[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

One of the biggest problems that i have seen for a long time and especially as of late is that the GOP is controlled by the 0.01% of this country- the billionaire class. take the Koch brothers for example and the XL pipeline mess.. GOP is hell bent on getting this thing passed because of all of the campaign contributions that they have taken. ( Koch brothers have huge leases on the tar sands production in Canada)

If the aim of Koch brothers contributions was to control government in order to impose their will on the rest of us, they should have chosen the Democrat party as recipients of their money. The Dems have a better record of controlling the people and dictating what they can and cannot do.

Insofar as the Koch's donations go, they have donated to a large number of various organizations many, or most, of which are not political, including groups geared to bettering the welfare of minorities or the underprivileged, funding medical research, and supporting the arts. They've been listed among the top 50 philanthropists

They are generally social liberals.---for women's right to choose, gay rights, same sex marriage, stem cell research; oppose war on drugs, and against the Iraq war. They push for the repeal of victimless crimes including marijuana convictions and restrictions on gay relationships.

Politically they lean Libertarian. One even ran as VP for the Libertarian Party in 1980. They support minimizing the role of government and Maximizing the role of the private economy and personal freedoms. They are basically free market libertarians. And they oppose corporate welfare.

So, if they oppose crony capitalism, why should they want the government to approve the XL pipeline? I would suspect that in a free market, the federal government would not interfere in the first place unless the pipeline creates some clear danger to the US. And, apparently it doesn't: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...nmental-impact. As for the filthy amount of money the Koch's stand to gain from the pipeline, if that were true, then somebody, if not the Koch's, would gain the money. Why so adamantly opposed to the Koch's getting it? Why paint them as some economic vampire? Besides, it might not even be true: http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/wp-conte...Ltr_041014.pdf

So you have the GOP being mostly funded by the ultra wealthy and then you have the fact that the GOP's main base of voters is the religious conservative right who want to limit women's rights limit personal freedoms, and basically impose a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow because it is what their religion tells them what is right. ( Im thinking abortions, marijuana laws, gay rights, etc)..

What women's rights do conservative's want to limit? Abortion? If the Constitution were followed, only the people could do that, state by state. In the abortion question, it is a progressive Federal government, against the Constitution, that is limiting the peoples' right to choose, not conservatives. Women are the majority. They would be very well represented in state elections. And the great number of men, like yourself, could support whatever position they took.

What personal freedoms do conservatives want to limit? Under the Constitution, unalienable rights cannot be denied. It is the progressive federal government that contradicts the Constitution and limits our rights, not conservatives.

The Progressive/Democrat party is far, far, more guilty of imposing "a lot of laws on people that they feel that everyone should follow" as you put it. It is the Progressive/Democrat party that has emptied the Constitution of the vast residuum of rights which are not specifically enumerated as Federal government power, and therefor reserved to the people. It is the Progressive Democrat party which, after eviscerating the vast rights of the people, then created out of whole cloth special rights for special people, discriminating against the rest--like "gay rights." Your thinking is constricted to thinking and seeing only in terms of the progressive view that we are not inherently free, but only have freedom that government gives us. So you do not see how government imposition of law that sounds reasonable to you denies others what was once their right to think and act differently. And, because you understand that freedom can only be granted by government, you fear that the wrong people, "conservatives," in power will trample all over what you consider your rights. THAT CAN ONLY HAPPEN, IF IT CAN, BECAUSE PROGRESSIVES HAVE DESTROYED THAT WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND YOUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. You, unconsciously if not overtly, subscribe to the progressive notion of all-powerful government, and therefor you, consciously or unconsciously, do not insist on constitutional government.

When you think about the definition of life and liberty, justice for all, pursuit of happiness, separation of church and state, i can't justify ever supporting a political party that panders to a religious group, namely conservative christians.

Well, there it is. It is Christians who must be feared. There must be a wall of separation between church and state, but not such a wall between government and your freedom. No, you insist that government not only protect your special rights, but it must tell you what they are.

So, government must not pander to a religious group, but it can pander to everyone else? How about pandering to no one. Do Christians not have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's strange, considering they had such a great influence on propagating those rights. How about, since government can grant special rights to special groups, shouldn't government grant some special rights to Christians? Of course not. Nor special rights to other groups.

When the GOP comes up with a platform that is solely focused on the greater good of this entire country both financially and socially, maybe i would be swayed away from supporting a democrat.. but as it stands now, my money is on Bernie Sanders.

Isn't Bernie Sanders a socialist? I guess that would be compatible with the view of government that you seem to espouse. Government control of societal norms. And of everything else.