Ok, I am turning 18 in a few weeks, and am presented the opertunity to register to vote. Now, I can chose ANY political party from which to affiliate myself with, or choose to not vote at all...THe question is, WHICH PARTY SHOULD I REGISTER AS? And an explanation as to why...(y'all can make this my birthday present!)

Ok, so, start your arguments!

-- Davey Rootbeer (yankeefans2@juno.com), January 18, 2002

Answers

join democratic. you can vote in primaries. you could be a republican but I don't like their politics. you could register for a smaller power political group but then you wouldn't be able to vote in a primary. or if there was a primary for the little groups it would be too inconsequential to bother fiddling with. always vote.

-- (apples@niagara.com), January 18, 2002.

Well, that IS true...NY state has closed primaries (you can't vote in them unless you register as a Dem. or Rep.), but what if I dislike BOTH candidates?

-- Davey Rootbeer (yankeefans2@juno.com), January 18, 2002.

then vote Green or Libertarian.

-- (apples@snowtime.com), January 19, 2002.

Libertarians have primaries for you to vote in. And they are the only third party on the ballot in all 50 states. And have more people elected in various state and local govs. than all the other third parties combined! (But the Reformists do have the Highest Ranking one)

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 19, 2002.

Hmmm...Interesting....but I really want to hear about political ideaology (I KNOW I spelled that wrong)....

-- Davey Rootbeer (yankeefans2@juno.com), January 19, 2002.

Davey, you should make the choise based on your beliefs and your value system.

Do you want economical freedom but wish to have government restrictions on social issues? Then vote Republican.

Do you want social freedom but wish to have government regulations on economic issues? Then vote Democratic.

Maybe you want to be a Socialist. Everyone helps everyone. If I have something that you need, come and get it brother! Then vote Green.

Or perhaps you want to change the way goverment opperates with money. How they spend it and how they get donations. Election reform. Ect. Then vote Reformists.

Or maybe you think that personal responsability is the right choise. You work hard you keep what you get. No Taxes. If someone needs something you got, tell them to get a F***ing job. If someone does something wrong, may them pay for it, through a reformed and simpified, coart system. Then vote Libertarian.

But maybe still you think that government should decide everything. From social to economical issues. This is called Athoritarian. It ranges from Communists on the Left to Nazis on the right. Take your pick. (kinda like choosing between Cancer and AIDs if you ask me)

Here is a good test LINK to help you find out where you fit into all that. I was rather surprised. I thought I would be close to the far right but instead I was a Left leanng Libertarian. I dont know if the link works. If it dont I will post it again.

Oh, and Davey, youre Fifteen. Not about to turn 18.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 19, 2002.

Heres another link!

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 19, 2002.

I answered yes to all of them but the Minimum Wage one. For that I put NO!

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 19, 2002.

I'm not 15! Where did you get THAT idea?

-- Davey Rootbeer (yankeefans2@juno.com), January 19, 2002.

Lets see, youve said it on Anarchy Again and ATFF. I dont really care. Did you take the quiz?

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 20, 2002.

I answered all of them yes except for the one about the Minimum Wage. I answered that one no. Thus making me a Left Leaning Libertarian.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 20, 2002.

Emmm...I said I was 17 on ATFF and anarchy again....now you've gone and hurt my feelings...

-- Davey Rootbeer (yankeefans2@juno.com), January 20, 2002.

DamnitIsaidIdidntcare! Takethedamntest,itsonly10questions!

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 20, 2002.

AnDwHeReIsMyFuCkInGyAmICa?

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 20, 2002.

Lol, e-mail an address to me, and I'll SEND YOU ONE. UH-KAY?

-- Davey Rootbeer (yankeefans2@juno.com), January 20, 2002.

Tator, you've given us a typically simplistic Libertarian scenario of "how the world operates". Oh, were it so simple...

Hi, applewoman!

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 25, 2002.

I believe I took the test some time ago. I too, was a Left-Leaning Libertarian, though I may be a bit more to the left and a little less Libertarian than Mr. Tator here.

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 26, 2002.

I was to the left because I disagree with them on some Economical Issues. I am not their slave. How can we have no taxes? Congressmen and servicemen gotta eat! I support a 5% flat tax on the earnings that a person makes in a given year. The earnings Joe! Not the overall value of everything they got. Because then a person would be taxed on the same thing several times. Besides, they already pay a sales tax. The more you make the more you pay. But percentage wise we all pay the same. Now thats fare aint it?

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 26, 2002.

Tator, though the flat tax idea sounds good on paper, the reality is that our government is so heavily dependent from taxes on the wealthy already that if the tax burden were to be distributed equally now, millions of ordinary citizens either be crushed by the finanacial burden, or be forced to live with a government that has basically been gutted due to the required cost-cutting measures. That means you can basically kiss programs like Social Security goodbye. Pray that you never become disabled!!

It's no secret, when it comes to charity as a percentage of total wealth, the USA is considered to be the stingiest nation on the planet, Good Luck!

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 26, 2002.

Dude that is a bunch of Leftist Non=since. Look at your pay check. Social Security is taken out seprately from your Federal Income Tax. So it doent matter how much you are taxed. It could be 1%. Socaial Security remains unaffected. That is if you make it to where Polititions cant get to it. After a Flat tax is instated I say have the IRS' main job to audit the Federal Government. Be kind of a Federal Internal Affairs.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 26, 2002.

Of course, Prez Bush has made no secret of his desire to raid Social Security to pay for the programs dear to HIS heart. He likes to talk of privatizing Social Security. He wants people to take money out of Social Security and put it into investment funds. Of course, that will play right into the hands of greedy insiders just like the people that gutted Enron......

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 27, 2002.

Pres Bush is a Republican. I am not. I think that SS should be a choise. If you dont choose it, do dont draw from it. Look at package diliveries. UPS and the USPS. Both good. But compition makes it better. I think that the same thing could be done with Social Security. But Social Security shouldnt be touched. The best thing that we can do to fix the system is to get rid of that nice retierment plan for our Congressmen and the Pres. (Supream Court People are appointed for life so I say let them have one. After a while you need to retire). Then they would be in the same boat as the People. And it is the People that are suppost to be in office anyway. Not these "holier that thous". Any yes, I mean both sides.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 27, 2002.

Tator, if social security were optional, what would you do with the folks who didn't look to the future, and decided to spend the money they should have put into retirement on toys and alcohol, or drugs, or just plain junk, instead? Just let them go sit on the street corner and beg for food? Or perhaps you're ok with them turning to a life of crime, because they were too dumb, or short sighted, to plan ahead?

I think social security is a great idea. Unfortunately, it is being treated by many as a total retirement system, rather than an emergency fund, as it started out.

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 28, 2002.

The problem is that if you earn so much, I think its $5,000, they start reducing your SS check. So there is no real incentive forthese people to continue doing something. I wouldnt.

And you ask about the stupid people who blow their money, ever hear of self responsablility? If you are smart and save you should reap the rewards. If you are stupid and spend it all, you should reap the consequinces. But if you dont really feel like that is true, can I spend all my cash on new video games that Ive been wanting and you buy my food for me? You dont want me to turn to a life of crime do you? Oh, and I want pizza, nachos, steak, shrimp, burgers, fish, caviar (hey, youre buying!), and lots of potato chips! And Subway! Ummm, Chinesse food. Ying Ming. And one more thing, I love my FAYGO

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 28, 2002.

And pay my rent and utilities while youre at it. My own welfare system...

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 28, 2002.

"If they're going to die, then let them get on with it, and decrease the surplus population!" - Ebenezer Scrooge

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 29, 2002.

Joe! Thanks to your willingness to pay for all my food and my rent and stuff I now have the needed funds to buy an X-Box. Sorry, Nexar, but Bill is God. And his X-Box kicks ass. Thanks, Joe!

PS. Would you get me a nice new Big Screen TV? I would love to play that new system on a big one. Not this little one I got!

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 29, 2002.

Ok, go ahead. Feed the Hungry Beast. But don't come crying to me when the prices go up and quality comes down because of the monopoly you're helping to create.

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 30, 2002.

tator, "And you ask about the stupid people who blow their money, ever hear of self responsablility? If you are smart and save you should reap the rewards. If you are stupid and spend it all, you should reap the consequinces. But if you dont really feel like that is true, can I spend all my cash on new video games that Ive been wanting and you buy my food for me? "

Really, Tator, you're oversimplifying again! Of COURSE, I'm in favor of taking responsibility for oneself. That is not the point. I'm in favor of helping even those who are too stupid to help themselves by FORCING them to pay into the social security system. (this is an example of why I said, on another post, that YOU cannot be the one who decides which programs government should pay for).

As a matter of fact, I already DO pay for people's new video games, food, etc. in a sense, since I pay taxes that subsidize a certain number of deserving, and not so deserving, people. I'm ok with that.

Since you claim that the "private sector" should be the ones paying for all these charitable programs, instead of the government, let's try turning the picture around: let's assume that there are no more welfare programs, social security, energy assistance, etc. Now YOU, being such a great guy, and being such a responsible Libertarian, will surely pay as much as you can possibly afford to help all these sick, elderly, injured, mentally retarded, or just basically needy people, by donating to Saint XXX charitable organization. Good for you! I appreciate it that you will do this.

On the other hand, maybe I'm a tight fisted SOB, who thinks all those people are just malingering, and to them I say, "tough luck, suckers! If you really need to eat, you'll figure out a way to earn some money, like the rest of us red blooded capitalists have to do."

So you, Tator, and all your responsible, caring Libertarian friends, will end up paying a WHOLE LOT MORE because of us tight wads. Us tightwads will of course be more than happy to let you carry the entire burden, since we are not FORCED to contribute to the common welfare. Is this what you want? Or are you living in a fantasy world, and willing to defend Libertarian idealism regardless of the real world?

By the way, Tator, under the present system, and under what you perceive to be my willingness to pay all your expenses: NOT! You cannot, currently, go to the welfare office, and ask for unlimited assistance. You won't get it if you ask for it. Under your proposed system, where I personally am expected to pay for all your toys, sorry, Bucko, not happening. If I were the welfare representative, I would tell you to get off your lazy butt, stop playing on the internet, and get an education.

Would you please quit fantasizing about how the world does, or should , or maybe might someday, operate?

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 30, 2002.

Most welfare people dont do that, Joe. And you arent a tightfisted SOB. And I dont think that any of you Leftists are. And these Christians would give to their church, who would in turn help the area poor. I would give. You would give. Dont say you wouldnt. Now there will be some SOBs that wont. That is a reflection of them personaly. Not sociaty. And I never said get rid of Social Security. I mearly said to make it a choise. I would opt to stay in it if they could garintee that you Baby Boomers wouldnt drain it all.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 30, 2002.

I was saying to consider HYPOTHETICALLY that I was the tightfisted person who would do nothing to help others.

Forgedaboudit. Let's assume that there are SOME people like that. Actually, I believe there are MANY, MANY like that, and for proof I can cite the fact that, in all the years when we had to vote on our school levies every year, we'd vote them down four times, then vote in favor on the last chance before we realized we'd have to have the kids at home, if the schools closed. (again, I'm using the editorial "we" here--I almost always voted "YES".)

THEREFORE: you, and all the other kind, upstanding folks would end up paying for ALL social services, under your scenario, while all the deadbeats would skate. I don't care for that idea much at all.

And what do you mean by "you Baby Boomers?" I am no baby boomer! I'm too old for that!

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 31, 2002.

Hmmm... 56. Ummm. 1946? A year after WW2. I thought that it started after the war. Or were you born in 45? Still, I thought that that was a Baby Boomer. But then you would know better than me.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), February 01, 2002.

1945. Before the war was over. Before the baby boom, which started in 1946.

I'm called a "war baby". Doesn't that sound studly?

-- joj (jump@off.c), February 01, 2002.

What am I? Generation X had no war. No depression. Look at me. What have I got. War and Depression. Digi-Generation? Generation NeXt?

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), February 02, 2002.

Generation 4Q, maybe?

-- joj (jump@off.c), February 03, 2002.

4Q?

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), February 03, 2002.

A war baby. I like that.

-- barbarian (apples@winter.net), February 07, 2002.