Because I prefer to eat cat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a house full of Democrats, spouse is a D, and I'm the lone wolf at family events. However I "left" Democrat party in HS, when I started reading Hayek, Mises and I've never looked back. Socially I agree with a bunch of Demcrat issues i.e. the govt shouldn't define marriage but since 1996 I've voted for every single Republican presidential candidate.

Responding to PP rather than thread question (since I'm a Dem):

I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoint, but I can understand and respect it. What I don't understand is how you reconcile with the social agenda the GOP has adopted. Am I right that you don't, but figure that the financial issues are important enough to swallow the social stuff

Totally dead right on.

And fiscal policies can have immediate impacts on us - like my taxes. Can I really afford $700/month more in taxes living paycheck to paycheck? No - for example. So I would cut the budget and keep taxes low.

But EVEN IF I agreed with spending a few trillion for a good cause (like Obama thought with his stimuli packages that were jokes), I would pick a good cause. I mean, who got all that stimulus money anyway - wasn't it like $100,000 per taxpayer? I'd rather have that in my pocket. Or cure cancer. Or AIDS. Or how about this - provide FREE health insurance coverage to the needy.

You see, I do want to help the underdog, and to be very frank with you, I think that all democrats campaign by making themselves out to be the champion for the underdog and needy but never actually do much to help anybody and actually often end up making poor people worse off (at the federal level - state level, another story). For instance, with the Obamacare - if you're poor - too bad - buy health insurance or else pay a $750 - $2000 tax penalty and get no insurance anyway. That's outright cruel. That doesn't help anybody just like raising their income taxes does not. So really, most Republicans want to help the poor just as much as Democrats do - they just don't get all the good PR about it (they need some new PR firm to get in there and spread the word).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a house full of Democrats, spouse is a D, and I'm the lone wolf at family events. However I "left" Democrat party in HS, when I started reading Hayek, Mises and I've never looked back. Socially I agree with a bunch of Demcrat issues i.e. the govt shouldn't define marriage but since 1996 I've voted for every single Republican presidential candidate.

Responding to PP rather than thread question (since I'm a Dem):

I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoint, but I can understand and respect it. What I don't understand is how you reconcile with the social agenda the GOP has adopted. Am I right that you don't, but figure that the financial issues are important enough to swallow the social stuff

I can reconcile candidates by realizing that their votes on social issues don't really change the social fabric of the country. They're mostly for show.

+1

I'm liberal on social issues, but vote Republican based on their domestic fiscal policy and foreign policy.

Abortion is legal.

States are legalizing gay marriage.

I eat veggie food and recycle.

I'm happy - come November.

Anonymous wrote:I am a republican because if my candidate ate a dog... I would ask him to resign.

you're not helping your cause there, mate.

Anonymous wrote:OP, your philosophy is very convenient.

"I believe in [insert measure of social equity -- gay marriage, civil rights, choice] but I vote for candidates who oppose these measures." You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.

I'm guessing these social issues don't affect you directly, so it's easy to be "in favor" of them while at the same time taking actions that go against that viewpoint.

Why have an opinion at all if you aren't willing to back it up with action?

Why does Obama talk the talk and back it up with no action?

Oh wait, I'm sorry, perhaps you suffer from those "green" delusions, a.k.a., those fat n' rich government contractors with those nice and dirt cheap slave, I mean H1-B, labor employees are actually really just friends of yours?

How about Guantanamo - that closed, right? Oh wait no, another delusion.

Wait, but those 2 wars - Obama ended those, right? Wrong, sorry, another delusion.

I got it - it's wall street - the ones that caused the greatest recession since the great depression - they've got some explaining to do, huh? When? Did I miss something?

Those taxes he promised not to raise - well, all the Dems tried to roll back the Bush tax cuts (that do affect tax brackets going down to poverty level income!) - oops, sorry.

Oh, then there was the biggest natural disaster in our country's history - teh Gulf Oil Spill - didn't he just continue vacaying somewhere overseas while millions of gallons of oil spilled in the Gulf and did NOTHING with his post hoc "team of scientists" who the annointed one claimed, maybe 100 days into it - that HE - the annointed one, thought up the plug - are you kidding me?

"Walk the walk?"

I am a republican because if my candidate ate a dog... I would ask him to resign.

Wait was there a question or were you supposed to answer only to have someone come in and tell you why they think you are wrong?

I am a Republican because I want to be. See, that is the beauty of the system. I can decide that my most important issue is a smaller government. Done and done.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican because I believe that the free market is a much better, not perfect, but better solution to the problems of society than the decisions of government.

I'm pro-life, anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, believer in equal rights and the value of work, etc. So neither party perfectly aligns with me on social issues, but the Republican party comes much closer.

So you think the free market is doing a great job with health care?

And, um, the Republican party doesn't agree with you on ANY of the social issues you mentioned. NONE. Unless by "value of work" you mean "dignity of work for mothers on assistance."

I'm a Republican because I believe that the free market is a much better, not perfect, but better solution to the problems of society than the decisions of government.

I'm pro-life, anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, believer in equal rights and the value of work, etc. So neither party perfectly aligns with me on social issues, but the Republican party comes much closer.

As a continuation. I believe in the theoretical sense of the Republican party. That the collective show allow the individual to prosper and reward such prosperity and not punish such people. That America's greatness is based on her might at home and abroad and a strong (not wasteful) military is very important in keeping our advantages. Countries with weak military don't stay the hegemon for long. That's why the Chinese spend more than the total GDP of Africa on their military.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a house full of Democrats, spouse is a D, and I'm the lone wolf at family events. However I "left" Democrat party in HS, when I started reading Hayek, Mises and I've never looked back. Socially I agree with a bunch of Demcrat issues i.e. the govt shouldn't define marriage but since 1996 I've voted for every single Republican presidential candidate.

Responding to PP rather than thread question (since I'm a Dem):

I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoint, but I can understand and respect it. What I don't understand is how you reconcile with the social agenda the GOP has adopted. Am I right that you don't, but figure that the financial issues are important enough to swallow the social stuff

I can reconcile candidates by realizing that their votes on social issues don't really change the social fabric of the country. They're mostly for show.

Not sure that Hayek and Mises are good reasons to vote Republican. Their contributions in monetary theory really apply to the Fed and supported by both parties. Their critiques of government were really about central planning and that's not really much of an issue for the right or the left. I suppose maybe you think the Republican view on poverty makes them closer, but that's about it.

OP, your philosophy is very convenient.

"I believe in [insert measure of social equity -- gay marriage, civil rights, choice] but I vote for candidates who oppose these measures." You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.

I'm guessing these social issues don't affect you directly, so it's easy to be "in favor" of them while at the same time taking actions that go against that viewpoint.

Why have an opinion at all if you aren't willing to back it up with action?

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a house full of Democrats, spouse is a D, and I'm the lone wolf at family events. However I "left" Democrat party in HS, when I started reading Hayek, Mises and I've never looked back. Socially I agree with a bunch of Demcrat issues i.e. the govt shouldn't define marriage but since 1996 I've voted for every single Republican presidential candidate.

Responding to PP rather than thread question (since I'm a Dem):

I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoint, but I can understand and respect it. What I don't understand is how you reconcile with the social agenda the GOP has adopted. Am I right that you don't, but figure that the financial issues are important enough to swallow the social stuff

I grew up in a house full of Democrats, spouse is a D, and I'm the lone wolf at family events. However I "left" Democrat party in HS, when I started reading Hayek, Mises and I've never looked back. Socially I agree with a bunch of Demcrat issues i.e. the govt shouldn't define marriage but since 1996 I've voted for every single Republican presidential candidate.