Republican Greatness?

My reply is going to be muddied up a bit. My perception of what the Rep. party should stand for will be my context. The Rep. party now isn't the best example to use for my assertions...

What specifically appeals to you about Republicans or their position on the issues?
Click to expand...

1. Social...Pro-life, traditional values, conforming to Judeo Christian Philosophy that helped found this country in the first place...

2. Involvment... smaller fed govt, conforming to the Constitution, lower taxes, less gov't. spending, efficiently run depts. such as the CIA, etc, support for a cutting edge reasonably larger military...

what have Republicans done to increase your individual liberties and how have you benefited either financially or otherwise?
Click to expand...

1. lowered taxes
2. gave tax credits on having children
3. pushing to make items 1 and 2 permanent
4. supports school voucher program-In an example, whatever dollar amount you have to pay in taxes to the school that your child should attend in the district you're in, you get a large percentage of that and can place your child in the school of YOUR choice and that money goes to that school
5. Fought for eminent domain. Your property is your property. No scumbag land developer can have the local govt. condemn your property so that he can buy it from them and turn it into a strip mall. I haven't specifically seen the fed govt level take action against local level govts from disallowing this, but the fed govt hasn't seem to run rampant either on allowing it or practicing it themselves. This, actually may be a state issue that should take the credit in my area. IIRC, the fed govt backed the citizen here that fought for keeping his property intact.
6. THIS is a BIG item that IMHO Bush bashers don't want to readily admit that he has done quite well...
More and more states are evolving from 'No issue' or 'May issue' to a 'Shall issue' rights. This, IMO, is HUGE. Why do I give the Bush adm. such high praise? Well, Cheney has been to several NRA events praising this and giving his support of this. What did Bush do personally? Well, he did what most people want out the fed. gov't....they kept their nose out of what the states were doing regarding this...

what have Republicans done to reduce the size or limit the power of the federal government?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this I cannot recall anything at the moment. This is one of my big disappointments of recent years...

This is my take...
 
Simple, really

I firmly believe that dealing with muslim extremism will be the most important issue facing the US (and my children) for the next 50 years. The republicans (mostly) get that. The Dems want me to have health insurance....
 
Democrat message: Your a victim, America has stacked the deck against you, the powerful are keeping you down, leave your future to US. We will collect what should be yours from those that have unfairly cheated you. American needs to lose and learn a lesson. America is an unjust oppressor and needs International guidance.
Click to expand...

Bruxley - well juxtaposed. But it should have read...
We will collect what should be yours from those that have unfairly cheated you and redistribute it to you and 137 others we feel deserve part of your pie too.

JuanCarlos - It's a rare thing, but I agree with you 100% here.
See, and I've found the few Libertarian candidates I've looked into fall somewhere between "slightly more fiscally conservative than I'd like" to "stark raving mad." ...

The (D)'s may run socialists, and the (R)'s may run neocons, but the (L)'s far too often run absolute whackjobs.
Click to expand...

Some libertarians sound reasonable until you get to certain points and then - oh brother! Foreign policy is a weak point of theirs. So is taking in enough money to run the government and pay for certain costs, like advanced military weapons and bioresearch. Once you lift the covers you find little solid substance to backup some of their claims.

I find it amusing that the Republican party is called "the party of the rich". They got stuck with this tag somewhere after the civil war. Yet, the WSJ did an analysis of a half dozen congress members' donations and Republicans garnered over 64% of their money from small direct donations from citizens, whereas Democrats received something like 57% of their campaign monies from expensive fundraisers (in LA, NYC, Chicago, etc) and PACs of some sort.
 
Whats So Good?

I like keeping what little money I make.

WMD ?? Ask the 7,000 Kurds that got gassed if they was there or not?

Muslim Extremist, are not going to go away!

It took more people involved then just President Bush to get us into Iraq! We need to finish the job at hand.

I think the Federal Government has far Exceeded it's intended purpose!

They are not in the Tax an Spend Mode!:barf:
 
+1 Of Manedwolf's explanation.

Also.. The lesser of 2 evils.

The thing... A lot of gun-owners are conservative or republican. Democrats are the opposite in every way.

And.....basically I look at democrats and.... (Really. No bashing intended) I see Socialist's.....
 
And.....basically I look at democrats and.... (Really. No bashing intended) I see Socialist's.....
Click to expand...
given the last seven years.....I see no difference in the two Pro-Govt parties
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here we go putting words in people's mouths again, ManedWolf...

Now where did I ever imply that somebody wasn't responsible for their actions? Yes, they chose to commit that crime, so yes they need to be dealt with (and I'd say I'm just as pessimistic on their chances for rehabilitation as any of you). However, while you're beating your chest about being tough on crime, you're ignoring that there are very real social factors at work manufacturing those little monsters that grow up into the big ones.

Give me the spiel about personal responsibility later, but at the end of the day a child doesn't choose their environment and not very many people are born with such a powerful proclivity for empathy that they develop it when their entire environment stifles and outright suppresses its growth.
 
CDFT,
Are you saying there is an increased number of sociopaths?

Are you referring to the effects of marginalizing the importance of child rearing inside of a marriage with a mother modeling nurturing traits and a father modeling standards and discipline and both of them modeling how to cope with difficult interpersonal conflicts? The personal responsibility a parent has to raise a productive citizen?

Did anyone have the perfect or even near ideal childhood?

Sounds a little like the 'your a victim' message.
 
Give me the spiel about personal responsibility later, but at the end of the day a child doesn't choose their environment and not very many people are born with such a powerful proclivity for empathy that they develop it when their entire environment stifles and outright suppresses its growth.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't matter where they grew up, good parenting should nip just about anything in the bud. When you have poor parenting and a lack of interest by parents, then you get unproductive members of society. It's not the Govt's fault that many of the children in poor areas grow up without fathers to be a role model to their kids. Sorry, I don't buy into the whole "I'm a product of my environement" routine. These kids have choices too, like stay in school for 1. There are certainly more grants and scholarships available to poor, inner-city minorities than white kids that grow up in the suburbs. Oh yeah, that reminds me, I like the republican party because of the affirmative action BS the libs have been pushing on us for years as well. The right person for the job, PERIOD! The dems are also the ones who fought to take prayer out of public schools yet give Muslims their time to pray during school hours. Does any of this seem backwards, or is it just me? Also, whats with the guilt that many of the Dems have about the USA being the only true super power anymore? These guys are out of their minds.
 
You don't need "perfect or near-ideal" parenting to grow up normally. All you need is at least one parental figure who spends time with you and really cares about you. Of course if a child hangs out with juvenile delinquints, a mother who only has time to see her child for two hours a day might not be able to keep up, but that's what quality after-school care is for. And even a mother who doesn't care can't completely trash a child who has at least one good role model who cares about them.

And then JAXX says "Shouldn't matter where they grew up, good parenting should nip just about anything in the bud." and I immediately stop reading (okay, I lied, he goes on to agree with me in his second sentence). That quoted sentence would make sense if we were discussing punishing awful parents for the crimes of their adult children, but the discussion is about how a person, on their eighteenth birthday, does not sit down and decide how they would like to have been raised.

And yes, the child can make choices to stay in school. But 1) Do you honestly expect a child to make rational decisions? I thought that's why school attendance was mandatory in the first place. And 2) Think of it as a positive feedback loop. A child that is already messed up will make bad decisions for themselves that mess them up further.

Seriously, for a party big on individual responsibility, you sure love collective punishment... You complain that they're all degenerates, and don't do anything to try to... Well, you know, stop the cycle. It's not some grand liberal agenda to steal your money, it's actually in your interest if you want to dampen crime.

:D But then there's always the classic "Nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure." :cool:
 
For me it's simple.

The Democratic leadership, over the last 40 years, has shown it does not believe individuals should be allowed to own firearms.

They believe the 2nd Amendment is a collective right rather than an individual right.
 
Whoa CDFT, how is it "collective punishment" to adopt a laissez faire approach? Stop subsidizing the breeding of unwanted children through handouts is part of that approach. Give tax reductions for children to those who work and earn. Arrest and incarcerate criminals, period. If they leave children behind then put them in orphanages, preferably run by private and religious charities who want to raise the children with respect and values. I've talked to people raised in Catholic orphanages after being taken out of abusive homes who loved it. Orphanages don't have to be Dickensian. We used to protect the innocent and punish the guilty much better than we do now with multi-billion dollar government programs.

As for Ron Paul, I don't care for many of his ideas but I do like the idea of running the government off of duties making imports more expensive and exports cheaper (by cutting out the taxes absorbed by every exported product). It would have several salutary effects. People with below average intelligence would be employed in living wage jobs in the manufacturing area, making them and their children better citizens and more productive. We would also stop subsidizing the military of our most likely future adversary, Red China.
 
what have Republicans done to reduce the size or limit the power of the federal government?
Click to expand...

I'll take another shot at that one. This is a repost.

With the Bush administration drawing to a close and 2008 budget projections in the books, it is now possible to examine the growth in government spending under the Clinton and Bush administrations.

From 1993 to 2000, total spending grew from $1,409,500,000,000 to $1,789,200,000,000, an increase of about $380 billion. Total spending fell from 21.4% of GDP to 18.4% during that same time.

From 2001 to 2008 (if we are to believe the estimate) total spending will have grown from $1,863,200,000,000 to $2,901,900,000,000, an increase of a little over a trillion dollars. Total spending went from 18.5% of GDP in 2001 to an estimated 20% in 2008.

A trillion dollars is a lot of money. Imagine Bill Gates' net worth of almost $25 billion. Now imagine 40 of those piles of loot. That is the EXTRA amount being spent EACH YEAR since the end of the Clinton administration.

Great job, Republicans.
 
Does that include defense spending, which Clinton cut to the bone, or not?
Click to expand...

You can read the numbers for yourself by looking at the Economic Report of the President, but for the research-impaired, here is the answer:

In 1993, total defense spending was $278.5 billion.
By 2001, it had been "cut" to $290.2 billion, a "decrease" of negative 12 billion dollars. Note the double negative.

People might say the Republicans have expanded the government by a trillion dollars per year because we are at war, but the numbers show that is less than 1/3 of the answer. During the period from 2001 to 2008 (if we are to believe the projections), defense spending will have grown from that 290 billion to 583 billion, an increase of a little under 300 billion. The other 700+ billion is accounted for by growth in government in other areas.
 
Bruxley - I appreciate your reply and I do realize my title was a little pejorative. It was a witty quip (". . . not the bite the bait expected) which I always appreciate.

For me, I realize the Democrats jumped the tracks some time ago. I guess I wonder whether many support the Republican Party simply because they are not Democrats or if they fundamental agree with a lot of the Republican agenda. Or more to the point, do you support what Republicans actual do and have done.

I cannot fully embrace the Libertarian party, because I do believe government has a role to play in society. While corporate America is more efficient in delivering goods and services, it is not the panacea for all problems. Our own history illustrates some of the failings of laissez-faire capitalism that led to governmental intervention.

While I think “thread evolution” is okay, it would be nice if neither Iraq nor Ron Paul became the principle topic. Of course, the divergent political opinion regarding the war is certainly relevant. And while I think both Parties are aware of the threat stemming from Islamic Fundementalism and terrorism in general, opinions of how best to combat the problem are certainly debatable.

Ultimately, I want to hear from those who are proud to be a Republican and why and not about what you hate about Democrats and why.
 
The Dems

want to increase government control over you by taxing you harder and have you jump like a trained monkey for subsidies. They want to take away your rights and freedom, where ever such can be found. I do not like the religious tone of the Reps though. You do not have to be religious to be against Muslim crap. The real power of America is its people. Do not strap that source down like the Dems want to do. Public health care sucks. I pay forty dollars per month for a private basic insurance and I do not have issues with that. The Hillary bitch is just too much. ****ing die, will you?!
 
Thank You!!!!!!

That's a good point! The Dems whittled down the military to the point that we can't deal with what would have been a minor conflict without calling up the Reserves!

When I was in the USAF 1979-1990 We went from adequate people to working 6 twelve hour days. Not much fun. What are these poor kids doing now?

We no longer have the Reserves! Just second line! NO INSULT TO THE RESERVE PEOPLE. Reserves use to be a way to obtain a education and serve your country in a lower level. Now it's a one way ticket to the problems of the world!

New Mexico has advertisements on tv every day, every night and can't seem to entice the young folks to indulge. Ge , I wonder Why!:barf:
 
I guess I wonder whether many support the Republican Party simply because they are not Democrats or if they fundamental agree with a lot of the Republican agenda. Or more to the point, do you support what Republicans actual do and have done.
Click to expand...

I view myself as a traditionalist conservative. I don't always walk the extremely narrow line like I've observed here by some members' definition thereof. With that, I have my own personal beliefs and do my best to form my opinions on how this country should be run per the Constitution basing it on reading it for myself, the Founding Fathers writings, and respected historians. To get to your question, I honestly don't care too much what ticket the candidate runs on. If he/she has a voting record and plan for the future if voted that is similar to my ideas, he/she has my vote...period.

I support what the Republican party has done up to the middle of Bush's second term. I don't support overall what they are doing now. This opinion is based on a national level, not necessarily on the state or local level....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top