Help me understand Republicans...

[Still Growing]

Presidents are puppets and the marionettes are their financial backers. Its the same for both Republicans and Democrats.

On blogs like this we talk about the issues. Democrats tell their followers what they want to hear and Republicans tell theirs what they want to hear and then when they get elected they do what they promised their financial backers first and foremost.

Campaign Finance Reform is more than a political statement. It means that we need to take the money out of politics so we can decrease the special interests.

What are Special Interests? They are very wealthy people and companies who want to get that "project", "contract", "bill passed" or "war started" to move their product or service and to make even more money on.

I love America and I'm proud to be American but things are much more perverse than you may think they are...

I don't care which side you are on , Republican or Democrat you must know that its not about you as an individual. Can't you figure that out by now?

Let me give you a prediction..... John McCain wins then Haliburton will make billions. Hillary wins then some Healthcare company will make billions. Obama gets closer to winning the primary and then the Healthcare companies will silently speak to his party and elude that they have Super Delegates in their pockets. Obama will bend or the Super Delegates votes will completely negate the Delegates and your individual vote. The whole system is set up for corruption.

For those of you who retort by say "Yea but what system is better" You're really missing the point...

Think I'm jaded?

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by coollikeme

Republicans want as little form of government as possible. No taxes and no social programs. It's about personal responsibility, that is not to say we won't help anyone in need. We just don't want the government to control it, they can't be trusted.

Stem cell research is OK if done with money from private donations, not by being forced on you by the government. Fox has point and counter point, CNN and MSNBC have an agenda that leans to the left. Awful stations!!!!

I have one major problem with Democrats. They claim they don't want the death penalty, yet they will kill a baby in the form of abortion. Am I missing something here? Some one needs to explain this to me. A killer can take the life of an innocent person of any age or gender, brutally, and have their life spared. Yet, when it comes to a baby, they have no problems taking the life of an innocent child. I have much more to say, but at another time.

You bring up a good point. The republicans don't want to raise taxes or social programs. Yet Bush has run up a national debt of 1 TRILLION dollars in 7 years in office. That's more than ALL the other presidents combined in the history of the United States. How do you expect to pay off that debt without raising taxes? Where will the money come from? We're financing a war in Iraq that's costing billions a week. Where is that money coming from? Add it to the debt. How will you continue to spend at ALL TIME RECORD HIGHS in the history of the United States, and not raise taxes? Speaking of personal responsibility, shouldn't WE (the United States) be funding our own war? Shouldn't we use our own money, since we should be PERSONALLY responsible? Should we be at the mercy of countries that are loaning us record amounts of money?

Stem cell research is okay as long as it's private funds? Can't we use just half of the billions per week we are wasting in Iraq? We're trying to take a country who's religious belief is to kill Americans and each opposing group. We're trying to control the fight between the Shiates, and the Suni's, when in reality we can't even control the Bloods and the Crips (or any other gangs for that matter) here in our own country. Who knows, with the money we spent in Iraq, maybe we stem cell research could have discovered something that would save Americans lives.

I won't even touch the comment that Fox is fair and balanced. Don't believe everything they tell you.

Also, you say that you're against abortion? Who is going to pay for all these hospital bills, and babies when their parents can't afford or don't want to take care of them? With no social programs, or raise in taxes, how do you plan to pay for all these childern born, that the parents can't afford the child, or the hospital bills?

I love how republicans say that they aren't going to raise taxes, yet they rack up debt at record highs. Where is the money going to come from to pay these debts? Maybe it could have came from ExxonMobil's 40 BILLION dollars of profits, if the gov't wouldn't have gave them a huge tax credit.

[Lunatic]

Still Growing - that's why we need to eliminate lobbyists. It will never happen in this country, or in my lifetime anyway. But it would do exactly what you're talking about. That, coupled with "fair tax" would put us in a whole new world. Then there would be such an abundance of tax money, we could afford social health care without raising income tax levels to 50% like Canada.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by coollikeme

Republicans want as little form of government as possible. No taxes and no social programs. It's about personal responsibility, that is not to say we won't help anyone in need. We just don't want the government to control it, they can't be trusted.

Yes...less governmental control...except when it comes to people different than you, like us fags. Republicans have no problem treating me like a second-class citizen because I happen to love someone of the same sex, so you turn on your own ideal of less government control to try to impose your own bigoted viewpoints about who's allowed to love who. Less government control, except for forcing the rest of the nation to live by YOUR morals.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

Yes...less governmental control...except when it comes to people different than you, like us fags. Republicans have no problem treating me like a second-class citizen because I happen to love someone of the same sex, so you turn on your own ideal of less government control to try to impose your own bigoted viewpoints about who's allowed to love who. Less government control, except for forcing the rest of the nation to live by YOUR morals.

Piano man, not all Republicans are homophobic.There are as many homophobic Dems as there are Republicans statistically. Generalizing entire groups is what you hate isn't it? Why do the same?

Marriage was created to perpetuate the species and as a nest in which to breed new taxpayers for the gov't and a sanction by the church based upon restriction of what their religion deemed as sins. Based upon its very premise I don't really understand why you'd want any part of it.

I do however think that Homosexual couples deserve the same legal rights, financial benefits and same misery as the rest of us though.....

[PianoManGidley]

A point that most people fail to realize is that the Catholic Church only got a hold of marriage by about the 14th Century--it had been wholly secular before then. I believe that our nation guarantees that no law shall respect established religion (1st Amendment) and that ALL US citizens should be granted equal rights (14th Amendment); therefore, marriage, being an issue controlled by the government, with many legal ramifications involved (literally hundreds if not thousands of laws in each state), should be extended to any pair of consenting adults, be they same-gendered or not. There is no secular reason to keep gay marriages banned that holds water--all the arguments against are either religious in nature or else based on logical fallacies and corrupted data.

It's the Republican Party pushing for bans on gay rights, so if I was generalizing, it's because I was addressing the entire party, since the person to whom I replied was speaking on their behalf.

[Still Growing]

Pianoman, my point is that "marriage" as we currently know it has been crafted by the churches and by the governments and so if I were homosexual I wouldn't necessarily even want "their" modern day marriage. Probably just the rights that go with it.

Your defense is that the Catholic Church only got a hold of marriage from the 14th century. The way you make it sound is that before the Catholic Church "got their hands on marriage" the institution of marriage was same sex friendly. This simply wasn’t the case.

Your argument for equal rights is not the same as the one for marriage. You may argue that you “deserve” the exact same “marriage” because of equal rights however the government has many laws that are not open to all. For example:

-Minority only govt contract bids
-Tax deductions for those with kids
-Free healthcare for Senators
-Federal holidays for gov’t workers
-Hundreds of tax deductions for business owners
-Tax deductions for home owners but not for renters

Which of the above rights are enjoyed by all US Citizens?

The fact is that there are hundreds of rights enjoyed by some and not all.

Republicans and Democrats are all that you have and you can identify mostly with Democrats right? How successful are the Democrats with getting your equal gay marriage rights?

Both sides just pander…. The Republicans are just pandering to the extreme right and the Democrats are just pandering to the extreme left. The do this to pick up your vote but ultimately they really don’t care if you get what you are asking for Pianoman. The Dems just attempt to pass a few things that will ultimately be shot down and they know it. If they really wanted to be successful they would fight for something they could win such as more specific inheritance laws for same sex couples. No that would be too easy Pianoman. You see neither really care about results…

Its just about power and money and that’s all they care about.

[Subscreet]

Pianoman, I think you're confusing an ideology (neo-conservativism) with a group (the GOP).

Barcs, you just keep on raging against the machine. Hope it works out for you.

[Marco Polo]

You want the difference between conservatives and liberals on a wider time scale?

-->Liberals are those who want to push forward and keep making stupid mistakes that cheapen our culture.
-->Conservatives are people who try to prevent those mistakes from being corrected!

Together they make a great team.

[joesugar]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

You know if you reverse that the Republicans cry foul at abortion as being murder, but the death penalty is justified.

Which is one of the reasons I support both.

First off, forget politicians. They only do what they feel they need to in order to get reelected.

In general, when speaking to self-identified Republican/Democrat individuals I find that Republicans tend to favor personal responsibility with providing assistance to others at the discretion of the individual, coming from the individual. Democrats tend to favor group responsibility with assistance to others the responsibility of the group.

These are necessarily broad classifications. In fact, most people I know defy classification, tending to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal (liberal in the sense of Hayek, not the current political definition).

I tend toward the Republican view since my experience has been that when all are responsible, none are responsible and people don't value that for which they have not worked. Your mileage may vary.

[oberlee]

I think you all have really great points that aren't influenced by closed-minded ideologies--left or right.

I have to back Pianoman here. I'm not gay, but I think if I were gay, I would want to be married if I found the right partner. Yes, marriage was made for procreation, eventually, I guess, for religious reasons. But the point still remains that it's the norm to be married. Even where I live (bay area) where "partnerships" without formal marriage between heterosexual couples is very common, it's still not the norm. It's viewed as a very viable alternative.

To rule out a group of people who have no difference other than their sex of partner by saying they can't marry automatically ostracizes them. "We" have marriage, "you" have civil unions. Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but I think it's exclusive rather than inclusive.

I guess I don't have an issue with republicans in the broad sense. I do have a problem with the way the party has characterized itself. For instance, John McCain. Seems like a reasonable guy, and I really don't want him for president, but I wouldn't be heartbroken. If this whole 2-party system weren't in place, however, and politicians really spoke and rallied for what they wanted, I could accept candidates like John McCain much more openly. The fact that he had to cover his tracks when he said he didn't mind if gay couples had private ceremonies, that's when I get worried. Dems do the same, I know, but no matter how noble and progressive a republican may be, he still has to speak the language of the characterized Republican party. And this general characterization, or rather, the way the party has characterized itself, is what I object to.

How could anyone in their right mind represent that? I could never, ever back a politician who so outrightly tries to squelch the dreams of living a normal life like everyone else, be they the gay community, the immigrant community, or anyone else.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by coollikeme

I have one major problem with Democrats. They claim they don't want the death penalty, yet they will kill a baby in the form of abortion. Am I missing something here? Some one needs to explain this to me.

Sure: Abortion is not murder, because a foetus is not a baby (or a human being at all). Simple.

You can certainly argue that point (I actually suspect that it's impossible to come up with definitive proof one way or the other) but, in my experience, that's generally the belief of people who are pro-choice. It's a belief that's totally consistent with opposing the death penalty.

[joesugar]

Originally Posted by oberlee

Yes, marriage was made for procreation, eventually, I guess, for religious reasons.

Personally I don't buy this. When the great marriage debate flared up many years ago, I sat down, discussed it with others, and tried to figure out what purpose marriage serves and why we need it at all. People don't get married for procreation. Children are born every day with unmarried parents. It's not for love. There are loveless marriages all over the place and love does not depend upon the existence of a marriage. To declare their love for one another? I can take an ad out in the newspaper and do that.

I can come up with three purposes for marriage, all related to what I think are the times when it first came into being. For the husband, it provided a clear line of succession. The children coming out of a marriage were presumed to be his and would inherit. For the wife, it provided security. Once they were married the husband presumably couldn't just kick her out on the street. For the child, it provided legitimacy.

In my opinion, marriage at its basest form is simply a business arrangement, a contract, a merger if you will. Two people agree to pool assets to their common good. In doing so they gain certain rights and privileges with respect to each other. The fact that you may or may not love each other is immaterial. I think it would be better if government would get out of the marriage business completely and all we would have would be civil unions. Marriage would be a religious sacrament (like the ordination of ministers) with your particular religion setting the rules and government having nothing to do with it.

[joesugar]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I do however think that Homosexual couples deserve the same legal rights, financial benefits and same misery as the rest of us though.....

Just remember, one of the things you have to consider along with gay marriage is...gay divorce. You have to take the bad with the good.

[Brutha]

In my opinion, marriage at its basest form is simply a business arrangement,

Marriage would be a religious sacrament (like the ordination of ministers) with your particular religion setting the rules and government having nothing to do with it.

Why should churches be responsible for business arrangements?
Business should be secular.

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Why should churches be responsible for business arrangements?
Business should be secular.

"Until death do us part" is a promise of life long commitment to another human being. If we reduce that to a business arrangement we've completely missed the point.

Business deals can be broken in good conscience. A marriage - in principle - cannot.

That said, there's obviously no reason that the church should retain a monopoly.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Keith

Sure: Abortion is not murder, because a foetus is not a baby (or a human being at all). Simple.

You can certainly argue that point (I actually suspect that it's impossible to come up with definitive proof one way or the other) but, in my experience, that's generally the belief of people who are pro-choice. It's a belief that's totally consistent with opposing the death penalty.

I am not saying I am for or against abortion but I am curious to know when you consider a baby to be a human being?

Is it after they have a beating heart?
After the baby has eyes?
Or is it only after the baby has passed through the birth canal?

Just curious to know when you consider babies as being human....

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by oberlee

I have to back Pianoman here. I'm not gay, but I think if I were gay, I would want to be married if I found the right partner. But the point still remains that it's the norm to be married.

So if its the norm to be "married"... But why is it that its a norm?
I am not against gay marriages at all but why don't we just abolish marriages completely so that everyone will be happy? Marriages were created basically for raising children but most marriages end in divorce anyways so why don't we just abolish marriages all together and so everyone will be equal?

Originally Posted by oberlee

To rule out a group of people who have no difference other than their sex of partner by saying they can't marry automatically ostracizes them. "We" have marriage, "you" have civil unions. Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but I think it's exclusive rather than inclusive.

Why don't we all just say we are married when we want? Why do we need the gov't to make it official? Then anyone could be married.

Originally Posted by oberlee

I guess I don't have an issue with republicans in the broad sense. How could anyone in their right mind represent that? I could never, ever back a politician who so outrightly tries to squelch the dreams of living a normal life like everyone else, be they the gay community, the immigrant community, or anyone else.

Of course you dislike Republicans, you live in San Francisco and its a requirement...

I am not a Republican nor a Democrat and really love all people, gay or straight. My view is that both parties are useless... Also its not good to judge others...

I dislike Republicans sucking up to the Conservatives. The ultra conservatives want everyone to be Christians and want to impose their way on all.
I dislike the Democrats for sucking up to the Liberals. If the San Fran liberals truely ran the show we'd face 60% in taxation eventually. San Franciso is a fantasy land with its silicone valley economics... Its easy look down on the farm country that slaves to deliver your milk for your cafe latte. Of course you don't understand Republicans, you don't live in their world..

We need a strong independent party that is more middle of the road IMHO.

[joshziman]

Alex Jones explains it best in the 2001 movie, Waking Life.

Read the quote below or watch the clip on youtube.
YouTube - Alex Jones from Waking Life

Ron Paul is the only authentic Republican candidate.

"You can't fight city hall." "Death and taxes." "Don't talk about politics or religion." This is all the equivalent of enemy propaganda, rolling across the picket line. "Lay down, GI! Lay down, GI!". We saw it all through the 20th Century. And now on the 21st Century, it's time to stand up and realize, that we should NOT allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not SUBMIT to dehumanization. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned with what's happening in this world. I'm concerned with the structure. I'm concerned with the systems of control. Those that control my life, and those that seek to control it EVEN MORE! I want FREEDOM! That's what I want, and that's what YOU should want! It's up to each and every one of us to turn loose of just some of the greed, the hatred, the envy, and yes, the insecurities, because that is the central mode of control, make us feel pathetic, small, so we'll willingly give up our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny. We have GOT to realize we're being conditioned on a mass scale. Start challenging this corporate slave state! The 21st Century's gonna be a new century! Not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance, of classism and statism, and all the rest of the modes of control... it's gonna be the age of humankind, standing up for something PURE and something RIGHT! What a bunch of garbage, liberal, Democratic, conservative, Republican, it's all there to control you, two sides of the same coin! Two management teams, bidding for control of the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated! The TRUTH is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of LIES! I'm SICK of it, and I'M NOT GONNA TAKE A BITE OUT OF IT! DO YA GOT ME? Resistance is NOT futile, we're gonna win this thing, humankind is too good, WE'RE NOT A BUNCH OF UNDERACHIEVERS, WE'RE GONNA STAND UP, AND WE'RE GONNA BE HUMAN BEINGS! WE'RE GONNA GET FIRED UP ABOUT THE REAL THINGS, THE THINGS THAT MATTER - CREATIVITY, AND THE *DYNAMIC* *HUMAN* *SPIRIT* THAT REFUSES TO *SUBMIT*! WELL THAT'S IT, that's all I've got to say. It's in your court now.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I am not saying I am for or against abortion but I am curious to know when you consider a baby to be a human being?
Is it after they have a beating heart?
After the baby has eyes?
Or is it only after the baby has passed through the birth canal?
Just curious to know when you consider babies as being human....

My personal opinion doesn't matter a whole lot, but since you asked:

I'm a tad unorthodox in this regard, 'cos I tend to consider humanity a sliding scale. Shortly after conception, a foetus is ~0.1% human (with far less in common with a human than, say, a cockroach has) and they become increasingly human over the period of gestation. I honestly don't believe there's a single moment you can point to and say "They're human...now".

I would be hesitant to draw a line at the 50% mark, even if it could be accurately identified. IMO, the current standard of 1st trimester seems reasonable - the foetus is still a long way from being a baby at that point.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Keith

My personal opinion doesn't matter a whole lot, but since you asked:

I'm a tad unorthodox in this regard, 'cos I tend to consider humanity a sliding scale. Shortly after conception, a foetus is ~0.1% human (with far less in common with a human than, say, a cockroach has) and they become increasingly human over the period of gestation. I honestly don't believe there's a single moment you can point to and say "They're human...now".

I would be hesitant to draw a line at the 50% mark, even if it could be accurately identified. IMO, the current standard of 1st trimester seems reasonable - the foetus is still a long way from being a baby at that point.

Interesting...

[jaamkie]

if we're talking about inconsistencies, I don't see how people can be against murder- abortion OR the death penalty and yet not be vegans...

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by jaamkie

if we're talking about inconsistencies, I don't see how people can be against murder- abortion OR the death penalty and yet not be vegans...

Because that's the difference between human death and the death of other animals.

[Keith]

It's kind of weird being anti-abortion and not vegan though. A cow is a lot closer to a human being than a foetus is.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by Keith

It's kind of weird being anti-abortion and not vegan though. A cow is a lot closer to a human being than a foetus is.

Yeah, but according to most Pro-Lifers, a cow doesn't have a "soul." Human beings, since the dawn of history, have always liked to think very highly of themselves, as if the universe revolves around them (geocentricism, anyone?)