I think you mean libertarian rather than liberal. Liberals tend to be in support of more state involvement and higher taxes, libertarians are for minimising the role of the state, lowering taxes and increasing individual responsibility and rights.
A liberal is someone who wants the government out of their lives, but not completely. If you start talking about economic liberalism, it is generally assumed that you are talking about a free market. A libertarian is someone who supports the libertarian party which tends to take extremely liberal positions when it comes to both social and economic policy. So there is nothing wrong with calling someone talking about lowering taxes a liberal. A bit pedantic I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buttons.
On an indepth political note yes it is too simplistic and I'm well aware of the differences within the parties such as the Blue dog Democrats and so on however I believe you can say that Generally x party has a recent history of being pro/anti this or that.
You can somewhat generalize on a national level I guess. I'm not sure what was going through Phelps mind when he decided to be a democrat, but I'm guessing his black and white thinking wouldn't want to in the same party as Goldwater who was a vocal advocate of gay rights.
I think he's trying to shock as many people as possible. Being democrat in most the conservative churches he pretends to align to (i.e. baptist) is considered very taboo. I remember I grew up in some of those churches and if you weren't voting for the Republican, you should just keep your mouth shut if you didn't want to be looked at like the devil. Not all, but the majority where like that. It was pretty significant of an unwritten taboo. Even though Baptist and most other conservative churches don't support him at all, I think by aligning himself somewhat with their teachings (though going much further in extremism than they) and then calling himself Democrat, is just another way to shock people and get his name out there.
If you read up on him, he's obviously a manipulator and in my opinion probably doesn't believe in what he's doing. Some of his children have claimed significant abuse from him, and his followers are almost entirely limited to his extensive family. In my opinion, (which is an opinion cause I haven't read a ton as I don't care to), I think there's something mentally wrong with him that's making him want to control people and get attention in any way possible, hence the protesting at things that it seems like protesting at contradict what he says, using the term democrat, focusing on protesting popular media, etc. Aside from his motives, though, I do think the public spectacles should be stopped in a legal way, not just for him but for anyone harassing like that for whatever reason. I would find that extremely upsetting if I was present at a place he did his protesting, as well as other instances where other people have done similar stuff, and I doubt I'm the only one. I just don't get why people get exceptions to things like public disturbance if they throw in religion or some other "belief". If he really believes it, take it where people aren't forced to listen to verbal abuse and harassment. <end rant>
Stereotypes are the epitome of human laziness.
- me
The "extra attention" is what they want. I hadn't even thought of them in months until this event was posted all over the place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaming.
I swear, things like this just seem to give more attention to Westboro. They're a hateful, ignorant and small-minded group of people, but they're small, and things like this just draw further attention to their spiteful and stupid viewpoints.
This could be a first. Jack and Jo agree
quite ****ing true btw
Then wear the gold hat, if that will move her;
If you can bounce high, bounce for her too,
Till she cry "Lover, gold-hatted, high-bouncing lover,
I must have you!"
Thomas Parke D’Invilliers
To government issues; in the US
Liberal/democrat - Hands off social issues(equal rights, pro choice), hands in economy(tax+)
Conservatives/republican - hands in social issues(sanctiy of marriage, pro life), hands off economy(tax-)
That's basically the tl;dr of it for basic discussion. There's other things (libretarian, populus, million&1 others) but for the most part
^^Very good way to describe it. And the system is set up to where almost all politicians are one or the other. It's extremely black and white, and very religiously charged in many instances. No president has been elected since those two parties started that is not either a Republican or Democrat, and the vast majority of other major offices are Republican or Democrat. It's always a big deal whether the Congress/Senate is "Republican or Democrat run" meaning which party has the majority at the time. Libertarians occasionally have some influence, but nothing compared to Republicans/Democrats. The rest of the parties are only there really in name when it comes to any major politics. They'll generally become democrat or republican if from another party and they want to run for an important office. So that might give people outside the US a way to understand the very significant connotations of the terms when used in the US.
Stereotypes are the epitome of human laziness.
- me
educating them on what not to do? ;) sad thing is a large amount of people here think the partisanship (2 party system) is absolutely ridiculous, yet it's been that way in some form other other since the beginning so no one believes it can change, so people still vote by the party system since they figure that's the only way they'll be heard. I guess that's the individualism of America for you though. I for one have given up on U.S. politics in the state it's currently in.
Stereotypes are the epitome of human laziness.
- me
Aside from his motives, though, I do think the public spectacles should be stopped in a legal way, not just for him but for anyone harassing like that for whatever reason.
So we pass the law, and then he sues claiming the law violates his 1st amendment rights? He now has an audience of the 9 judges of the supreme court again. Win?
As for why he ran as a democrat, best guess is that where fewer candidates on the primary ballot in what is a pretty red state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWoodsOfWonderland
To government issues; in the US
Liberal/democrat - Hands off social issues(equal rights, pro choice), hands in economy(tax+)
Conservatives/republican - hands in social issues(sanctiy of marriage, pro life), hands off economy(tax-)
That's basically the tl;dr of it for basic discussion. There's other things (libretarian, populus, million&1 others) but for the most part
Except there are many democrats that want to control guns (hands in social issues), and many republicans are against this. Then again you'll have a republican pol like Chris Christie who will take a strong stand for small government while supporting gun control.
I thought what they did was pretty awesome. I'm a huge Foo Fighters fan though so may be biased. It was good that they did it in the way they did, rather than getting angry and throwing insults - that is the reaction those nutters are after.
I know what mean but like to add as an aside that Fred Phelps is a Democrat who has run for office (including governor) as a Democrat 4 or 5 times.
Just to clarify, Phelps has run in Democratic primaries seeking to become the Democratic nominee for Governor or the Senate. He has never got even close to winning the nomination, and so has never been chosen by Democrats to represent them. I do agree with the point that his views seem a poor fit with the Democratic Party, however.
To illustrate what I mean by his never being close to being nominated, in running for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Kansas in 1990, he won 6.72% of the vote. Running for nomination for the US Senate in 1992 he got 30.8%. Running for nomination for the Kansas Governorship in 1994 and 1998, he achieved 3.36% and 14.72% of the vote (respectively). This is not the record of a serious candidate for high political office.