It seems like everytime a republican talks about economic freedom it makes perfect sense but then he/she opens his mouth about gay marriage, war in Iraq, corporate welfare........ and I disagree. Furthermore it seems like everytime I talk to a liberal I agree with them on moral freedoms such as ending the WAR on drugs or fighting for civil liberties but then he/she opens their mouth about high government spending programs and I disagree. Isn't there something better than a two party system between the evils? Who actually believes in freedom in a free land and liberty? Whatever happened to the people that care about everybodys liberty? Do I have to vote for a liberal or conservative everytime an election comes up? Who else is out there that doesn't care about lobbyist groups or special interest gourps that are dividing and destroying our nation? Do you see a Pavlov response in those around you(where they get defense over a party like sheeple)? What would George Washington have been?
2007-03-25 20:47:07 · 4 answers · asked by The Tank 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Be a Republican when it comes to economy and be a Democrat when it comes to morality.
2007-03-25 20:55:43 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
You sound like a Libertarian. Both parties have a Libertarian Caucus and there are many Libertarian 3rd parties. Probably the most electable candidate for you to support this time around would be Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas who wants to stick the social issues in the states, repeal the Patriot Act, leave the UN, end the War, and restore economic liberty by ending all entitlements, including corporate welfare.
People who cared about everyones liberty were tossed from the Democratic Party which they had always controlled in 1896 (William Jennings Bryan). The last president to be truly for freedom was Grover Cleveland.
Washington was a moderate. Alexander Hamilton's bank which was owned by British special interests and John Jay's treaty that paid reparations to Britain were approved by Washington, though he wasn't a member of the Federalist (as in British) Party.
Jefferson is far closer to the ideal of what this country should be. Jefferson was an early opponent of slavery (and had much better motives than the puritan Republicans of the 1800s). He once said that the country had peaked in 1776 and the rulers would become corrupt and the people careless (sounds like today, doesn't it?). He also supported the idea of nullification and recognized that secession was Constitutional (none of our politically correct "educators" will mention that Jefferson believed that states had the right to reject federal government laws that they disagreed with and the right to leave the union if they so desired). Imagine if the states would use that power to nullify laws today. Everybody could move to a state where whatever nonsense federal law they don't like doesn't apply. Wouldn't that be great?
2007-03-25 21:37:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I want individual freedom, that is what the constitution is about. Economic freedoms are individual, moral freedoms on the other hand are not. Morals spill over, your bad morals negatively affect me and my family. Your bad economics do not.
Pretty simple really.
2007-03-25 23:32:18 · answer #3 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Whew, lots of questions there.
Nope, I don't think there's much chance that you'll get the best of both worlds.
If you feel strongly enough about it and think you can get enough support, why don't you run for President?
2007-03-25 20:54:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋