|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:58 pm
La Veuve Zin I.Am I think the reason the working-man is typically Republican is that the Republican party believes in working for your money, and making more money for working harder. Whereas the Democratic party focuses more on taking care of those who aren't making very much money, whether it is because they can't work or simply won't work. Actually, it depends a lot on the region, too. I grew up in a city that's mostly working-class and overwhelmingly Democrat. It is a liberal (and Democratic, in the U.S.) cause to be paid more for harder work, not a conservative one. Who wants to raise the minimum wage? Who worked for a minimum wage in the first place? We filthy commies, that's who. And who wants to cut taxes for those who don't want to work, not just because they're purely lazy, but because they're living off inheritance and investments? Who wants to give the idle rich more and the working poor less? The Republican party has never believed in working for your money, nor does it believe in lower taxes, or it would cut sales taxes, replace them with estate taxes, and fund education so that the poor can actually find jobs. Yeah, you're wrong. First off, it is a matter of opinion that raising the minimum wage is good in the first place. I mean, everything around us is in some way influenced by someone making minimum wage. So the companies are going to either have to lay people off, making the unemployment rate skyrocket, or they are going to increase prices to meet it, meaning that the increase in minimum wage effectively changes nothing. As for cutting taxes for those living on inheritance, that is also a form of protecting the hard earned money of laborers. They didn't make the money, but their parents did, and their parents decided to give it to them. Who are you to say that they shouldn't get to keep that money? Who are you to take that money away and give it to someone else? Because you will also be taking from those who worked hard to make that money. Which, to a working man, looks like you want to punish people for getting rich. Quote: Party lines are flexible (or else I wouldn't be a Communist), but I can't see any self-respecting gay people wanting to be Republican. They may be fiscally conservative, but why would they want to attach themselves to a party that refuses to even acknowledge homophobia? Again, you're talking hard-line here. Just because the majority of Republicans are anti-gay marriage, etc etc, they should align themselves with a party that they largely disagree with? That makes no sense.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:09 pm
  I'd also like to point out...
Which party is for vouchers so that poor kids will be able to go to private schools and choose where to learn?
I have a personal grudge against estate tax. For just the reasons Andy mentioned, it gets people to sign their property over to their kids while they're still alive so that the government doesn't get any of their hard-earned money and their kids do. My grandparents had several friends who ended up in bad nursing homes because of this. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:12 pm
I.Am Yeah, you're wrong. First off, it is a matter of opinion that raising the minimum wage is good in the first place. I mean, everything around us is in some way influenced by someone making minimum wage. So the companies are going to either have to lay people off, making the unemployment rate skyrocket, or they are going to increase prices to meet it, meaning that the increase in minimum wage effectively changes nothing. As for cutting taxes for those living on inheritance, that is also a form of protecting the hard earned money of laborers. They didn't make the money, but their parents did, and their parents decided to give it to them. Who are you to say that they shouldn't get to keep that money? Who are you to take that money away and give it to someone else? Because you will also be taking from those who worked hard to make that money. Which, to a working man, looks like you want to punish people for getting rich Yeah, actually she's not. The Neumark-Wascher study showed that the impact of the minimum wage on negative worker effects is MINIMAL to the point of being negligent. The Low Pay Commission in the UK found while that there was some reduction in hours and frequency of hiring, as well as a slight increase in prices, the negative impacts of the minimum wage were, once again, negligible. And why should the rich be exempt from taxes? Why should, proportionally, the working man pay more per capita when they have less than the rich man? I.Am Again, you're talking hard-line here. Just because the majority of Republicans are anti-gay marriage, etc etc, they should align themselves with a party that they largely disagree with? That makes no sense. Who said they should align themselves with a party they largely disagree with? She said party lines are flexible. That means that within the construct of fiscally conservative areas, there are OTHER parties that are not homophobic. And yes, the Republican's ARE homophobic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:44 pm
Well it seems more and more like republicans want their party to be a private club only they can enter yet try to get everyone to vote for them.
Like reading some of the freeper pages I have read very insulting things from:
a. Calling Log Cabin Republicans a bunch of liberal extremists who are seeking to destroy the republican party. Basically saying that they want to keep them out of the party and don't want their support.
b. Calling the followin presidential candidates RINOs(Republicans in name only): John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, Sen. Hagel, Sen. Brownback, Mick Huckabee. Which is basically every major republican candidate.
b. Using a term which I found offensive not being catholic myself CINO(catholic in name only). Seriously pissing me off that they judge peoples dedication to thier religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:07 pm
I'm so tempted...but I'll just say this. It would be foolish to follow someone blindly because they label themselves something. If nothing they do is in line with what they say they are, why not question their policies? They also call Bush a RINO. Do you disagree with that, or is that okay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:31 pm
karllikespies Well it seems more and more like republicans want their party to be a private club only they can enter yet try to get everyone to vote for them. Like reading some of the freeper pages I have read very insulting things from: a. Calling Log Cabin Republicans a bunch of liberal extremists who are seeking to destroy the republican party. Basically saying that they want to keep them out of the party and don't want their support. b. Calling the followin presidential candidates RINOs(Republicans in name only): John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, Sen. Hagel, Sen. Brownback, Mick Huckabee. Which is basically every major republican candidate. b. Using a term which I found offensive not being catholic myself CINO(catholic in name only). Seriously pissing me off that they judge peoples dedication to thier religion. a. What do you expect? They're Republicans. They hate the gays. b. Meh, McCain is their b***h, I don't see their qualm with him. Romney is Mormon, so it's obvious why they don't like him; he doesn't drink alcohol. Don't know anything about the last three, and Guilliani is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage; he pretty much IS a RINO. c. (I assume that second b was supposed to be a c)(haha, pun) Who were they directing that at?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:30 am
ThePeerOrlando2 Yeah, actually she's not. The Neumark-Wascher study showed that the impact of the minimum wage on negative worker effects is MINIMAL to the point of being negligent. The Low Pay Commission in the UK found while that there was some reduction in hours and frequency of hiring, as well as a slight increase in prices, the negative impacts of the minimum wage were, once again, negligible. What is the time period? I am not saying that inflation will happen immediately. In fact, I would say that it is going to be really great for a while, because companies aren't going to want to raise their prices too quickly. But in a decade? Two decades? They will have had time to increase their prices, causing inflation. Also, which groups does this study look at? Is it solely looking at a straight how many people get hired statistic? As I believe Kate said, the bigger companies aren't going to have to lay off as many people because they've got money. But it is going to hit small mom-and-pop businesses very hard, businesses run by people the Democrats were supposed to be supporting, weren't they? I mean, I just think of the coffee shop I used to work at. The owners were struggling along and raising prices with the current minimum wages. If we raised it two bucks an hour to $7.50? They would have gone out of business. Excuse me, they probably -will- go out of business. Quote: And why should the rich be exempt from taxes? Why should, proportionally, the working man pay more per capita when they have less than the rich man? I don't think that they should be exempt from taxes, don't be ridiculous. And Republicans don't make tax cuts only for the rich. They favor the rich. But I'll let you in on a little secret; The rich are already paying vastly more in taxes than you or me. So of course a tax cut is going to save a rich person more money than it is a poor person. The poor person is hardly paying any taxes in the first place, especially when compared to the rich person. This isn't to say, "Oh, poor rich person has to pay more taxes than the lucky poor person." However, it is hardly fair to be saying, "You should only give tax cuts to the poor, because they need them." :/ It's actually socialist, in my opinion, to be saying that you should tax the rich out the a** and then cut taxes for almost everyone else. Quote: Who said they should align themselves with a party they largely disagree with? She said party lines are flexible. That means that within the construct of fiscally conservative areas, there are OTHER parties that are not homophobic. And yes, the Republican's ARE homophobic. You said that they shouldn't be aligning themselves with Republicans because they are gay. So did she. You both are saying, "Republicans are homophobic," which is a pretty damn blanket statement, and leaves the party lines as absolutely inflexible. And it's starting to piss me off a little that you say that party lines are flexible, then turn around and label all Republicans as Anti-Gay. I may not be registering Republican, but I'm more likely to vote Republican than I am Democrat. And terms like RINO? Just because there are assholes who are hard-line Republicans and don't like people who aren't hard-line doesn't mean that people on the outside trying to set Republicans into a specific set of beliefs are any less so. I would agree that there are cases where people are RINO or DINO, but it's ridiculous to say that someone doesn't belong in a party just because they disagree on one or two issues. An aside on that: The religious right is actually only the vocal majority of the Republican party. According to the Wikipedia article on the GOP, there has actually been a "western" branch of Republicans who are more Libertarian since the 80s at least. The "Religious Right" or southern branch has only gained power recently. @Karl: CINO is... Complicated. It is not unjustified to call a Catholic who is Pro-Choice CINO, because the Catholic Church teaches that a human being is a human being from conception, and that abortion is morally equivalent to murder. So if you say, "I'm Catholic, but I believe abortion should be legal," even if you are personally Pro-Life, you are not really a Catholic. Even the argument of bodily domain does not stand because the Church has -stated- that abortion is wrong and should be illegal and even, I believe, at least considered excommunicating politically active Pro-Choice "Catholics." In other cases, such as politicians who are Pro-Gay Rights being called CINO, I would say it's as ridiculous as most "RINOs" because, even if you don't believe that homosexuality is moral, there is no plausible reason it should be illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:20 am
I don't know much about American politics, but I agree with what I.Am says about belonging to political parties. Sure, you can disagree with some issues, but if you agree with more than any other party, then vote that way. Here in the UK, I agree with more Conservative policies than the other parties'. I don't have to agree with all, just more.
It's also hypocritical not to vote and then complain about the way the country is being run, but that's a separate point. >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:33 am
I.Am Just because the majority of Republicans are anti-gay marriage, etc etc, they should align themselves with a party that they largely disagree with? That makes no sense. I never said they should vote Democrat, or even not vote Republican. I'm saying they shouldn't register with, or support the United States Republican Party. There are other conservative parties in the US, you know. I'm okay with the Communist Party, USA, being pro-choice. If they were, say, pro-abortion, or anti-gay, racist, something I really found distasteful, I wouldn't associate with them. lymelady Which party is for vouchers so that poor kids will be able to go to private schools and choose where to learn? Republicans, and I'd like to say something further as well, albeit off-topic: Private schools fill up. Many kids will still be stuck in public schools, which will end up even worse off. Why put money into public schools, if students can "choose" to leave? This choice is an illusion. Vouchers cost tax money. Instead of basically funding private schools and leaving public schools to rot, doesn't it make more sense to improve public schools so that parents would choose to send their kids there? I've seen and attended public schools that were more prestigious than private ones. Why doesn't the government just improve the schools they're supposed to be providing in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:42 am
I've seen many conservatives, including my father-in-law, call Bush a conservative in name only, and I agree. He's a fascist imbecile who has repeatedly gone against the basic tenets of conservatism. Whether the Republican party is still truly conservative or has become a bunch of fellow fascist imbeciles is open to debate... stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:34 pm
Bush is the definition of a religious, pro-business conservative. He is far from a libertarian. The point about calling people RINOs is that these people obviously are dedicated to helping the party, and the Republicans claim to be a "big tent party". Simply because someone doesn't agree with you 100% doesn't mean that they aren't dedicated the the overall goals of the party. Bush obviously doesn't follow the libertarian part of the conservative ideology as the federal governments power has only expanded during his presidency, but he still is very conservative when it comes to most everything else.
I think the Catholic in Name Only was directed at Nancy Pelosi. I was just super offended because they have no right to judge someones religous beliefs, thats between them and God.
Hagel is a senator from Nebraska, Brownback is a senator from Kansas, Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas. Brownback and Huckabee were blasted for their moderate stances on immigration. Hagel was called RINO for supporting troop withdrawal from Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:03 pm
About vouchers: I don't think it's a perfect system. I still think it's better, though, than what we have now, where smart kids can't afford to go to better schools and then there are some really stupid rich kids who can and won't do anything with that education.
About Pelosi...As a Catholic, it shames me that she calls herself one. People are judging us off of her. On Free Republic, there's not much love for Catholics anyway. People point to politicians like Pelosi and Kerry as examples of Catholic corruption. So yes, I want to distance myself from them, because they are not acting in accordance with the Church and should NOT be calling themselves Catholic. Unlike the Bible, the Church teachings aren't up for interpretation. You can disagree with them, as long as you accept and follow them...for example, I can think they're wrong about homosexuals, but if I sleep with a woman, it's a sin. If I didn't want to live with that...I wouldn't be Catholic. I'd be another Christian religion that believes those things are okay, and you know what? There ARE other Christian religions where Pelosi, Kerry, and Rudy can all fit in and follow it. If someone is openly defying the Catholic Church, then yeah. That person is Catholic In Name Only. It's not, Christian In Name Only, or Saved In Name Only, or Sinless In Name Only, but, Catholic In Name Only. Unlike determining whether or not someone has a good relationship with God, you can look at a person's actions on paper and say, "That person isn't living in accordance with the Church." Catholics believe in actions as well as beliefs, because actions should be a reflection of those beliefs. If they're not acting Catholic, then yes. They're CINOs. And I won't be politically correct and say, "They might be in their hearts, they're just pretending to be sinful (according to their own religion)." I'm telling it like it is. If a Wiccan is going around telling people he or she practices magic and will put curses on people who disagree with him/her, then I'm allowed to say, "That's not in accordance with your own rules." So why can't I say it with Catholics? Are we special and allowed to get away with things without being held to our own standards?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:50 pm
I.Am What is the time period? I am not saying that inflation will happen immediately. In fact, I would say that it is going to be really great for a while, because companies aren't going to want to raise their prices too quickly. But in a decade? Two decades? They will have had time to increase their prices, causing inflation. Also, which groups does this study look at? Is it solely looking at a straight how many people get hired statistic? As I believe Kate said, the bigger companies aren't going to have to lay off as many people because they've got money. But it is going to hit small mom-and-pop businesses very hard, businesses run by people the Democrats were supposed to be supporting, weren't they? I mean, I just think of the coffee shop I used to work at. The owners were struggling along and raising prices with the current minimum wages. If we raised it two bucks an hour to $7.50? They would have gone out of business. Excuse me, they probably -will- go out of business. The LPC was done in 2003 I believe, while the Neumark-Wascher is from the 50's or 70's. The Neumark-Wascher is still supported by current economic indicators by the way. Oh, and it is also a report that was originally designed to disprove Keynsian economics, but failed to do so. Both use data that encompasses all pieces of relevant information; unemployment rate, rate of employment, rate of pay, etc. etc. Quote: I don't think that they should be exempt from taxes, don't be ridiculous. And Republicans don't make tax cuts only for the rich. They favor the rich. But I'll let you in on a little secret; The rich are already paying vastly more in taxes than you or me. So of course a tax cut is going to save a rich person more money than it is a poor person. The poor person is hardly paying any taxes in the first place, especially when compared to the rich person. Of the tax cuts approved by the Republicans, only 1 of them didn't apply to the upper crust; a child-welfare tax credit. It was about 500 dollars in total, per person it applied to. The other tax cuts all focused on increasing the general wealth of those who already have money. I don't care if they are paying more money in lump than I am (I actually pay quite a bit in taxes and don't mind, because it's a ******** civic duty for god sakes), they aren't paying more PROPORTIONALLY. Why should they get to have a smaller chunk of their money taken away by the government, by virtue of the fact that they have more money? If they had to pay the same rate of taxes as we do, they wouldn't suddenly spiral into debt and be impoverished by mere taxes. Quote: This isn't to say, "Oh, poor rich person has to pay more taxes than the lucky poor person." However, it is hardly fair to be saying, "You should only give tax cuts to the poor, because they need them." :/ It's actually socialist, in my opinion, to be saying that you should tax the rich out the a** and then cut taxes for almost everyone else. I'm not saying that. I'm saying "Rich people shouldn't get to pay LESS proportional taxes than a poor person, because it makes no sense to make a poor person give MORE of their paycheck to the government, when they have LESS." And we're not a pure capitalist system, so go suck an egg. surprised We have socialist tendencies, because laissez faire economics is stupid as all hell when it comes to the rights of workers. Look at Mexico; a purely unrestrained capitalist system does THAT to a country. Quote: You said that they shouldn't be aligning themselves with Republicans because they are gay. Pfsh. Don't put words in my mouth Andy. I never said that. I said it doesn't make sense to align yourself with a homophobic party, when you're gay. Just like it doesn't make sense to align yourself with a Nazi party if you're Jewish, the KKK party if you're black, or the Dr. Suess Party if you're Japanese (Dr. Suess was a notorious anti-Japanese racist for those of you who don't know). Quote: So did she. You both are saying, "Republicans are homophobic," which is a pretty damn blanket statement, and leaves the party lines as absolutely inflexible. And it's starting to piss me off a little that you say that party lines are flexible, then turn around and label all Republicans as Anti-Gay. I may not be registering Republican, but I'm more likely to vote Republican than I am Democrat. The Republican Party IS homophobic. It is a political party, they have certain core sets of beliefs that are arranged around them. One of the core Republican tenents is vehemently anti-homosexual. Look at Rick Santorum, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. etc. Party lines are both inflexible and flexible. They are flexible in the regard that within every overarching group (economically conservative), there can be a different subset (socially liberal). The Republican Party, however, is inflexible as it is a DEFINED party; they have a certain set of beliefs that make them Republicans (socially and economically conservative). Quote: And terms like RINO? Just because there are assholes who are hard-line Republicans and don't like people who aren't hard-line doesn't mean that people on the outside trying to set Republicans into a specific set of beliefs are any less so. I would agree that there are cases where people are RINO or DINO, but it's ridiculous to say that someone doesn't belong in a party just because they disagree on one or two issues. If you look at what the Republican Party is, it has a basic archetype for it's politicians; socially and economically conservative. If the majority of the party was NOT socially conservative, but socially liberal, then the archetype would be; socially liberal and economically conservative. Quote: An aside on that: The religious right is actually only the vocal majority of the Republican party. According to the Wikipedia article on the GOP, there has actually been a "western" branch of Republicans who are more Libertarian since the 80s at least. The "Religious Right" or southern branch has only gained power recently. Yup, which means that the Republican Party falls under their control and is defined by what they are and how they act. Just because they only "recently" seized control, doesn't mean that they haven't seized control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:10 am
Quote: The LPC was done in 2003 I believe, while the Neumark-Wascher is from the 50's or 70's. The Neumark-Wascher is still supported by current economic indicators by the way. Oh, and it is also a report that was originally designed to disprove Keynsian economics, but failed to do so. Both use data that encompasses all pieces of relevant information; unemployment rate, rate of employment, rate of pay, etc. etc. This is interesting. Economic Policy Institute The original study, by Princeton professors David Card and Alan Krueger,’ looked at data from the New Jersey fast-food industry after the state raised the minimum wage in 1992. It received heavy criticism in the spring and summer of 1995 after the Employment Policies Institute, a research organization funded by a cross-section of manufacturers, restaurants, and retailers, charged that Card and Krueger’s findings were the product of mistakes in the two economists’ data-gathering procedures.2 The Employment Policies Institute gathered its own data on a small group of fast-food restaurants and made them available to economists Neumark, of Michigan State University, and Wascher, of the Federal Reserve Board. Neumark and Wascher have since evaluated the Employment Policies Institute data, plus a separate sample that the two researchers collected themselves, in three versions of a paper that reexamines the Card and Krueger study.3 The most recent version, which separately analyzes the Card and Krueger data, the Employment Policies Institute data, and Neumark and Wascher’s own data, shows that the Curd and Krueger data and the Neumark and Wascher data reach the same conclusion: the April 1992 increase in New Jersey’s minimum wage did not reduce employment in the state’s fast-food industry. According to Neumark and Wascher’s analysis, only the small sample of data obtained by the Employment Policies Institute, using a selection method the organization has not disclosed, indicate a measurable negative effect of the minimum wage on employment. So not only did this -definitely- occur during the mid 90s, way outside of what I am going to call your guesses, but it was not all encompassing. In fact, the study was based solely on reports from fast food places. Places which already charge more than they need to and could probably afford the 18.8% increase in the minimum wages. And it doesn't say anything about inflation. Or about whether total work hours a week increased or decreased, or stayed the same. So your study does not say anything about what happened to small businesses during that time period. The businesses that I explicitly pointed out were the most at risk, and were supposedly the most protected by Liberals. Also, it's worth noting that we are not looking at an 18.8% increase today. We're looking at a nearly 50% increase. An 18.8% increase would be about a dollar an hour. But we're looking at $2.50 an hour increase. This hits not only the people on the lowest rung at many minimum-wage paying businesses, but those on the second and even third to lowest rung. To bring it back to my old coffee shop, this increase would have effected everyone working there. Which sounds great, until you realize that that means that the effective running costs of the coffee shop just shot up 50%. And I don't care what studies you bring up, the owner would have had to make that up somewhere, whether it was by laying off workers or drastically increasing the price of a drink. Quote: Of the tax cuts approved by the Republicans, only 1 of them didn't apply to the upper crust; a child-welfare tax credit. It was about 500 dollars in total, per person it applied to. The other tax cuts all focused on increasing the general wealth of those who already have money. I don't care if they are paying more money in lump than I am (I actually pay quite a bit in taxes and don't mind, because it's a ******** civic duty for god sakes), they aren't paying more PROPORTIONALLY. Why should they get to have a smaller chunk of their money taken away by the government, by virtue of the fact that they have more money? If they had to pay the same rate of taxes as we do, they wouldn't suddenly spiral into debt and be impoverished by mere taxes. Let me repeat myself: It is in no way unfair for the rich to get tax cuts, which you seem to be implying that the rich should be excluded from the majority of tax cuts. However, I do absolutely support a flat tax. The current tax system is unreasonably complicated and causes way too much unnecessary trouble. And just because we have socialist tendencies doesn't mean that we should just go full throttle, re-distributing the wealth, communist. We are still a capitalist system, and over taxing the rich decreases the incentive to work hard or be creative. The system becomes stagnant with more people deciding whatever they are considering doing is not worth the risk. Quote: Pfsh. Don't put words in my mouth Andy. I never said that. I said it doesn't make sense to align yourself with a homophobic party, when you're gay. Just like it doesn't make sense to align yourself with a Nazi party if you're Jewish, the KKK party if you're black, or the Dr. Suess Party if you're Japanese (Dr. Suess was a notorious anti-Japanese racist for those of you who don't know). ...How is that any different from what I just said? I claimed that you were saying gays shouldn't be Republicans. Then you said, "No, don't put words in my mouth, gays shouldn't be Republicans." And political parties cannot be homophobic, or anything emotional like that. People can. And just because the leaders of the Republican Party are greatly anti-gay rights does not mean that the party itself is homophobic. It does not necessarily even mean that the leaders themselves are homophobic. At one point I believed that gay marriage should not be legal, but rather that they should simply accept civil unions, and certain rights should be extended to civil unions (I still think they should; I should be able to decide who I want to visit me if I'm in a coma, whether it's my roommate or my life partner.) But I would never say that I was homophobic at any point. Quote: The Republican Party IS homophobic. It is a political party, they have certain core sets of beliefs that are arranged around them. One of the core Republican tenents is vehemently anti-homosexual. Look at Rick Santorum, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. etc. Party lines are both inflexible and flexible. They are flexible in the regard that within every overarching group (economically conservative), there can be a different subset (socially liberal). The Republican Party, however, is inflexible as it is a DEFINED party; they have a certain set of beliefs that make them Republicans (socially and economically conservative). Why do you get to be the one who decides which issues are flexible and which are inflexible? Why the hell can't you just let Republicans decide what makes you Republican or not? Because, from what I can tell, you're not a Republican, and probably would not vote Republican in most cases. So why is it that your opinion is defining and overriding of mine, someone who is more likely to vote Republican than Democrat? Or of those gay Republicans? And isn't one of Cheney's daughters gay or something? He hasn't disowned her, has he? So he's not all that homophobic. Quote: Yup, which means that the Republican Party falls under their control and is defined by what they are and how they act. Just because they only "recently" seized control, doesn't mean that they haven't seized control. And just because they've seized control does not mean that they are the only Republicans, or that, if you do not agree with them on every issue, you don't get to be a Republican. It's ridiculous. By the same logic, you should support the war in Iraq. Because the leaders of the United States military support the war, so you and everyone else in the military should support the war, and if you don't, it makes no sense for you to even be in the military. @Zin: Yes, but the Republican party's the only one with a chance of winning. And if we all divide up into the tiny little groups that perfectly define our political opinions, then no party will ever get the proper amount of electoral votes because they would be spread so paper thin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:40 am
I.Am the Republican party's the only one with a chance of winning. And if we all divide up into the tiny little groups that perfectly define our political opinions, then no party will ever get the proper amount of electoral votes because they would be spread so paper thin. God, what a horrible, undemocratic way of corrupting the right to vote. What a stupid excuse. Maybe if everyone voted for people they wholly agreed with, there'd be fewer complaints about "I like him/her, but...." Why vote for the lesser of two evils when you could vote for someone who isn't evil at all? The belief that only one of two parties can win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stop believing that garbage, and it'll stop being true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
