Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
I am divorcing the GOP
I have historically voted Republican and have identified myself as a Republican with Tuesday's loss and much introspection I have decided it is no longer the place for me.
A friend suggested I look into the Libertarian Party. I have been doing some heartfelt research and believe the Libertarians embody the beliefs I hold dear...much more so than the Republicans.
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
Re: I am divorcing the GOP
Yes, I can understand that. But, it shocked me as I read more and more how similar what they believe in mirrors what has been floating around in my mind.
I am not a registered Republican, nor do I want to be. My biggest issues are a desire for small government and right to life issues. If another party were present that supported both, but weren't crusty and stodgy like the GOP is, I'd be there in a flash.
For now, I have resigned myself to the GOP as the lesser of two evils.
I agree with you, though, this party needs a major overhaul or we need a third option that could actually win.
I don't blame you. But out of curiosity, are you prepared to endorse the legalization of abortion, gay marriage, and weed?
Although I do not personally believe in abortion, I have no right to say how another person lives their life. There are situations where an abortion makes sense (rape, incest, life of the mother). Abortion is legal and will stay that way.
I don't personally believe in same sex marriage, but again I am not here to judge how another lives their life. I can personally disagree with gay marriage but still support another person's right to live their life the way they choose. So, I would not be opposed to same sex marriage.
I don't know much about weed, I have never had any interest in it. However, I wouldn't oppose making it legal. I mean have you ever seen an angry mob of pot smokers? Not really, they are very peaceful happy people who most likely want taco bell and to tell you how much they love you.
I think that sounds great up until the part where companies are dumping mercury and arsenic into your drinking water because laws stopping them from doing so are infringing on freedom.
Oh and when it becomes legal for 6 year olds to work 14 hour days in factories again because the party opposes any restrictions on labor or wages.
Look up Triangle Shirtwaist Fire if you're interested in what happens when there are no government restrictions on factories.
ESSENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE DESTROYING jobs, infringing on property rights, or curtailing freedom.
Insisting on a basic cost-benefit analysis for regulations will restore an appropriate balance and common sense to environmental policy.
Much of what government does in the name of environmental protection is really an effort to impose values on property owners, consumers and individuals. Protecting us from harm does not require the government to manage our lives, our businesses or our farms.
This is from Gary Johnson's website. I support common sense regulation to protect us from harm. No one wants to see any company dumping mercury and arsenic into your drinking water.
What does "common sense regulation" mean, exactly? Because yes, companies do in fact dump chemicals in drinking water RIGHT NOW and there is strong opposition to enacting and/or laws that would stop this.
Long article, but some excerpts below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html
Jennifer Hall-Massey knows not to drink the tap water in her home near Charleston, W.Va.
In fact, her entire family tries to avoid any contact with the water. Her youngest son has scabs on his arms, legs and chest where the bathwater ? polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals ? caused painful rashes. Many of his brother?s teeth were capped to replace enamel that was eaten away.
Neighbors apply special lotions after showering because their skin burns. Tests show that their tap water contains arsenic, barium, lead, manganese and other chemicals at concentrations federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage the kidneys and nervous system.
When Mrs. Hall-Massey and 264 neighbors sued nine nearby coal companies, accusing them of putting dangerous waste into local water supplies, their lawyer did not have to look far for evidence. As required by state law, some of the companies had disclosed in reports to regulators that they were pumping into the ground illegal concentrations of chemicals ? the same pollutants that flowed from residents? taps.
***
?I met our inspector at the spill site, and we had this really awkward conversation,? Mr. Crum recalled. ?I said we should shut down the mine until everything was cleaned up. The inspector agreed, but he said if he issued that order, he was scared of getting demoted or transferred to the middle of nowhere. Everyone was terrified of doing their job.?
Mr. Crum temporarily shut the mine.
In the next two years, he shut many polluting mines until they changed their ways. His tough approach raised his profile around the state.
Mining companies, worried about attracting Mr. Crum?s attention, began improving their waste disposal practices, executives from that period said. But they also began complaining to their friends in the state?s legislature, they recalled in interviews, and started a whisper campaign accusing Mr. Crum of vendettas against particular companies ? though those same executives now admit they had no evidence for those claims.
In 2003, a new director, Stephanie Timmermeyer, was nominated to run the Department of Environmental Protection. One of West Virginia?s most powerful state lawmakers, Eustace Frederick, said she would be confirmed, but only if she agreed to fire Mr. Crum, according to several people who said they witnessed the conversation.
She was given the job and soon summoned Mr. Crum to her office. He was dismissed two weeks after his second child?s birth.
***
Enforcement lapses were particularly bad under the administration of President George W. Bush, employees say. ?For the last eight years, my hands have been tied,? said one E.P.A. official who requested anonymity for fear of retribution. ?We were told to take our clean water and clean air cases, put them in a box, and lock it shut. Everyone knew polluters were getting away with murder. But these polluters are some of the biggest campaign contributors in town, so no one really cared if they were dumping poisons into streams.?
A water sample collected from a water heater by Patty Sebok, a neighbor of Jennifer Hall-Massey. Residents say such water is typical and has destroyed toilets, dishwashers and washing machines.
I actually think that "common sense" is going to be the biggest hurdle for the libertarian party. It's a great, abstract battle cry, but the second they come into power and have to start defining which specific laws and taxes are/aren't common sense - I think you would see more fragmentation and disenchantment within the party.
Also
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01water.html
Thousands of the nation?s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act?s reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.
As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising.
Companies that have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters are not being prosecuted, according to Environmental Protection Agency regulators working on those cases, who estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years.
The Clean Water Act was intended to end dangerous water pollution by regulating every major polluter. But today, regulators may be unable to prosecute as many as half of the nation?s largest known polluters because officials lack jurisdiction or because proving jurisdiction would be overwhelmingly difficult or time consuming, according to midlevel officials.
?We are, in essence, shutting down our Clean Water programs in some states,? said Douglas F. Mundrick, an E.P.A. lawyer in Atlanta. ?This is a huge step backward. When companies figure out the cops can?t operate, they start remembering how much cheaper it is to just dump stuff in a nearby creek.?
Honestly, I don't think your standard conservatives need to leave the GOP.
The GOP needs to stop listening to and also get rid of the extreme fringe groups, including the Tea Partiers.
If that happened, I think the GOP would fall in line more towards the Libertarians.
If the GOP doesn't, I can see 2016 being a fight between the Ds and the third parties. The Rs would've self imploded.
But libertarians don't agree with you, at least the Libertarian Party doesn't. They don't think regulation is necessary at all, that the free market will just take care of it because businesses will just not do this if they know that people don't like it.
I am curious as to what regulations you feel are overreaching and burdensome, specifically. I always hear people complaining about burdensome regulations, but I almost never hear specifics as to what they are and why they are burdensome.
It's really a shame Gingrich didn't get the nomination- I was looking forward to that moon colony!
Clean air, clean water and a healthy environment are important to all Americans. Affordable energy is critical not only to our quality of life, but to economic prosperity.
When it comes to the environment, the Federal government?s responsibility is no different than in other aspects of our lives. It is simply to protect us from those who would do us harm and damage our property. There are bad actors who would pollute our water supplies and our air if allowed to do so, and we must have laws and regulations to protect innocent Americans from the harm those bad actors would do. However, common sense must prevail, and the costs of all regulations must be weighed against the benefits.
The government should simply stay out of the business of trying to promote or ?manage? energy development. The marketplace will meet our energy needs in the most economical and efficient manner possible ? if government will stay out of the way.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/environment
Perhaps the Libertarian Party's website is silent on regulation but Gary Johnson is in favor of some laws and regulations to protect innocent Americans from harm. I agree.
As for the burdensome and overreaching regulations, please allow me a moment to compose a thoughtful post so I can collect my thoughts.