+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 29
October 31st, 2008, 11:18 AM #1
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Bethalto, IL
- Blog Entries
So why does the republican party still exist?
Why haven't members of the republican party with actual values taken a mass exodus into a new or alternative existing party? What does the republican party even stand for these days other than corruption and the group think of the team mentality? Status-quo doesn't involve any sort of conservatism if we use actual definitions of things rather than made up definitions using newspeak. There is no conservation of our constitution or fiscal responsibilities or for human life except for the empty rhetoric against abortion.
October 31st, 2008, 11:23 AM #2
Good question. Time will tell if they lurch further into religious extemism or return to fiscal and governmental conservatism.Never send to know for whom the bell tolls . . .
October 31st, 2008, 12:02 PM #3
I think you are asking, 'what does the Republican brand represent?' It seems that the base are religious and social issue conservatives. It's not clear what others get from the party.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
October 31st, 2008, 12:37 PM #4
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Uh, Central Oregon
- Blog Entries
Same thing for the Democrat party . . . why hasn't there been a mass exodus to the alternative parties like the Social Workers or the CPUSA???
Corruption is rampant in both party's . . .
Immorality is rampant in both party's . . .
Pork barrel spending is rampant in both party's
Illegal activities is rampant in both party's . . .
October 31st, 2008, 01:52 PM #5
The whole party idea is flawed anyway. I tend to vote democrat only because most of my preferences fit that party in its current makeup. I lean more toward fiscal conservative, and I'd love to see a much smaller government, but I'm a social liberal. I personally think abortion needs to be the last choice, not the first, but I believe that decision is up to the woman concerned. It's like hunting; I personally find it distasteful, but I support the right of others to hunt and own guns.
I have no problem with gay marriage, but I also feel marriage in general is overrated.
I feel that everyone with a proven track record in high school should be able to go to college regardless of the ability to pay, but I hate the current system of shoving kids who can't read or write or do simple math through the school system and then on to college. And if you go to college on public money, you should have to contribute back into the system somehow, either through payments after you graduate and get a job, or through some sort of pro-bono community work after graduation.
I hate the current welfare system. It not only rewards someone who won't find work, it punishes those who do find work. There needs to be a system which allows people to reach a certain income level. If they start earning some on their own, then reduce their support. Don't just eliminate it.
I don't support capital punishment, but I believe the sentence for murder should be life without parole; no exceptions.
I'm a devout atheist, but I have no problem with people practicing their religion up to the point where it interferes with another person's right to not have religion in their face. Schools should have a moment of silence (the key term here being silence) at the beginning of the school day. If you want to pray, there you go. If not, stand there and look at your shoes. But in no way should religion play any part at all in government and religious organizations should be taxed like any other business. We may finally elect a non-white President, but we are still decades or more away from being able to elect an atheist. That's just wrong.
There is much about Obama and Dems in general I don't like. There is much about "real" Republican ideology I do like. But the current GOP is far from real Republican (conservative) ideology. What we need is a good centrist party. Don't see that happening anytime soon, though.You can't fix stupidity.
October 31st, 2008, 02:18 PM #6Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
October 31st, 2008, 02:52 PM #7
October 31st, 2008, 03:11 PM #8
Sad thing though is Bob Barr is much closer to a constitutionalist which is like a religious libertarian who will force his morality and values on you. Bob Barr has stolen the libertarian party before it even got a serious chance.
October 31st, 2008, 03:21 PM #9
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Bethalto, IL
- Blog Entries
I'm not concerned about the democratic party at the moment as they're about to yield the powers this administration has granted them so those who have supported GW's anti-constitutional rampage will get what's coming to them, which even if it were the very same thing will be viewed as something completely different because it's wearing blue instead of red. I'm not saying there are no ideological differences between the two, but as I see it the most important factor is the endpoint and the major differences between the two seem to merely be which direction around the circle they take to get to the other side.
Last edited by SiliconJon; October 31st, 2008 at 03:26 PM.
October 31st, 2008, 03:52 PM #10
I see a little more difference.
Republicans offer the same expenditures but generally not in the form of entitlements (although they have been collapsing on that one big time).
democrats are absolutely socialist at their core.
1) tax the rich and spend on the "lazy ummmmm I mean less fortunate"
2) Safety nets all over the place
3) Nationalized health care. (Including the moronic barak plan of letting businesses who fund health care for their employees continue to do so and offering government care to those who don't ) I ssssssseeeeeeee So my company will continue to give me health care while government pays for health care of other companies. (yeah no motive for my company to dump health care))
My vote is against BO the only question is who do I throw it at.
October 31st, 2008, 04:04 PM #11
Sorry, but your summarization of Obama's health care proposal reveals astonishing ignorance.
Here's something from that liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal --Given the current inefficiencies in our system, the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Besides the $2,500 savings in medical costs for the typical family, according to our research annual business-sector costs will fall by about $140 billion. Our figures suggest that decreasing employer costs by this amount will result in the expansion of employer-provided health insurance to 10 million previously uninsured people.
We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. We spend 40% more than other countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care -- nearly $1 trillion -- but our health outcomes are no better.
The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90,000 low-wage workers currently without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market. It also would pull one and a half million more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. Workers currently locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs, or simply work part time.Never send to know for whom the bell tolls . . .
October 31st, 2008, 08:19 PM #12
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
I agree with the OP. I consider myself a conservative and feel that the Republican party has lost touch.
October 31st, 2008, 10:50 PM #13
The Republican Party was largely started as a single issue party. It has never had a real set of guiding principles. The founders never intended there to be partys they knew it would just end up in an us vs. them. The Republicrats have rigged the debates and the elections so it is nearly impossible for 3rd parties to get traction. Even Bill O'Reilly doesn't really know what the Libertarian tenets are and they have had more candidates on more ballots than any other US minor party.
. The founders foretold of the corruption of their intent that would come from partys. And thus it be. I'm really disappointed they nominated Barr (a failed bi-partisan) to head the ticket this year (I really liked Badnarik) - he hasn't convinced me of his knowledge of the market system of economics which is a cornerstone of the Lib. Party. I have been a big-L but will always remain a small l and will probably vote that way again as I have for the last 30 years as I really can't stand the bi-party candidates (I tend to like Gov, Palin, but I'm not sure she understands and has internalized the market economics. At least she's run a business with her husband and been responsible for a payroll, unlike the two Pres. candidates).
Unlike Boortz, I'll still have the satisfaction of having stuck to my principles. AFAIK, he's still playing chicken little - the world will end if we don't vote with the Repubs. I think McCain has run a stupid campaign and deserves to lose. OTOH, I can't see a real American voting for Obama either. The whole mess is really sick this time. Last time the Dems gave us a war criminal to vote for and this year a communist. Makes one sick just thinking about it.
Last edited by zepper; November 1st, 2008 at 10:34 AM."Our freedom depends on five boxes: soap, ballot, jury, witness; and, when all else fails, Ammo. " ?author?
October 31st, 2008, 11:08 PM #14
I don't begrudge you your libertarian principles, but how on earth can your brain square that with tending to like Gov. Palin?
Oh, never mind. I just read your last paragraph. I'm wasting my time.Never send to know for whom the bell tolls . . .
October 31st, 2008, 11:12 PM #15
October 31st, 2008, 11:28 PM #16http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtab0BKOGY
The Nation which forgets it's defenders will itself be forgotten
You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them–wipe them out!
October 31st, 2008, 11:39 PM #17
You saved me from a lot of typing earlier today, M_Six. I meant to add this -- I agree with everything you said in your earlier post, except for the part about welfare. And I don't agree with that only (at this point) because I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the subject to even offer comment.Never send to know for whom the bell tolls . . .
November 1st, 2008, 12:18 AM #18
I think there are lots of people who would fit the centrist mold if they thought about it. Trouble is, every election the candidates worry about their "base" constituents (there's a pun there somewhere) and drift to one pole or the other. McCain was definitely centrist (except on Iraq) until he caved to the religious right and picked the half-baked Alaskan to screw up his ticket. Ridge is centrist and was passed over for VP because McCain was worried Ridge's pro-choice leanings (along with McCain's centrist/conservative views) would cause the religious right to not vote in large enough numbers to carry the day. Thing is, he gave away a good number of centrist votes that may have carried him anyway.You can't fix stupidity.
November 1st, 2008, 10:48 AM #19
Oh, you weren't aware that Kerry had a confab with the Vietnamese delegation in Europe while still in the uniform of the US Army? He would have gotten prison time (if not executed) if I was Pres. at the time and I'm also quite sure that he received a Dishonorable Discharge and that weenie Carter managed to expunge it. Communism is the form of government that at least claims to use socialism as its economic system and Obama is patently a backer of socialist policies. He's also a "my way or the highway" authoritarian. That combo poses a real threat to a free people who don't seem to be aware of what they risk losing. This is still the only country where the people are supposed to be free and the gov't is supposed to be tightly constrained per the Constitiution. Only we the people have allowed it to become otherwise. I guess many Americans must prefer to be subjects rather than free citizens...
.bh."Our freedom depends on five boxes: soap, ballot, jury, witness; and, when all else fails, Ammo. " ?author?
November 3rd, 2008, 08:22 AM #20
I am sorry pexster. I am looking through my crystal ball and I see it the way I originally posted it. I can not see the government simply not ending up with this turd in their lap forever. this is a slippery slope issue that has 90 degree teflon walls 100 feet tall with no ladders or ropes to get us out of the pit.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Theophylact in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 18Last Post: October 15th, 2008, 04:39 PM
By Theophylact in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 32Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 12:06 AM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 3Last Post: July 15th, 2004, 04:19 PM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 50Last Post: October 10th, 2003, 04:07 AM
By Epidemic in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 52Last Post: August 29th, 2003, 09:55 AM