't get that and liberal democrats and liberal repbulicans continue to rule and we get an economic recession, watch out cause socialism sure to follow. Actually, socialism is already here cause government makes up 60% of the economy if you take into account the cost of compliance with governement regulations.
What about people that tend to vote Repub and are also pro- gay rights and are for the complete legalization of all drugs? Am I the only ACLU card holding member on this board that still votes Republican?
i think the ACLU sux for a # of reasons, but a LOT of repubs are for the decrim of mj. national review, the repub "flagship" was for decrim of MJ for decades and still is - generally. i am basically a right moderate with libertarian tendencies but NOT a (capital L) Libertarian. the Libertarian party is kinda silly, but libertarian philosophy - there needs to be more of that - both dems and repubs tend to be statists. bush is a right moderate statist. clinton was a left moderate statist... etc. tangential to the issue that MJ should be decrim'd, what pisses me off is an activist supreme court - Kelo, etc. that strips us of rights. i was totally dissapointed in scalia for the latest medical mj case. now whether or not you are for or against Medical MJ, it is CLEARLY a state's rights issue it is NOT a commerce clause issue, as that case claimed. how can the scotus claim the DEA has federal jurisdiction over a drug that somebody grows in their backyard within state boundaries, and uses (under prescription) for personal use. sorry, that is NOT a commerce clause thang. and i was disgusted iwth the scotus - as usual. repubs and dems both tend to be statist. they both want to strip rights. they just tend to be somewhat different as to which ones. also, the ACLU does not support civil rights. just certain civil rights that they like. they are weak on gun rights, and their (and Amnesty Internationals) campaign against Tasers is enuf to make me give up on the ACLU. tasers are the most humane invention in law enforcement (and have saved hundreds of lives) ever.
The ACLU absolutely does support American Civil Liberties. Why does the ACLU have to worry about gun rights anyway? It is not as if gun owners and the gun lobby aren't well funded in their legal defense. The wealthy NRA will fund any legal issue to protect the legal rights of gun owners/and or manufacturers. The ACLU has limited funding, unlike the NRA, so they can't take on every single case....
the ACLU, like any advocacy group i am aware of (and i am a member of several) is very sleective . the ACLU does not support civil rights across the board they tend to support the civil rights that tend to make their supporters and members happy. not across the board civil rights the NRA issue is irrelevant the prochoice lobby is well funded too (and i am prochoice), yet the ACLU fights for these rights. ACLU is not the impartial arbiter of civil rights for all that it claims to be it picks and chooses, just like any advocacy group, with gun and property rights being among those right often NOT chosen i could also mention it's general silence vis a vis rights stripped by the VAWA, but that would be somehwat redundant they are an advocacy group. just like any other, they have their biases, and their targeted audience
I completely agree. Both parties are socialist/statist. The only distinction between the two is which set of rights they take away which areas of Government they grow. Dems are Fabian Socialists and neo-con Repubs are watered-down fascists. Myself, I am more a 'social' libertarian.