The great conflict in the Republican platform.

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

The republican party has two sides to it, which conflict greatly. The jeebus side, which won them the last election, and the side that many people on this board probably voted for, which is the small gov, big military, fiscal responsibility, less taxes, freer markets, more power to the states side. Religion vs. Reason, I guess.

Back when I considered myself Republican, I was able to ignore the religious side of the party. It didn't really concern me. The reasonable side did. But the more they sold the religious side, the more conflicts arose with the reasonable side.

The porn and smut industry is a fine example of the conflict. In a free market, you would expect that TV would cater to the majority of the population, with some channels catering to niche markets. We've seen that in recent years, with an increase in sex on tv, and an increase in family channels. In fact, every major network has its own family channel. The porn industry, a multi-billion dollar a year industry, flourished under Clinton's administration from lack of prosecutions. The religious side of the Republican party conflicts with all of this, and so they've stacked the FCC with conservatives(social), and have a half dozen paid empoyees surfing the web for porn and a couple of dozen lawyers waiting to prosecute. So the markets should be free, only when it suits the religious right.

Currently, the battle lines have been drawn over steroids in major league baseball. There are some problems with government stepping in though. A drug test of a grown man won't show if he has ever used steroids, it will show if he is currently on them. Someone can build in a year or two what would have taken 10 years to build by using steroids, then maintain naturally. That person would have an advantage that someone who had never touched steroids would not. They only thing that could be done would be to have tests for steroids for kids starting probably at their freshman year of high school all the way through their baseball careers. It would require a big-brother type of government that is nowhere near what the Republicans preach in their platform. My other problem is that even if MLB were completely clean, as in the scenerio above, 99.9 percent of the children out there still wouldn't have a chance at being a pro athlete, which is aparently part of the reason for the crackdown.

Marijuana. many a state has decriminalized it. In ohio, if you are cought with less than 3 ounces, it is a hundred dollar fine. Can't have people doing something that feels good just because they can, so it is a minimum of a year in jail if the feds catch you. Platform ideals broken by this moral encroachment? Small gov/more power to the states.

Not recognizing gay marraige I would say takes less government resources than recognizing them, though only by a small percentage, except that they go to the extent they do in trying to make it illegal that they have wasted countless tax dollars.

It costs more of my tax dollars, and requires a bigger government, and restricts free trade to keep hookers from hooking. Gamblers from gambling. Butt sex havers from butt sex having(still illegal in 13 states). Alcohol on sunday drinkers from alcohol on sunday drinking. I'm sure you can think of a few.

I'll give it to bush, he did lower taxes, and is keeping them lower. But he didn't do it in a fiscally responsible way. And he hasn't grown the military to the size it needs to be in order to fight a decade long, and poorly named, war on terror. There is no conflict between religion and reason on that one, unless you consider the war on terror a war between religions. I don't, but I'm sure some who support the president do.

So that's why there isn't enough room in the Republican party for both me and Jesus.

[Frank Newgent]

Are the 'Pubs capable of finding a method to cover the transition costs of partially privatizing SS? Or is that not important as Armageddon is due well before the day new government bonds - issued to pay the one or two trillion transition cost - would be repaid?

Who needs fiscal responsibility if there's no tomorrow?

[caseclosed]

Is there any chance that the democrats could co-op those people who feel alienated by the religous right in the republicans?

[Lurker]

I'm a little unclear why anyone thinks govt shoudl be invovled in drug rules for Baseball. It just sounds like political posturing by Congress that they are talking about it actively.

Lurker

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

Originally posted by caseclosed
Is there any chance that the democrats could co-op those people who feel alienated by the religous right in the republicans? There's a chance I suppose. I'm not for socialism though. They'd have to be very centrist on non religious issues for me to go from voting against the republicans to voting for the democrats. I guess I'll continue to be a swing voter.

The Libertarians, on the other hand, took the good idea of personal liberties added to limited government, added a heap of crazy, put it in the bed of a crazy pickup truck, and drove it to crazy town. If they could take out a whole lot of crazy, they might get my vote. They'd probably make a dent in the democrat strongholds. They would win the republicans not voting religion, and the democrats who only vote social issues. Enough to be a serious 3rd party contender? Who knows.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by caseclosed
Is there any chance that the democrats could co-op those people who feel alienated by the religous right in the republicans? Not as long as they continue to believe the myths about Democrats as portrayed by the Republicans, and as we've seen plenty on this board, they tend to swallow whatever the Republicans feed them.

I believe the "reason" group ideas, as defined by Manfred, are more aligned with the recent Democratic agenda (real, not the Republican straw men) then the Republican Religious Right's agenda.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Who needs fiscal responsibility if there's no tomorrow?

Even if belief in imminent Armageddon isn't a factor, there's still the fact that most lawmakers are well past middle-aged, and usually quite wealthy with it. Social Security decisions are made by people who won't need it themselves, and would be dead before the system crashes anyway. They will also be able to leave their children comfortable, so they have little personal stake in what happens to Social Security.

I wish every member of Congress would try to live off eight hundred bucks a month, and see how they like it! They might take money matters more seriously afterwards.

[Silicon]

You're politically around where I sit, MVR.

Fiscally conservative, socially libertarian.

But with the added general needle saying that more access to a good education can solve most of society's ills cheaper than locking people up.

I think huge economic growth can be seeded by prudent, judicious government spending on education, scientific research and the infrastructure necessary for commerce, and those wind up being cheaper in the long run than stop gap spending on the back end. I'd rather there be oversite than huge government bail-outs of industries which cook the books, for instance.


Since we aren't a manual-labor workforce by and large, education is the key to reducing poverty and the problems that accompany it. And it is fiscally conservative to do so.

It can actually be fiscally more responsible to teach a man to fish than to have to hand him and his welfare family a fish every day.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Lurker
I'm a little unclear why anyone thinks govt shoudl be invovled in drug rules for Baseball. It just sounds like political posturing by Congress that they are talking about it actively.

Lurker They are already involved. Baseball has been a federally protected monopoly since 1922. Let Congress end Basball's monopoly, and then we can say that the government is not involved in Baseball, drugs or otherwise. But as long as they are protected from competition, I never shed a tear when the government threatens to get involved. I wouldn't care if Congress tried to redraw the strike box.

[AtheistArchon]

The republican party has two sides to it, which conflict greatly. The jeebus side, which won them the last election, and the side that many people on this board probably voted for, which is the small gov, big military, fiscal responsibility, less taxes, freer markets, more power to the states side. Religion vs. Reason, I guess.

- Thing is, I'm not anti-Republican. I'm really not. My family is Republican, I was raised in a military household, etc. What I absolutely cannot fathom is why anyone aside from the religiously deluded would vote for Bush for a second term after the disaster that is Chimp Incorporated Term One.

- Sure, he lowered taxes... look at the debt. Sure, he "speaks to the common man"... he is a common man. Sure, he strikes a mean pose on an aircraft carrier... look at the mess in Iraq we're still dealing with after "major combat ops have ended" (but that banner, that was a mistake... combat ops are done but we didn't mean to ever say "mission accomplished"). Sure, he calls himself a war president... at war with the wrong f%@king country, swimming in WMD's. I mean sand. Same difference, heh heh?

- I'm sorry, I'm just still not over the overwhelming evidence presented to me that over half the nation thinks that that's the way to run a country. It's either the religion thing, in which case the voters aren't thinking at all, or it's a party loyalty thing, in which case the voters are swallowing party bromides and talking points without question.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Not as long as they continue to believe the myths about Democrats as portrayed by the Republicans.

Wrong. The democrats loose the independent votes due to their stances and gun control, taxes and affirmative action. I know it's more comfortable for you to believe that it has more to do with republican propaganda, but face it, the dems have shot themselves in the foot over those issues.

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

Originally posted by Silicon
But with the added general needle saying that more access to a good education can solve most of society's ills cheaper than locking people up.

I think huge economic growth can be seeded by prudent, judicious government spending on education, scientific research and the infrastructure necessary for commerce, and those wind up being cheaper in the long run than stop gap spending on the back end. I'd rather there be oversite than huge government bail-outs of industries which cook the books, for instance. I agree one hundred percent. If I were to win the lottery, highly unlikely as I don't play, I would pay for college education of all my nephews and cousins, and everyone who wanted to go to college. I figure pay for that, and they won't ask for money later.

It's just cheaper to educate everyone.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Not as long as they continue to believe the myths about Democrats as portrayed by the Republicans, and as we've seen plenty on this board, they tend to swallow whatever the Republicans feed them.

I believe the "reason" group ideas, as defined by Manfred, are more aligned with the recent Democratic agenda (real, not the Republican straw men) then the Republican Religious Right's agenda.

Ah yes...

The Republicans are all mind-numbed robots, but the Democrats are all clear-seeing sages... :nope: :rolleyes:


:D

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Ah yes...

The Republicans are all mind-numbed robots, but the Democrats are all clear-seeing sages... :nope: :rolleyes:


:D

Yeah, yeah, yeah, take what somebody says way out of context, exagerate it, and then make fun of the position that you have unethically suggested is theirs.

Yeah, yeah.

"Keep on message" ::= "Lie anytime you need to"

[Kodiak]

As a godless libertarian/conservative, I've historically voted GOP nationally as being the lesser of only two electable evils, and voted either GOP or Libertarian locally.

I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I'll tell you what: Unless the GOP runs the perfect candidate against current Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm (a Democrat), she's getting my vote. IMO, she's done an excellent job running the state, and hasn't raised taxes!...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj
Yeah, yeah, yeah, take what somebody says way out of context, exagerate it, and then make fun of the position that you have unethically suggested is theirs.

Yeah, yeah.

"Keep on message" ::= "Lie anytime you need to"

"Lie"?

Lighten up, old man...

You didn't see the smilie face?

Jeez... :)

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak
"Lie"?

Lighten up, old man...

You didn't see the smilie face?

Jeez... :)

Well, you know, it's about exactly how someone would have written it if they were spewing Rove-talk at 100%, and the smiley would have been ridicule.

If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry.

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I'll tell you what: Unless the GOP runs the perfect candidate against current Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm (a Democrat), she's getting my vote. IMO, she's done an excellent job running the state, and hasn't raised taxes!...

Y'all sound about like me at about age 30.

Give it a few years.

As for raising taxes, well, do we raise ours now to pay for this war, or do we raise our kids by 10x as much?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by jj

As for raising taxes, well, do we raise ours now to pay for this war, or do we raise our kids by 10x as much?

Howbout the latter, and then I won't have kids!


I WIN!!!! I PASSED IT ON TO YOUR KIDS!!!


Losers!

:p








(For the record, I have kids. DAMN!)

[geni]

If you want to get the relgious right out of the republican party it is very simple. Support the constitution party. They represent the relgious right far better than the republican party ever could.

[hgc]

Originally posted by geni
If you want to get the relgious right out of the republican party it is very simple. Support the constitution party. They represent the relgious right far better than the republican party ever could. Oh come on. That's like saying Michael Jordan could dunk a ball far better than Kobe Bryant ever will. Kobe can still dunk it pretty damn good. And Bush/DeLay's Republican party, under the intellectual guidance of Grover Norquist, has unmistakable theocratic leanings.

[geni]

Originally posted by hgc
Oh come on. That's like saying Michael Jordan could dunk a ball far better than Kobe Bryant ever will. Kobe can still dunk it pretty damn good. And Bush/DeLay's Republican party, under the intellectual guidance of Grover Norquist, has unmistakable theocratic leanings.

The constitution party does not have theocratic leanings.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

[hgc]

Originally posted by geni
The constitution party does not have theocratic leanings.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/ Thanks for the link. I'll quote the mission statement (underline mine):The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.Now that's what I call theocratic leanings. But then one man's theocracy is another man's, uh, what do you call it, anyway?

[geni]

Originally posted by hgc
Thanks for the link. I'll quote the mission statement (underline mine):Now that's what I call theocratic leanings. But then one man's theocracy is another man's, uh, what do you call it, anyway?

I would not describe that as "leanings" I feel that they go a bit beyond leanings.

[hgc]

Originally posted by geni
I would not describe that as "leanings" I feel that they go a bit beyond leanings. Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your statement as meaning that the Constitution Party is non-theocratic.

But then back to my point about the Republican Party under the current leadership. I don't think there is a reason for the majority of Republican voters who strongly support our government promoting Christianity to jump to the Constitution Party, since the Republican Party, especially George Bush, does a lot for their cause.