I think Republicans in this country have lost their non-interventionist roots. Republicans should be focused on small, limited influence government. However, it seems like they aren’t what they seem.
The Republican Party Hypocrisies:
Supports large military force supported by our tax dollars
-This should not be necessary if they follow their non-interventionist foreign policy
Against Gay Marriage and Abortion
-I thought the Republican party was about limited government influence in our lives. How much more personal can you get than these two issues.
Strong Supporters of NASA
-This is a big government run program. Shouldn’t it be Democrats who are pushing this one more?
Drug Policy
-Shouldn’t Republicans be against the drug war since this is more intervention in our lives?
Gulf Spill
-Republicans argued Obama did nothing in response to the spill. But if they are true believers in small, non-interventionist government, they shouldn’t have proposed the government do a thing and let the companies take care of the issue.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I think Republicans in this country have lost their non-interventionist roots. Republicans should be focused on small, limited influence government. However, it seems like they aren’t what they seem.
The Republican Party Hypocrisies:
Supports large military force supported by our tax dollars
-This should not be necessary if they follow their non-interventionist foreign policy
[/quote]
So dems are hypocritically anti-military, when they should be pro-military?
So dems are hypocritically Pro gay marriage and pro abortion?
So dems are hypocritically anti-Nasa?
So dems are hypocritically pro-drug?
I think the bigger argument here is that bush got bashed on his responce to katrina, and obama wasn’t held to the same standard.
However, you are entirely misrepresenting the average conservative viewpoint. The typical conservative does not believe the government should do nothing. the general belief is that it should stick to doing the basic tenants of governing. Military, roads, protection of the individual, ect. When it comes to these issues, it makes since to have government intervention and it isn’t contradictory to ideals.
But yes, in general the republican party is out of touch with their base. hence, libertarians and the tea party.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I think Republicans in this country have lost their non-interventionist roots. Republicans should be focused on small, limited influence government. However, it seems like they aren’t what they seem.
The Republican Party Hypocrisies:
Supports large military force supported by our tax dollars
-This should not be necessary if they follow their non-interventionist foreign policy
[/quote]
So dems are hypocritically anti-military, when they should be pro-military?
So dems are hypocritically Pro gay marriage and pro abortion?
So dems are hypocritically anti-Nasa?
So dems are hypocritically pro-drug?
I think the bigger argument here is that bush got bashed on his responce to katrina, and obama wasn’t held to the same standard.
However, you are entirely misrepresenting the average conservative viewpoint. The typical conservative does not believe the government should do nothing. the general belief is that it should stick to doing the basic tenants of governing. Military, roads, protection of the individual, ect. When it comes to these issues, it makes since to have government intervention and it isn’t contradictory to ideals.
But yes, in general the republican party is out of touch with their base. hence, libertarians and the tea party.
[/quote]
Honestly, I think you’re responses with “So dems are hypocritically…” are pretty accurate. I wouldn’t say I’m conservative at all anymore. I’m very anti-war, pro-science, pro-healthcare which aren’t too popular with the Republican party. But I just noticed in the evaluation of my previous “Republicanism” that the Republican party is kind of off the conservative track nowadays (keep government small and out of people’s business). I definitely agree they are out of touch which resulted in the rise of the two other parties you mentioned.
And that - we love war declaration was awe-inspiring . . . I’m glad that they added the “start a new war every year” pledge and added the list of nations we were going to go to war with for the next 50 years in chronological order . . .
Irishsteel forgot about the anti healthcare plank.
I do agree thought that both parties are horrible. We have the squishy confused liberal GOP and the insane leftist America hating Dems that are in power now. There are still some Democrats who think their party is almost as bad as I do not to paint them all with the same ultra hard left Alinsky worshiping brush.
Two party system fail. A third party acts as an anchor for the policy platforms of the other parties. Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll see one in the US for a while. Either a libertarian, right wing, or perhaps moderate 3rd party would do wonders to the “us vs. them” mentality of Republican V Democrat, IE this thread, where any criticism of one party, can be flipped back onto the opposing party.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I think Republicans in this country have lost their non-interventionist roots. Republicans should be focused on small, limited influence government. However, it seems like they aren’t what they seem.
The Republican Party Hypocrisies:
Supports large military force supported by our tax dollars
-This should not be necessary if they follow their non-interventionist foreign policy
Against Gay Marriage and Abortion
-I thought the Republican party was about limited government influence in our lives. How much more personal can you get than these two issues.
Strong Supporters of NASA
-This is a big government run program. Shouldn’t it be Democrats who are pushing this one more?
Drug Policy
-Shouldn’t Republicans be against the drug war since this is more intervention in our lives?
Gulf Spill
-Republicans argued Obama did nothing in response to the spill. But if they are true believers in small, non-interventionist government, they shouldn’t have proposed the government do a thing and let the companies take care of the issue.
[/quote]
The Republicans, however, have less inclination to turn the country into to a socialist paradise like Detroit.[/quote]
I agree , The saving grace of the Dems is they do not claim to be conservative , And the Republicans want you to believe that conservative means anti poor and nothing else
Two party system fail. A third party acts as an anchor for the policy platforms of the other parties. Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll see one in the US for a while. Either a libertarian, right wing, or perhaps moderate 3rd party would do wonders to the “us vs. them” mentality of Republican V Democrat, IE this thread, where any criticism of one party, can be flipped back onto the opposing party.
[/quote]
I totally agree, The powers that controll America gives us two choices and we think we controll the direction of the country
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…the insane leftist America hating Dems that are in power now. [/quote]
Turn down the rhetoric, spawn of Beck[/quote]
Actually my views predate Beck by like a couple decades. If you knew me 20 years ago I was saying essentially the same thing then too only about different politicians (some of em are still around). I also said the same thing right here in this forum as soon as Obama looked like a serious candidate and before I ever heard of Glenn Beck. There are witnesses.
I stand by my statement. The power structure in place at this moment are enemies of the United States as founded and are accomplishing what our cold war enemies couldn’t without firing a shot. I am not, BTW, saying it started with election of Barack Obama by a long shot, but he is the first actually ill intentioned president in my lifetime. He hates this nation and is doing everything he can come hell or high water to redesign it in the image of his socialist utopian heroes.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…the insane leftist America hating Dems that are in power now. [/quote]
Turn down the rhetoric, spawn of Beck[/quote]
Actually my views predate Beck by like a couple decades. If you knew me 20 years ago I was saying essentially the same thing then too only about different politicians (some of em are still around). I also said the same thing right here in this forum as soon as Obama looked like a serious candidate and before I ever heard of Glenn Beck. There are witnesses.
I stand by my statement. The power structure in place at this moment are enemies of the United States as founded and are accomplishing what our cold war enemies couldn’t without firing a shot. I am not, BTW, saying it started with election of Barack Obama by a long shot, but he is the first actually ill intentioned president in my lifetime. He hates this nation and is doing everything he can come hell or high water to redesign it in the image of his socialist utopian heroes.[/quote]
When we have strong views and points, they are all too quick to call Rush, Beck, Hannity etc.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…the insane leftist America hating Dems that are in power now. [/quote]
Turn down the rhetoric, spawn of Beck[/quote]
Actually my views predate Beck by like a couple decades. If you knew me 20 years ago I was saying essentially the same thing then too only about different politicians (some of em are still around). I also said the same thing right here in this forum as soon as Obama looked like a serious candidate and before I ever heard of Glenn Beck. There are witnesses.
I stand by my statement. The power structure in place at this moment are enemies of the United States as founded and are accomplishing what our cold war enemies couldn’t without firing a shot. I am not, BTW, saying it started with election of Barack Obama by a long shot, but he is the first actually ill intentioned president in my lifetime. He hates this nation and is doing everything he can come hell or high water to redesign it in the image of his socialist utopian heroes.[/quote]
When we have strong views and points, they are all too quick to call Rush, Beck, Hannity etc.
[/quote]
it’s because they are “labelers” - the surest sign of a weak mind - label it and then (even if the label does not apply) dismiss the label and thus the argument . . . .
