On what issues do you cross party lines?

[sleuth]

I'll start...

I'm a Republican, but I have a few items that I disagree with on their part. Two off the top of my head are these:

#1. The Environment. I think it is our responsibility as the most technologically advanced country and as humans to advocate responsibility when it comes to environmental issues. However, I think it should be done not with more laws, but with rewards and tax incentives. Companies to take extra steps to create and sell environmentally friendly goods, cars, fuels, etc. should be given heavy tax incentives to do so.

#2. Gays. If marriage is a religious institution, it is not the government's place to tell us how to practice. Therefore it should be up to the various religions to decide whether they want to honor marriages between gays. That being said, I think gays should be able to have civil unions, as well as heterosexual couples, should they choose so (in the case that they do consider marriage a religious institution and they aren't married). In other words, I think the word "marriage" should be stricken from laws on the books, and all marriages and all civil unions categorized as "civil unions" according to the government. If "marriage" is to be reserved for religious institutions, let only the church and members of these unions refer to them as "marriages".

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by sleuth14
I'll start...

I'm a Republican, but I have a few items that I disagree with on their part. Two off the top of my head are these:

#1. The Environment. I think it is our responsibility as the most technologically advanced country and as humans to advocate responsibility when it comes to environmental issues. However, I think it should be done not with more laws, but with rewards and tax incentives. Companies to take extra steps to create and sell environmentally friendly goods, cars, fuels, etc. should be given heavy tax incentives to do so.

#2. Gays. If marriage is a religious institution, it is not the government's place to tell us how to practice. Therefore it should be up to the various religions to decide whether they want to honor marriages between gays. That being said, I think gays should be able to have civil unions, as well as heterosexual couples, should they choose so (in the case that they do consider marriage a religious institution and they aren't married). In other words, I think the word "marriage" should be stricken from laws on the books, and all marriages and all civil unions categorized as "civil unions" according to the government. If "marriage" is to be reserved for religious institutions, let only the church and members of these unions refer to them as "marriages".

1.Agree and disagree. I agree that the environment should be a top priority and I believe it is now. Just because we want to drop an oil well in the midst of 850 million acres doesn't necessarily mean that all that forrest is ruined just as allowing snow mobiles to go through Yellow Stone is going to ruin the national park. Any suggestion that it is is sensationalism. Make the oil company adhere to strict non-didturbing paractices, and make the snow mobilers use less poluting 4 stroke engines. Tax breaks will only do 2 things, reduce revenue, and be ignored by those companies that are already making a profit and could care less about a tax break. Environmental laws should be instituted incrementally. The green's want to go in and slap huge reductions that technology cannot meet quickly. Second the laws need to be incremental to allow mindsets to change slowly. We have long had the privledge to chose what vehicle we drive so taking away choice will certainly meet with stiff resistance if suddenly all V8 engines are outlawed.

2. Agree and disagree. Marriage is not a Religious Institution it is a legal one. This is why you cannot get divorced by the same minister who married you. Marriage is a legal bond therefore it should be left to the states, which sanction and hold jurisdiction over it to regulate it. Personally I don't care what homesexuals do, or if they are allowed in a civil union. In a way granting civil union status to them will allow states to have more control and jurisdiction over matters. Melissa Etheridge is a prime example. She and her "life partner" cohabitated as wife and wife. Her life partner had 2 children from sperm donated by David Crosby. Now the singer and her pal have since split, who go the kids? The birth mother, does Ethridge have any legal right to visitation? I am sure she does but if she doesn't there is not a damn thing she can do about it because in the eyes of the law she is an outsider.
HOWEVER, my problem wit the gay marriage thing is focused only on my morality in the way it deals with children. Gay couples are already, and will continue to adopt children. I just personally think this is wrong. Homosexual unions are against the societial norms established eons ago. To force a child who has no choice to be raised by a couple who have chosen an "Alternative" lifestyle is wrong in my judgement. Simply because a vocal minority has voiced displeasure in not being recognized legaly does not mean that this nation should leap through hoops to appease them. To be blount, regardless of your standpoint theologic or evolutionary same sex partners are barren, not able to reproduce, live with it. There are barren people in traditional marriages that are barren and through medical procedures concieve, no medical procedure can help a same sex couple. It is simple not in natures order. Now I am sure that there are tons of studies from liberal scientists who will claim no long term damage to children of same sex couples. I say fooey, evidently they have lived sheltered lifes and were never the target of kids on the playground over the wearing the "wrong" style of shoes let alone have 2 daddies. How do you think 12 years of "Your daddy is a fudge packer" is going to make the kid feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I just do not think that you can effectively convince 96% of the country that the 4% who scream at the top of their lungs that what they do is perfectly "natural" thus ok to be legitimized by the government.

 

[Sparx]

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you're a republican. Maybe you shouldn't be. Ever thought about it? I personaly think there are many people who vote for one party or the other and don't realize what they are really voting for. Many people have a party affiliation because their parents told them in how they voted and the children grow up voting the same way and never explored the parties beliefs for themselves.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by Sparx
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you're a republican. Maybe you shouldn't be. Ever thought about it? I personaly think there are many people who vote for one party or the other and don't realize what they are really voting for. Many people have a party affiliation because their parents told them in how they voted and the children grow up voting the same way and never explored the parties beliefs for themselves.

Typical liberal. You actually think that most people are so dumb that they vote straight ticket because mommy and daddy did. You are a true Democrat in that you assume that everyone is incapable of making their own choices, so the Dem's will do it for them. Thanks but no thanks, I make up my own mind and I already have a dad, who is a Democrat BTW but I am working on it.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Pete
Typical liberal. You actually think that most people are so dumb that they vote straight ticket because mommy and daddy did. You are a true Democrat in that you assume that everyone is incapable of making their own choices, so the Dem's will do it for them. Thanks but no thanks, I make up my own mind and I already have a dad, who is a Democrat BTW but I am working on it.

I have seen plenty on both sides vote strictly party lines.

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by Sparx
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you're a republican. Maybe you shouldn't be. Ever thought about it? I personaly think there are many people who vote for one party or the other and don't realize what they are really voting for. Many people have a party affiliation because their parents told them in how they voted and the children grow up voting the same way and never explored the parties beliefs for themselves.

I was registered as an independent until 2 years ago, when I actually began studying the issues and recognizing the difference between liberals and conservatives.

So... yeah... what Pete said... I can think for myself.

 

[vraiblonde]

My whole family was Democrat except for me. My Mom converted when she started dating my step-dad because he said he wasn't marrying any Democrat. True story.

If Bush represents the Republican party, I differ on all the money he's throwing down the toilet for AIDS in Africa and some of his other stupid ideas. I had a problem before he signed the partial birth abortion ban, but now we're square. I guess neither of those things are really "crossing party lines", though, because the Democrats want to give MORE money and KEEP partial birth abortion.

Sparx, why don't you tell us what YOU think Republicans believe?

 

[jlabsher]

On an aside, will MD ever change over to an open primary like VA & other states have? I WILL NOT register or declare loyalty to a POLITICAL PARTY just so I can vote. Seems like an antiquated law.

 

[Mountain MaMa]

My parents were also Democrats. I vote Republican. My biggest peeve with both parties is Foreign Aid. Keep the money here. We have people and programs here that can use it..

 

[Sparx]

If you people weren't so ready to bash anything a Democrat says on here you would realize this was a purely bi-partisan opinion. A republican asked the question so I answered in a way someone from either party may have. Not just an opinion but from my experiences talking with people. Slueth 14, proved my point whether he or she realized it or not.
Thats it, jump on the bandwagon, bash don't think.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Sparx
If you people weren't so ready to bash anything a Democrat says on here you would realize this was a purely bi-partisan opinion.

Yep, and it would have been just as insulting, either way. It has nothing to do with party affiliation. *Your* affiliation and stance on issues here is well known. Assaulting someone's integrity because you suspect they've never bothered to think for themselves is never going to be perceived as anything but an insult.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Sparx
Thats it, jump on the bandwagon, bash don't think.

Who bashed you? I asked you a legitimate question: What do you, as a liberal, think Republicans believe in.

 

[Sparx]

Sparx, why don't you tell us what YOU think Republicans believe?

In the begining, the republican party was the party for the working man. Somewhere along the way they became the party of corporate America. While Democrats had control of Congress, all the republican party wanted to do was shrink government. "It was probably inevitable that big central government would look better to republicans when they got control over it."

You know it has been said that democracy can not survive once the people realize they can legislate money out of the treasury? Thats exactly how Bush got in office in the first place. Promising tax cuts for working people. Confusing the people that work for a living all along the way, knowing all along the biggest tax cuts were for the richest 1% and corporations. Don't tell me that tax cuts for big business will trickle down..hogwash. If that were the case we wouldn't have Enron and Mediacom executives on trial. This administration is sucking money from the treasury by the boatloads and handing it directly to companies like Halliburton..who' by the way' I see is advertizing on TV now trying to smooth over their tarnished image for ripping us off in IRAQ.

Your answer in two words? BIG BUSINESS

 

[Tonio]

Re: Re: On what issues do you cross party lines?

Originally posted by Pete
2. Agree and disagree. Marriage is not a Religious Institution it is a legal one. This is why you cannot get divorced by the same minister who married you. Marriage is a legal bond therefore it should be left to the states, which sanction and hold jurisdiction over it to regulate it. Personally I don't care what homesexuals do, or if they are allowed in a civil union. In a way granting civil union status to them will allow states to have more control and jurisdiction over matters. Melissa Etheridge is a prime example. She and her "life partner" cohabitated as wife and wife. Her life partner had 2 children from sperm donated by David Crosby. Now the singer and her pal have since split, who go the kids? The birth mother, does Ethridge have any legal right to visitation? I am sure she does but if she doesn't there is not a damn thing she can do about it because in the eyes of the law she is an outsider.
HOWEVER, my problem wit the gay marriage thing is focused only on my morality in the way it deals with children. Gay couples are already, and will continue to adopt children. I just personally think this is wrong. Homosexual unions are against the societial norms established eons ago. To force a child who has no choice to be raised by a couple who have chosen an "Alternative" lifestyle is wrong in my judgement. Simply because a vocal minority has voiced displeasure in not being recognized legaly does not mean that this nation should leap through hoops to appease them. To be blount, regardless of your standpoint theologic or evolutionary same sex partners are barren, not able to reproduce, live with it. There are barren people in traditional marriages that are barren and through medical procedures concieve, no medical procedure can help a same sex couple. It is simple not in natures order. Now I am sure that there are tons of studies from liberal scientists who will claim no long term damage to children of same sex couples. I say fooey, evidently they have lived sheltered lifes and were never the target of kids on the playground over the wearing the "wrong" style of shoes let alone have 2 daddies. How do you think 12 years of "Your daddy is a fudge packer" is going to make the kid feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I just do not think that you can effectively convince 96% of the country that the 4% who scream at the top of their lungs that what they do is perfectly "natural" thus ok to be legitimized by the government.

Pete, you seem to assume that people choose to be gay (as opposed to choosing to be in a relationship). That has never made sense to me. I can never in a billion years imagine being romantically attracted to another man.

You have a good point about the children of gay couples. Still, kids will find something to pick on others about, whether it's glasses or unfashionable clothes or skin color or a disability. School is a tough world if you're not popular. But to your credit, you didn't fall for the bull about "Omigod, the kids of gay couples will be gay themselves! It's a massive conspiracy to turn everyone gay!"

 

[Bruzilla]

Both of my parents started out as Republicans, and only started voting for Democrats when they became senior citizens and were worried about their government meal ticket... even thought they are very wealthy and shouldn't worry about it.

If you're going to do something about the environment, than really do something about it. For example, the fine folks in Calvert County want to change the zoning laws so that every new house will require 30 acres of land vice the now required two. They have said this is absolutely essential to promote the rural nature of the county and to save the environment. Okay, if that's true, then why don't they also pass a law that states any house with less than 30 acres has to be torn down and the site returned to its natural state? If building new houses on less than 30 acres will damage the environment, think of the horrendous damage that must be occuring from existing houses... but strangely, they don't seem to be a problem. Hmmmmm

Why should an environmental lobbyist be able to live in a nice Manhattan apartment and travel over concrete to go to work in a high-rise building, while some dirt-poor Alaskan who needs work can't work at an oil field because it'll damage the environment? Who's looking out for the environment on Manhatten? Should the Alaskans be able to tell Washington DC administrators that the city is over-developed and two-thirds of the buildings should be torn down?

Let's face it... most environmental policies have very little to do with protecting the environment. They have to do with property values, agendas, goofy animal beliefs, etc.

As for Gay marriage, I am against it for two reasons. First, the core of the discussion is not equal rights for Gays. There's not a hospital in the land that wouldn't allow a "companion" to stay with a patient after visiting hours, and most states already have laws that guarantee equal access to things like insurance. The core of the discussion is making being Gay acceptable. That's been the number one goal of the Gays for years, and forcing the government to recognize Gays as legitimate couples is the second best thing that can happen to them. The only thing better will be forcing religious institutions, the groups primarily responsible for condemning Gays, to recognize them as equals to hetero couples. Once the government states that Gays can marry, the lawsuits will start up and we'll face a real crisis. Can a government, that's supposed to be seperated from the church, compel a church to marry Gays? And even if they can't, how many churches can afford to defend themselves against continual lawsuits?

The second issue is that if the government comes out and says it's now making it okay for Gays to marry, and overturning centuries of religious and civil tradition, who will be next in line to claim their "rights"? If the government extends equal protection rights to marriage, then who's to say that incestuous couples can't marry? How about a 50-yr old man who's convinced a 9-yr old girl to marry him? You know NAMBLA's membership is celebrating. There are some places government should go, and the alter isn't one of them.

My only real break with the Republicans is over abortion. I am 100% for abortion, and will be until the pro-life crowd agress to adopt every unwanted child who would have been aborted.

 

[justin anemone]

My entire family is a giant bleeding heart; they call me the "Alex Keaton" of the tribe. We've had to ban political conversations because they get so heated.

I vote 99% along my party lines because I believe in upholding the basic principles of my party.

I know, for example, if I vote Democrat, I can instantly count on a tax increase and an attempt by the government to run my life for me and my fellow countrymen. Personally, I think I'd rather let myself and my brethren fend for themselves.

I also know that if I vote along party lines, the chances are good that my Republican vote will ensure that unborn babies are hopefully going to be safer in coming years.

As for the environment, I believe in the "Single Cell Theory", which states that the entire earth is a life entity unto itself. Whatever damage is done will eventually be undone do to the flux of nature. Natural disasters provide much more damage to the planet than man ever could, yet it has ALWAYS managed to survive.

Gay Marriage? WHAT-EVERRRRRR!!!!

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Sparx
Your answer in two words? BIG BUSINESS

Okay, if that's the be all, end all of the Republican party, count me in. Businesses provide jobs and help the economy grow. They create wealth from their profits via the stock market. Curious who you'd work for if there were no businesses? Because even if you are a self-employed web designer, most of your clients will be businesses.

My two line crosses are abortion and gay marriage. My opinion on both has been well documented on these forums so I'll spare you all more yak about it.

 

[ceo_pte]

I don't cross party lines... strictly conservative in my views and my voting...

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by Sparx
You know it has been said that democracy can not survive once the people realize they can legislate money out of the treasury? Thats exactly how Bush got in office in the first place. Promising tax cuts for working people.

It is frightening that you do not realize the contradiction in those statements.

 

[Ken King]

I cross the lines all the time as a pro-death penalty, full gun rights Democrat.