Smart Republicans?!??!!? What?!?!?

[bgoy_the_bhoy]

I've heard a lot of talk today about the idiocy of the masses, and how if people actually knew what was going on they'd have voted for Kerry. having an intelligent republican roommate I feel privileged to finally have some understanding about how people in there right mind could vote Bush. I agree that a lot of Bush's votes were from people who

Comments

[thebookofjoel]

If your roomate were an party republican, I do not see how he could vote for bush. The true values of republicanism are small government, and great personal freedoms. Today's Bush republican hides behind the great ideas of a once great peoples party as a facade to an inner fear. Or, more simply a mis understanding of what it is to be a republican. The Bush administration has overseen the largest increase in government in recent memory, and cut personal freedoms. The tax theroy of the republicans are not even being upheld by Bush. The perverse Bush republicanism relies on bravado and fear as it's main tenents. There is no sound ecomonic reason, neither republican, or libertarian. It's not republicanism, it's bushism. Bush's ecomonic advisor, N. gregory mankiw, who wrote my economics book says that the general assumption is that people will make the decision that is best for their own personal gain. If Bush is creating large deficits, is negatively affecting employment and innefectively releaving tax pressure then the decision would be

[bgoy_the_bhoy]

I agree, but would also argue that the democratic party has similarly strayed from its founding tenants, largely in part to the "anyone-but-bush" way of thinking.

as for the ban on gay marriage, I think there should be a ban on marriage entirely. it's a religious institution and shouldn't be something the state has control over. the problem lies in giving benefits to couples, so I say give everyone civil unions. my personal beef is the limits these states put on civil unions.

[thebookofjoel]

actually, marriage is NOT a religous insitution, it was coopted by the christian church. the christian church therefor, candecide who IT wants to marry, but it has NO RIGHT to say who can get married outside it's sphere of influence, which stops right at the door to the church...or at least it should. and they didn't limit them....the fucking cancelled. then.
(hell not that any homosexual would want to live in those backwater poduk states, but it's the principal).

[bgoy_the_bhoy]

right. what I meant was that IF we are going to say that marraige is a sacred thing between a man and a women, which is the only argument I've heard for banning gay marraige, then the state should have no right marrying anyone. if we ban one, we should likewise ban the other.

[aphroditebetsy]

your comments led to a really intense discussion between me and my intelligent republican roommate. I kicked her ass till next tuesday- so thanks for the debate starter.
by the way Evan, I agree. I think they cannot recognize marriage and civil unions separately if they are supposed to have the same benefits. I think we all know that historically "separate but equal" does not work. The only way to take religion out of this conflict is to separate from the religious practice of marriage and have civil unions bind people together. If people choose to have a marriage under a religion of some sort that is their choice. We can not make second-hand citizens of those who choose not to practice religion.

[thebookofjoel]

actually, marriage is NOT a religous insitution, it was coopted by the christian church. the christian church therefor, candecide who IT wants to marry, but it has NO RIGHT to say who can get married outside it's sphere of influence, which stops right at the door to the church...or at least it should. and they didn't limit them....the fucking cancelled. then.
(hell not that any homosexual would want to live in those backwater poduk states, but it's the principal).