sarge-m's Blog

i see you vote for whom ever you feel will be the best. do you not take into consideration the party platform?

cause you know a woman is NEVER wrong..lol..and sarge, I dont know if you got my answer to your question about the online thing, but Its a NO go, due to the fkn fact that worker has not closed our case..uggh..But I thank you so Much for the wonderful advice, keep ur fingers crossed that beep will come to her lack of sence..xox Luvs, and btw hows the new job?

Colt I agree. Get rid of parties. As to your second post, I do take into consideration party platform. This is what bothers me. I vote Republican for moral issues, but then I have to take their garbage.(Feed the rich and take from poor.) I vote for a Democrat for workers rights and have to take their immorality. It is a catch 22. I know you will want to respond about moral and immorality. That is not what this post is about. It is about having to settle for one or the other knowing to do the right thing on one hand and hurt yourself on the other.

Lets just say, I used to be Republican. Without giving to much information, I will let you know I am extremely close to a certain politician in Lansing. What I have learned in the past few years upsets me very much.

My late parents, were STRONG REPUBLICANS. wish they were here to quide me now..even tho we disagreed on many things. Guess i will continue the way I am, lable my self as a woman, mother, that follows her gutt. IM A W.M.T.F.H.G...Hows that?

To find out about platforms , you'll have to check out each party's by going to their websights . Type in party platform , and read . After reading , think about actions of members of these parties , you'll soon notice that dems and pubs don't even follow there own party's platforms . As long as they're good fund raisers , it doesn't matter . Then , go to Libertarianparty.org , notice how simple the party platform is , and keep in mind that Librtarians kick out members that don't follow the platform . I worked for the Libertarian party , have written ads , come up with ideas for campaigns , and can say that dishonesty is strictly forbidden . No form of deception is allowed either . As far as changing the political atmosphere , I've commented before about leveling the playing field that is allready stacked in favor of the 2 party system . By not allowing anyone running for office to spend anymore than what the office pays for 1 tearm is fair , and keeps the politicians honest , and working for you , not special interest .

Or who can afford the most comercials . This also makes it easier for new commers to enter the field . People that don't have millions of dollars , and political ties . People other than lawyers for example . How about people that want to serve our country , instead of a political party , or people that believe in our constitution , our people , and our way of life ? we have all been fooled by appearances , drumbeating , mainstream media for to long , and have not been voting on substance . The change starts with you , and you alone .

Lets start a movement. All you Libertarians out there, lets make a pact to vote for our party so our vote is not wasted.

Done sarge ! Sir yes sir ! You all know I'm a die-hard Libertarian anyway .

Correct Tall , in your hogwash statement , if you were referring to the dems and pubs , just wanted people to look for themselves , not just take someones word for it . The platform is not hogwash when it comes to Libertarians , as they take their platform to heart .

shock.. there is no way the libertarians will ever gain any high political clout

For give me if I am alittle slow replying this week. I am on a 12 hour work shift this week. I will eventually reply.

BTW Sarge , that is a propane gas operated spud gun . Shoots a spud several hundred yards . My son and I built it , and he thinks it's the coolest think since ice . Colt , you say there is no way the Libertarian will ever gain political clout , that is not true . As independants , we have allready been responsible for Bush being elected twice . The media wont touch it , but that's what happened . I say that as long as people give up and vote for the lesser of two evils , they will allways end up with an evil, and the two evil parties will never change .

Good post Sarge!

I myself am a democrat. But before the next election I'm going to reevaluate. The only candidate that sticks out so far is (R) Ron paul. I'm listening to the dem debate right now.

SEEDUB, Thanks.
I figured with all the fighting going on in the other blog, we could all start fresh and intelligently discuss matters. By giving people an alternative from the 2 parties, it might make sense to some and they may step back and think for a moment.
Like my post implies, there is some good and some bad in both parties. We can meet in the middle here.

I'm a Moderate Rebpublican.
I have voted for Republicans -Reagan-Bush,DeVos etc. I had voted for CLinton, 1st term and came real close to Perot. I was never really into politics just liked Reagan the man as did tall. I started to really get into politics after the 2000 election. My initial vote was going to be for Gore and I was sent out of state during the election. I did not get a chance to vote. THANK MY LUCKY STARS>>>>> After that election is when I got heavily involved in politics and started to learn what the Democrats really stood for and started to understand. This is why I have voted for Republicans ever since. This is were (overall) my ethics and values lie.
Give me a Liberatarian with values such as mine that has a good chance of winning, and I will vote for him/her. Without this good chance I will continue to vote republican.
Ratt

just a quick ty for informing me on what a party platform is..Ive learned more here then all my years of schooling, and I owe it all to you, well most of you..lol You know who you are...Luvs

Colt, Yes that is what I said, Unions want to much, but we can't afford for the union to be totally busted.

Good point Ratt, I will definetly look at the morals of a Libertariaan before voteing.

Top-o-the mornin to all . Tall , it was JFK and LBJ [ emphasis on the BJ ] that got us into Viet Nam . Don't you find it a little strange the the dems are trying hard to make us loose the war on terror , just like they made us loose a war against comunism ? Don't you see the same politisising ? Or the fact that back then we had a majority os dems in the house and senate at the same time as a republican president ? Come on now , have some more coffee .

I have no political affiliation...I did watch the democratic debates last night and it seems that the only one whith a grip on things is Joe Biden, I love Dennis Kuccinich but I do not think he is strong enough to lead the feee world.

Sorry Tall, I did not mean to imply that all Democrats are immoral. But the Democratic party does support interest groups that in alot of people eyes is immoral. I don't want to get into the specifics because that is not what this post is about. I think you know what I am talking about.

Well , then take Ratts test on politics and lets see where you fall . Ratt , could you post that test again for some of our friends here ? I'd bet you are a straight up socialist Railen . I mean , you were the one that mentioned a series of questions .

I belong to the Party OvA Heeeer-a!

Your Vote Score: 80% Republican, 20% Democrat

While you don't always agree with the Republican party, it's a pretty good match for you.
Do be sure to research each candidate. A conservative Democrat or independent candidate might fit you better at times.

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

The political group that
agrees with you most is...

.

CENTRIST



CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government

control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on

the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention

and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.

Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,

tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what

they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

I took this test http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/quiz.php


it said I am a libertarian

Sarge-M, see my thread on "So How About That State Legislature." I propose a solution to that.

I am glad. I did the same in response to your post. I do agree with much of what you have to say but disagree with much also. I am glad that you liked my proposal to reform State government. It is important that the two houses serve two different purposes. One should be able and required to respond to the needs of people geographically so that an issue of bureaucracy can be addressed by your local legislator. The other house should reflect how the State as a whole feels on the issues. I think this would be an appropriate change.

I have thought about changing that so half of the Senate would be elected during a mid-term election and half with the term of the governor (both for four year terms) but to maintain a relatively low threshold for representation it would require an even larger increase in the numbers of Senators. If I wanted to keep the number of Senators down and have a mid-term election though then it would require a higher threshold which would mean less subgroups gaining representation. What do you think?

Term limits do suck, that I can agree with. With term limits it is eternal amateur hour. That is one part of the conservative platform I just can't jump on board with. There needs to be some stability, but not to the point where the people can't change their government. I like four year terms for the Senate, but alternating them by having half of them up for re-election every two years may be a good idea.

One thing I am concerned about though is that there are currently 38 Senators in Michigan and 110 Representatives. If we wanted to maintain a 2% threshold AND have elections alternate every two years on 4 year terms then there would need to be 100 Senators. We would need this because 2% of 50 (half which would be up for re-election) is 1, and you can't have less than 1 Senator.

Another thing I'm concerned about is that if there is such a high number of candidates at an at-large system people won't know who they are voting for or there will be so many they won't care. Also, going from 38 to 100 is something that wouldn't pass, but 38 to 50 would pass. However with 50 divided up between two elections the threshold would need to be bumped to 4% which is pretty high. In Israel they have a similar system only the parties pick their candidate list (while in this system anyone could run to get onto the list) and they have 2%, but many European legislatures have a similar system and hold at 5%. I would like to see 2% but 4% would still be pretty low if we wanted to maintain 50 Senators and no more.

What do you think?

Sorry, spelling- should be "good"

I must disagree, I believe McCain-Feingold has been largely a failure. Aside from being Unconstitutional to restrict free speech in such a manner I know as an economist that restrictions on the supply and demand of campaign financing will only result in campaigning being pushed into a different or black market. After McCain-Feingold this country saw the rise of 527 groups which could raise unlimited funds. These groups tended to be the most extreme groups as it is typically the most passionate of supporters who are willing to commit the most funds. You do not find passionate moderates.

Equal funding of parties is a difficult proposition as it raises the question, what is a legitimate party? Should the "Taxpayer Party" really get as much federal or State funding as the Democratic or Republican Party? Should the Democratic or Republican Party be reduced and restricted to the same funds as the Green Party? Does that not violate their right of free speech and assembly? How can we prevent nonsense parties who only wish to exploit federal or State funding to avoid working in a normal job? 95% salary, 5% campaigning. If every party receives the same amount of funding then it would be discriminatory to not fund such parties.

I personally wish to reduce the size AND role of government in the lives of everyday Americans. If we allow the government to regulate party contributions then are we not increasing the role of government?

I do like the idea of alternating terms, but with 2 year terms it would be madness. An election every year for half of the Senate.

SARGE, just wanted to say sorry if ive ever lead you to beleive Ive misprepersented myself on these blogs, pretenting to be somthing im not..Which couldnt be further from the truth. seems my MANY typos, lack of words due to the fact i type to fast. and allways make mistakes, but it seems, because of this, Ive lost a few wonderful friends in THE REAL world, breaks my heart...So just wanted to say sorry, if any of my typing errors have offend you in anyway..Luvs

MM, It is late and I will comment when I have more time. Guten Nacht.

MM, We have that now. Look at what it has gotten us.

I still stand firm. If the people say "Yea" the courts can't say "Nay"

I understand the tyranny thing. The problem with that is the rights of the few are protected while the rights of the majority are stepped upon.

Yes, you are correct, an unchecked Gov. does lead to tyranny. I am talking about the will of the people.

This is why I said, that lawmakers would be required to legislate in accord with the people, not just what they think is best.

Especially in Michigan. Scenario, Helmet Law:
While I personally think you are an idot if you ride your motorcycle with out a helmet, but you should not be required to do so. This is an example of lawmakers legislating for our own good.
Like I said somewhere else, 1 kid eats a rotten apple and the next day there is a law requiring all apples to be inspected before consumption. A very small amount of circumstances makes life difficult for everyone.

The will of the people being served in a government that is not bound by the Constitution is a contradiction. The justification for Democracy is that the people are sovereign, however a government not bound to respect the rights of the people is an act that can only be taken under a view that government is sovereign. If government is sovereign then the will of the people is irrelevant.

Constitutional Democracy works on these principles. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, this is of course true. The need for many to have life outweighs the need for the few to have life. This is justified as all life is equal. If all life is equal then the value of life is simply a matter of numbers. However, the desires of the many are outweighed by the needs of the few. The right for the few to live outweigh the desire of the many to live well.

To believe that the will of the people outweighs the rights of the people for no other reason than there is a slight majority is one I cannot subscribe to. I do not believe the government should be able to take people's property through eminent domain for no other reason than they want to raise more tax revenue. The needs of the people as I define them are the rights to life, liberty, and property. Those rights are what people need in order to participate in a given government for that society to hold itself together. These are natural rights, rights that exist in nature. Man preceded government, not the other way around. For man to participate in government those natural rights, those needs must be protected