(Untitled)
Okay Republicans, let me get this straight: If a woman wants the right to sue over getting lesser pay for the same work, but doesn't find out about it until more than six months after she started getting an unequal paycheck for the first time, then she wants to file a "frivolous lawsuit." But when a Republican candidate for Senator sues over losing
( Read more... )
Conservatives that are the religious end and not the fiscal end piss me off, we are supposed to have a separation between church and state, some of us Republicans actually believe that, too. Meh, I'm a "moderate" republican though, so... yeah. As far as the party goes, though... how can you stand having to choose one of the ten amendments in the bill of rights over another? Gah, that's so fucking annoying: Freedom of Speech, but Anti-Gun... >.> Honestly, I think we should keep ALL of 'em... and Michael Moore-- your turn to explain how you take that kind of stuff from major contributaries to the political party, as well as some of the corruption issues. (Each side is flawed, but it's up to an individual to choose what they see as the lesser of two evils, what does less collateral damage, or what is more closely marketted to their ideals... I can vote either way, but for local gov't I almost solely vote Republican because they have 0 control over my more liberal tendencies. <3<3<3)
Reply
Of course, it seems they only want decentralized government when it comes to charging taxes or helping the poor. When it comes to things like, say, gay rights, it's the Republican Party that is pounding the table and beating their chests to prevent the Federal Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, or allowing gays to openly serve in the military.
Speaking of the military, I always wonder how the anti-tax people propose to pay for the military if they get rid of taxes. Especially considering the military takes up the majority of the fiscal budget... and it isn't even close. (Don't get me wrong - I'm in favor of a strong military. I just happen to think we need reasonable ways to pay for it).
Frankly, the Republican Party is currently pushing out the moderates from the Party. See: Arlen Spector. He was a moderate Republican. Now he's a moderate Democrat. He hasn't changed his views on anything, but the GOP has left him behind. That's what I mean by the change in the Party. You're claiming they haven't abandoned their ideals. I'm making the claim that they have. Small government isn't the main focus of the GOP anymore. Social Conservatism is.
Reply
Also, as far as Gays in the Military... >.> Yeah, I think they updated the don't ask don't tell to Simon, which is still bullshit, anyone who wants to serve in the country should be entitled to so long as they aren't planning to use said training for a windy day on the grassy knoll. All you're really proving to me is how little you know about how many moderate Republicans view our own party and how much you hate Conservatives. XD (Join the party... no, really... we'd have so much in common... minus some of your taxation stances. XD)
Reply
For example, Specter changed parties because polls showed that he was going to lose the Republican Primary badly. Analysis shows that a great deal of Specter's support among the Republicans changed parties last year to vote for Obama in the Primaries. That's the easiest example for me to give, because it's both recent, and in my home state, but it's certainly not an isolated instance.
I do know about moderate Republicans. I can, and do, respect them. But they aren't the ones in charge of the Party anymore. That's the point I've been trying to make.
As for me joining the Republican Party - sorry, but I do believe the Government can do a lot of good, and should do so. I may by in favor of Capitalism, but I'm not a small-government person. I may not agree with everything the Party wants to do, but I agree with them a whole lot more than the Republican Party. I'm very, very liberal, after all. I'd be registered with the Green Party if were less pragmatic :P
Reply
1. Even the Amendments (and there are more than 10 of them now :P ) have limits. Freedom of Speech is (rightfully) limited when it comes to acts of slander, or the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example. One does not have a right to protected speech when it comes to threatening another person's life, for example. So why is it okay for there to be limits on some amendments, and not others? When it comes to the Second Amendment, the discussion is really over where the line should be, rather than whether there should be a line. After all, I don't see too many people on either side of the debate saying that their right to bear arms extends to grenade launchers.
2. Support for strict gun restrictions isn't universal among Democrats. A lot of people (including myself) are more in favor of Howard Dean's approach: leave it to regional lawmakers. After all, what might make sense for New York City isn't going to work for Montana or Alaska.
As for Michael Moore - I'm not blaming the GOP for Limbaugh, who is the GOP equivalent. I'm blaming the GOP for people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK), and other elected officials. Limbaugh is a gas-bag, but he's not an elected official. Likewise, Moore is a gas-bag, but he's not an elected official, either.
I do tend to think that the current Democratic Party's failures are lesser crimes than the current Republican Party's. Screwing up on something like exactly how we tax people, or whether someone should be allowed to have high-powered assault weapons is something I consider to be less harmful than trying to tell an entire group of people that they don't deserve to be treated equally. The latter is something the GOP has been doing an awful lot of lately.
Reply
Hey, now, I'm not saying one can't LIMIT certain aspects, after all, the INTENTIONS of the bill of rights and most of the other amendments are how to protect personal liberties, but once a personal liberty infringes upon someone ELSE'S personal liberty it becomes problematic and thus secular laws go there to help. Yes, yes grenade launchers (unless you are a Right-Winger in Oregon and have a special little day camp) are usually seen as unnecessary levels of home defense, however... saying people with certain psychological disorders can't own guns like say if they had a bout of depression after the death of a spouse...THAT starts to infringe upon personal liberties. 3 Day waiting laws and other laws intended to keep people from owning weapons, Washington DC ... well, period... and other "snags" in licensing processies were done to basically completely disarm even elegible people. No-one is saying You have the Freedom of Religion-- except the Hindus, but people do make cut-offs for others, now, certain felonies, yeah, you've made it to where you've invaded other people's liberties so you shouldn't own a gun like if you killed a person or raped them... but if you, say, didn't pay your taxes to a point of grand-theft you can never own a gun again? Fuck that.
Not all Dems are so keen on gay marriage, either, don't forget the blue-collar Pittsburgians who vote union, aka Dem... some of them are pretty conservative, but because liberals piggy-back on the Dem team, they have to vote liberal when they vote Dem... and Cheney, for the record, was NOT against the gay marriage stance, his daughter came out of the closet and it became a bit of a thing for some conservatives. As far as what the Dems are doing now as far as bail-outs though, the massive amounts of fraud and siphoning of funds is pretty damn criminal and disgusting saying how many people are still folding under, how many are losing jobs, getting tax hikes AND how CEOs are making off with bags of loot... and that's because of some horrific lack of foresight on the Dem part. Sorry, but, I think that's pretty horrible. *Sighs* And now I just have to say the cliche: "The Dems target a group alright-- the white middle-class family man" blah blah blah... but, everyone has a group they target, taxation is never equal- and btw-- I sure as hell didn't get a rebate check from Uncle Sam that Prez Obama claimed I'd receive. Trust me, I am WELL below the poverty line but.. bah.. grad school. *Groans*
Magic arm waving basically says we agree about the gay-rights section entirely except that not all REPUBLICANS have conservative views about that issue, and not all Democrats have such liberal views to it either. That is a line between Conservative v. Liberal. >.> And yeah, Limbaugh is crazy, but he's only crazy on the radio where old people listen... and Cali has lots of Liberal disc-jockies too... but Moore makes movies.
Reply
Every right granted by the Constitution is equal (though if I were to grant "more equal" status to any rights, it would have to be the habeas corpus and "no ex-post facto" rights granted in the original Articles). It's just that Amendment 18 is no longer part of the Constitution ;)
As for Democrats not backing gay marriage - I'm well aware of that. But the Democratic Party hasn't staged get-out-the-vote campaigns based around voting against same-sex marriage. They haven't made it part of the Party platform. They haven't actively campaigned against it. It's also worth noting that the only states where legislation permitting same-sex marriage has passed have come from Democrat-controlled legislatures, and a few more Democrat-controlled legislatures are currently working on doing the same in other states.
If you're going to condemn the bail-outs, though, you may want to consider that they were originally proposed by the Bush Administration, and when it was the Democrats who wanted to attach strings to the bail-out, it was the Republicans and Bush who fought against those strings. So don't make out the bail-out fiasco like it was solely a Democrat idea.
I'm not sure how the CEOs making out is a fault of the Democrats either - I thought restrictions on what a business could or couldn't do was something Republicans didn't want? Even before getting elected, Obama was calling for caps on executive pay, and plenty of restrictions on who could and couldn't get bail-out money. But when those provisions were put in the legislation, Bush threatened to veto it. Feeling that they had to pass something quickly, Congress (both parties) voted for the blank-check that was given to Bush's Administration. Yes, that was stupid, but that wasn't only one party's fault :P
Moore makes movies, but Bill O'Reilly is on the TV airwaves every weekday night. People have to pay to watch Moore's exaggerations. They don't have to pay to watch O'Reilly and friends, who are just as bad as Moore.
I don't agree with everything the Democratic Party does, and I know not every Republican agrees with everything the GOP does, but there are some very key issues for me, that are very important, and the Republican Party comes down very hard against those issues. One of those issues, the Democratic Party is wishy-washy on (same-sex marriage), but there's at least a growing tide among the Democrats shifting towards being in favor. I don't see the same among Republicans.
Reply
I still think the best way to change a political platform is to be INSIDE the party and write letters. Otherwise, they think those opinions are those of the constituents and just support them more and more, after all, once you leave it hardly means you'll vote for them.
So, how's the family? XD
Reply
Leave a comment