Here's A Former Democrat Who Is Finally Starting To Get It Right

View attachment 2436

Rob Lowe: ‘I want the government out of almost everything’

Handsome actor Rob Lowe says he wants the government to stay out of everyone’s business.

In an interview with the New York Times, the former “really, really liberal Democrat” said: “My thing is personal freedoms, freedoms for the individual to love whom they want, do with what they want. In fact, I want the government out of almost everything.”

Lowe played a Democratic speechwriter on “The West Wing,” a Republican senator on “Brothers and Sisters,” a city manager of an unspecified political party on “Parks and Recreation” and President John F. Kennedy in “Killing Kennedy.”

Lowe also told the Times that being loyal to a political party is like using drugs, because both are acceptable in the U.S. today.

Hesaid: “I find them both [drug use and political parties] highly overrated. Each day another state makes it O.K. for my 18-year-old — any 18-year-old — to go and buy pot like he’s buying a Pepsi-Cola, and so let’s face it: In the United States, recreational drug use is sort of acceptable.

Belonging to one party is acceptable. But my days of just ticking the party box are long over. I judge the candidates for who they are.”

In an interview with The Guardian in 2009, Lowe said that he was formerly a Democrat, but switched to being an Independent.

“You know, there’s that great quote: ‘If you’re young and you’re not a liberal, you have no heart. If you’re older and not a conservative, you have no brain,’” Lowe said. “I started out being a really, really liberal Democrat. [That changes] as you get older and you have children and you get more life experience. I’m what you would call an independent moderate. I haven’t crossed the aisle, so to speak.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/rob-lowe-i-want-the-government-out-of-almost-everything/#ixzz2yDWqUAUA

 

So he wants government to stay out of his business but wants government to ban pot? Seems like he might just be on something, not onto something, just on something.

He said: “I find them both [drug use and political parties] highly overrated. Each day another state makes it O.K. for my 18-year-old — any 18-year-old — to go and buy pot like he’s buying a Pepsi-Cola, and so let’s face it: In the United States, recreational drug use is sort of acceptable.

FUNNY!!!!!
​

 

Where does he say that he wants the government to ban pot?

 

Lowe is right, political parties are stupid. He is now an Independent probably because he couldn't stomach being a Republican like so many people these days.

 

I think he's on a path that most sensible people follow...

 

No one has ever been illuminated by the glow of your intelligence.

 

Think again:

Gallup[edit]

As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats (tying a 22-year low), 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents.[3] By 2011 Gallup found that Americans identifying as independents had risen to 40 percent. Gallup's historical data show that the proportion of independents in 2011 was the largest in 60 years.

This increase came at the expense of Republican identification, which dropped to 27%, while Democratic identification held steady from 2011. Nevertheless, more American independents leaned to the Republican Party when compared to the Democratic Party. Combining leaners with each party's core identifiers, for 2011 the parties ended up tied at 45 percent.[4]

In 2011 Gallup found seventeen states safely Republican or leaning Republican, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. A total of 19 states (including the District of Columbia) were safe or leaning Democratic, down from 23 in 2010 and 36 in 2008. Gallup observed that the "greatest movement away from the Democratic Party came between 2009 and 2010, when the number of states with a Democratic advantage fell from 34 to 23". In 15 states no party had a clear political advantage for 2011. Gallup concluded that "President Obama faces a much less favorable environment as he seeks a second term in office than he did when he was elected president."[5]

Rasmussen[edit]

Monthly Rasmussen Reports tracking of partisan trends found that in June 2012, 35.4% identified as Republicans, 34.0% as Democrats and 30.5% were unaffiliated. These numbers changed only slightly from the previous month.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

 

Thank you for making my argument. I didn't need the help but as long as you are will to eat the crow, meh.

P.S. Look at Gallup's current data on the subject. It's changed since 2010.

 

That's why I included Rasmussen's stats (which you seem to have left out of your response):

... in June 2012, 35.4% identified as Republicans, 34.0% as Democrats and 30.5% were unaffiliated.

 

I recently heard a report that indicated most democrat voters don't even support the basic tenets of the democrap party these days...most dim voters don't agree with Obamacare, most don't support BO's assault on babies in the womb, most don't agree with his attempts to weaken our military & most believe a little fiscal responsibility is called for!

 

Unfortunately, many of the dumbocrats in charge (and on this forum) are the socialist-communist-baby killing-overreaching government-anti Constitution-type.

 

You're always good for a laugh David. You know that?

For instance does this "report" really use this phrase?

If so I would surmise that it was heavily fueled by right wingers if the "report" exists at all.

On the other hand if one looks at the term "dim" NOT referring to a Democrat you could be stating some real truth here. As accidental as it might be on your part.
In this case I would surmise most of the "dims" in question vote Republican these days.

As it is your statement is about as realistic as a line Ralph Parker said in the classic movie Christmas Story.

I may not be quoting exactly but it's along the lines of
"Swartz said he saw a couple of grizzly bears down by Pulaski's candy store."

His dad didn't buy that line. Perhaps if he were far right....

 

Well at least you put the word "many" in what I consider a horribly ignorant blanket statement Coin.

"Blanket statements without actual backing frequently reveal ones true character. Or lack thereof."

Yes I said that a long time ago.

 

Horribly ignorant? There's nothing either horrible or ignorant about my statement. What IS horrible is that many are, indeed, socialist-communist (and the rest of what I said) and the people blindly following them are ignorant. And, yes, it was meant to an all-encompassing, blanket statement intended to cover all the socialist-communist... well, you get the idea.

 

So....wanna be the guinea pig?

Do you support the big issues the dims are pushing these days?
Abortion?
Illegal aliens?
Military strength?
Spending?
Taxation?

 

I maintain my stance here Coin.

It is statements like these that make many right wingers look like total nut jobs. What's scary is I hear these same diatribes spoken by people that I consider intelligent.

Are they socialist or communist? Is there no difference to you?
How many allies do we have that are socialist and how many allies do we have that are communist would be a good question here.
Then ask our socialist allies if they would like being referred to as communists.

I reckon if asked those socialist folks would figure the person making such statements as clueless but more than happy to talk out of their ass. My opinion of course.

You speak of "blindly following". If that's the case perhaps you should welcome yourself to the club. Just on the other side.

To some name calling, labeling blanket statements are a true sign of weakness in thought process. A sign of desperation.
Seems I see more every day.

Many seem to blindly follow it.

Damn shame.

 

Thanks for yet another laugh David.

As usual you failed to address my whole post.

What was this "report"? Did it involve the "words"
"democrap party these days...most dim voters"?

Was it something you made up in your own mind based on "facts" that you construed as such?

Let me in on your "report" and I might waste my time answering your questions. Of course I'll have some of my own.

Finally your use of the "words" democrap, dim voters and then dims in your last response.

Is that all you have? Do you still, for some reason, think you're being clever?
I'll admit at times it is irritating but more and more it's just plain amusing when I see such "childishly clever" terms being spouted out.

I pretty much just said the same thing to Coin but I'll repeat it if you missed it.

"To some name calling, labeling blanket statements are a true sign of weakness in thought process. A sign of desperation.
Seems I see more every day".

Damn shame.

 

I know how much you dislike blanket statements, clembo (i.e., "typical liberal", "blind followers", etc.). But, as the saying goes, if the shoe fits.... In many cases, the shoe fits very well indeed.

As you know, socialists are not the same as communists. But, the distinction becomes blurred sometimes when their ideologies merge which, of late, is more often than not. As an example, take the Occupy rallies which included socialists, communists, union supporters, anarchists and others of a similar mindset. Many of them didn't even know what they were protesting, but were led into protests under the guise of "redistributing the wealth" (sound familiar?). Once that occurred, it becomes very easy to label them as "blind followers" because that's exactly what they are.

Then when you have advisers to our president claiming that Chairman Mao was her favorite political philosopher (see Anita Dunn) or Obama's Green Jobs czar being an actual communist (see Van Jones) or when you have another adviser whose father-in-law worked in a communist organization and worked with Obama's mentor Frank Marshall Davis (see Valerie Jarrett) or when you have a friend of Obama's who was the former leader of a radical left organization which bombed government buildings (see Bill Ayers)... well, perhaps you might begin to understand the liberty taken when making such blanket statements.

There's another saying that goes, "If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck... ", well you get the message I'm sure.

 

Can't answer, honestly, can you?

Hmmmm

 

Au contraire.

I can always answer honestly David.

How about answering the questions I asked first and showing me some of your "report"?


Hmmmmmm