Republican Party Hypocrisies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
lolz at op being “pro science” as compared to…what, the anti science republican party? if they are anti science, where is the GOP going to get the technology for bigger bombs?

Blowin shit up takes science.

Ah politics. [/quote]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html

There are other examples. Like wanting theology taught in Science class. [/quote]

Yeah, Ive seen that before, its horseshit. I was bein sarcastic, and just got a kick out of the phrase “pro science.”

42

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Both parties suck.

The Republicans, however, have less inclination to turn the country into to a socialist paradise like Detroit.[/quote]

What’s wrong with Detroit? Just because it looks a like a post apocalypse scenario, with abandoned, hollowed out buildings, trash everywhere, a place where people warm themselves by being next to a burning police car, everybody is poor and nobody, except for Kid Rock and Eminem, doesn’t mean that socialism doesn’t work…
I mean, look at Dearborn…They are so well taken care of, they don’t even remotely have to integrate.

43

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
lolz at op being “pro science” as compared to…what, the anti science republican party? if they are anti science, where is the GOP going to get the technology for bigger bombs?

Blowin shit up takes science.

Ah politics. [/quote]

LMAO - awesome post DF!

44

The best thing about republicans is that they are not democrats. I agree with about 50% of the republican party stances. I agree with about .01% of democrat party stances. I can also say that what I disagree with on republicans is still far less permanent and damaging that the disagreements I have with democrats.

For instance, how are we going to undo do this health care debacle for instance? You realize it would have been cheaper to buy every man, woman and child, of the 31 million uninsured, a “Cadillac” insurance plan, than this horrible bill, that’s going to drive up the cost of health care even more for me and my “average Joe” cronies.

45

[quote]pat wrote:
The best thing about republicans is that they are not democrats. I agree with about 50% of the republican party stances. I agree with about .01% of democrat party stances. I can also say that what I disagree with on republicans is still far less permanent and damaging that the disagreements I have with democrats.

For instance, how are we going to undo do this health care debacle for instance? You realize it would have been cheaper to buy every man, woman and child, of the 31 million uninsured, a “Cadillac” insurance plan, than this horrible bill, that’s going to drive up the cost of health care even more for me and my “average Joe” cronies. [/quote]

I agree with you , I also agree with a small portion of each party, the difference I see is the Dems know they are not conservative , but the Republicans think because their policies are anti poor that they get to wear the conservative hat

I wish there were more Republicans like you when that bill was crafted

46

[quote]pat wrote:
The best thing about republicans is that they are not democrats. I agree with about 50% of the republican party stances. I agree with about .01% of democrat party stances. I can also say that what I disagree with on republicans is still far less permanent and damaging that the disagreements I have with democrats.

For instance, how are we going to undo do this health care debacle for instance? You realize it would have been cheaper to buy every man, woman and child, of the 31 million uninsured, a “Cadillac” insurance plan, than this horrible bill, that’s going to drive up the cost of health care even more for me and my “average Joe” cronies. [/quote]
Yep. This is it. Republicans are simply wrong about a bunch of stuff, but democrats, modern ones, are washing away the foundations of this nation. There’s a vast difference between erroneously believing your policies will make America stronger and believing that America has been far too strong for far too long and for all the wrong reasons.

47

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The best thing about republicans is that they are not democrats. I agree with about 50% of the republican party stances. I agree with about .01% of democrat party stances. I can also say that what I disagree with on republicans is still far less permanent and damaging that the disagreements I have with democrats.

For instance, how are we going to undo do this health care debacle for instance? You realize it would have been cheaper to buy every man, woman and child, of the 31 million uninsured, a “Cadillac” insurance plan, than this horrible bill, that’s going to drive up the cost of health care even more for me and my “average Joe” cronies. [/quote]

I agree with you , I also agree with a small portion of each party, the difference I see is the Dems know they are not conservative , but the Republicans think because their policies are anti poor that they get to wear the conservative hat

I wish there were more Republicans like you when that bill was crafted[/quote]

Technically I am not republican, I consider myself independent. I will probably vote that way this up coming election. The power base it way to one sided and I feel I need to even it out.

The worst fucking thing that happened to the Republican party is “family values”. That’s where the bus turned south. I want the freedom to have family values or not, but not be bothered by the governement in either case.
Then democrats go to far in the other direction. They try to make non-“family values” every bodies business. In either way you have governement intruding in to daily lives and I want that shit to stop.

48

[quote]pat wrote:

Technically I am not republican, I consider myself independent. I will probably vote that way this up coming election. The power base it way to one sided and I feel I need to even it out.

The worst fucking thing that happened to the Republican party is “family values”. That’s where the bus turned south. I want the freedom to have family values or not, but not be bothered by the governement in either case.
Then democrats go to far in the other direction. They try to make non-“family values” every bodies business. In either way you have governement intruding in to daily lives and I want that shit to stop.[/quote]

More and more the people who vote Republican 99% of the time, don’t self-identify as Republicans. All I can think is 1) they self-identify as rugged individualists, and think they’re too cool for a party and/or are total tools who like the “independent” moniker, or 2) they’re too lazy to get out there and push for a third party in their state and local elections.

Not saying that’s you. I just can’t believe how many people I know who ALWAYS vote straight Republican party ticket, and make a big deal about how they’re actually independent.

I agree with you on the “Moral Majority” aspect of the Republicans. It completely destroyed he self-consistent philosophy of a small, hands-off government, the Republicans used be able to legitimately pretend they had. Now they are so clearly just Democrats with a different social agenda.

49

If Republicans became hostile to social conservatism, I’d just vote for socially conservative Democrats when available.

50

I nam a regisrered Independent

51

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Technically I am not republican, I consider myself independent. I will probably vote that way this up coming election. The power base it way to one sided and I feel I need to even it out.

The worst fucking thing that happened to the Republican party is “family values”. That’s where the bus turned south. I want the freedom to have family values or not, but not be bothered by the governement in either case.
Then democrats go to far in the other direction. They try to make non-“family values” every bodies business. In either way you have governement intruding in to daily lives and I want that shit to stop.[/quote]

More and more the people who vote Republican 99% of the time, don’t self-identify as Republicans. All I can think is 1) they self-identify as rugged individualists, and think they’re too cool for a party and/or are total tools who like the “independent” moniker, or 2) they’re too lazy to get out there and push for a third party in their state and local elections.

Not saying that’s you. I just can’t believe how many people I know who ALWAYS vote straight Republican party ticket, and make a big deal about how they’re actually independent.

I agree with you on the “Moral Majority” aspect of the Republicans. It completely destroyed he self-consistent philosophy of a small, hands-off government, the Republicans used be able to legitimately pretend they had. Now they are so clearly just Democrats with a different social agenda.[/quote]

You have a point in terms of independents voting republican, but you also have to examine what options we have. I can get some of what I want from the republicans or nothing I want and lots of things I am vehemently against from the democrats.
I personally, under no circumstance whatsoever, will I vote for someone who is pro-choice. This pretty much eliminate most democrats from consideration. All though I have seen an emergence of the Pro-life democrat, as in Sen Stupak, the vast majority is pro-abortion. This is unacceptable, I will not support the killing of human life, to forward some other agenda.
Third party? Iâ??d love for the libertarian party to get some movement behind it, but the fact is that these people have been shockingly incapable of gaining traction. After years, they should be much more prominent in the political arena, but it just seems like a good idea that is fizzling. I am surprised as many people share these beliefs, and as well resourced as some of these people are, they should be a factor but they are not. I am loathed to give a seat to a democrat for an ideal that is not going to happen. The Tea Party seems to be going strong and if it becomes legit ticket, with a legit shot, I will take it.
Here is what I will consider voting for: pro-life republican, pro-life democrat, pro-life libertarian who has a legit shot, pro-life independent. ← Note the consistent theme, itâ??s a principal I will never compromise.

52

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Technically I am not republican, I consider myself independent. I will probably vote that way this up coming election. The power base it way to one sided and I feel I need to even it out.

The worst fucking thing that happened to the Republican party is “family values”. That’s where the bus turned south. I want the freedom to have family values or not, but not be bothered by the governement in either case.
Then democrats go to far in the other direction. They try to make non-“family values” every bodies business. In either way you have governement intruding in to daily lives and I want that shit to stop.[/quote]

More and more the people who vote Republican 99% of the time, don’t self-identify as Republicans. All I can think is 1) they self-identify as rugged individualists, and think they’re too cool for a party and/or are total tools who like the “independent” moniker, or 2) they’re too lazy to get out there and push for a third party in their state and local elections.

Not saying that’s you. I just can’t believe how many people I know who ALWAYS vote straight Republican party ticket, and make a big deal about how they’re actually independent.

I agree with you on the “Moral Majority” aspect of the Republicans. It completely destroyed he self-consistent philosophy of a small, hands-off government, the Republicans used be able to legitimately pretend they had. Now they are so clearly just Democrats with a different social agenda.[/quote]

You have a point in terms of independents voting republican, but you also have to examine what options we have. I can get some of what I want from the republicans or nothing I want and lots of things I am vehemently against from the democrats.
I personally, under no circumstance whatsoever, will I vote for someone who is pro-choice. This pretty much eliminate most democrats from consideration. All though I have seen an emergence of the Pro-life democrat, as in Sen Stupak, the vast majority is pro-abortion. This is unacceptable, I will not support the killing of human life, to forward some other agenda.
Third party? Iâ??d love for the libertarian party to get some movement behind it, but the fact is that these people have been shockingly incapable of gaining traction. After years, they should be much more prominent in the political arena, but it just seems like a good idea that is fizzling. I am surprised as many people share these beliefs, and as well resourced as some of these people are, they should be a factor but they are not. I am loathed to give a seat to a democrat for an ideal that is not going to happen. The Tea Party seems to be going strong and if it becomes legit ticket, with a legit shot, I will take it.
Here is what I will consider voting for: pro-life republican, pro-life democrat, pro-life libertarian who has a legit shot, pro-life independent. ← Note the consistent theme, itâ??s a principal I will never compromise.
[/quote]

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue.

If enough people vote that way you end up with exactly the situation that exists now.

Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

53

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Technically I am not republican, I consider myself independent. I will probably vote that way this up coming election. The power base it way to one sided and I feel I need to even it out.

The worst fucking thing that happened to the Republican party is “family values”. That’s where the bus turned south. I want the freedom to have family values or not, but not be bothered by the governement in either case.
Then democrats go to far in the other direction. They try to make non-“family values” every bodies business. In either way you have governement intruding in to daily lives and I want that shit to stop.[/quote]

More and more the people who vote Republican 99% of the time, don’t self-identify as Republicans. All I can think is 1) they self-identify as rugged individualists, and think they’re too cool for a party and/or are total tools who like the “independent” moniker, or 2) they’re too lazy to get out there and push for a third party in their state and local elections.

Not saying that’s you. I just can’t believe how many people I know who ALWAYS vote straight Republican party ticket, and make a big deal about how they’re actually independent.

I agree with you on the “Moral Majority” aspect of the Republicans. It completely destroyed he self-consistent philosophy of a small, hands-off government, the Republicans used be able to legitimately pretend they had. Now they are so clearly just Democrats with a different social agenda.[/quote]

You have a point in terms of independents voting republican, but you also have to examine what options we have. I can get some of what I want from the republicans or nothing I want and lots of things I am vehemently against from the democrats.
I personally, under no circumstance whatsoever, will I vote for someone who is pro-choice. This pretty much eliminate most democrats from consideration. All though I have seen an emergence of the Pro-life democrat, as in Sen Stupak, the vast majority is pro-abortion. This is unacceptable, I will not support the killing of human life, to forward some other agenda.
Third party? I�?�¢??d love for the libertarian party to get some movement behind it, but the fact is that these people have been shockingly incapable of gaining traction. After years, they should be much more prominent in the political arena, but it just seems like a good idea that is fizzling. I am surprised as many people share these beliefs, and as well resourced as some of these people are, they should be a factor but they are not. I am loathed to give a seat to a democrat for an ideal that is not going to happen. The Tea Party seems to be going strong and if it becomes legit ticket, with a legit shot, I will take it.
Here is what I will consider voting for: pro-life republican, pro-life democrat, pro-life libertarian who has a legit shot, pro-life independent. ← Note the consistent theme, itÃ??Ã?¢??s a principal I will never compromise.
[/quote]

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue.

If enough people vote that way you end up with exactly the situation that exists now.

Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]

Yeah, exactly. Keep the government out of my life, except when my personal code ethics demands it.

Why do you (Pat) care about most candidate’s stance on abortion? Mayors don’t set abortion policy, congressmen don’t. The only vote you cast that really impacts it is president, because of their SC appointments. Right now, getting an abortion is a right in US, so what’s it matter what your gubernatorial candidate has to say about it?

I’m having a similar dilemma right now with my gubernatorial race.

The Dem will spend too much, and on the wrong things. She’s owned by the teachers unions. Boarder issues aren’t even on her radar (I vote in a boarder state). Bad.

The Republican on the other hand, I trust to actually cut the budget, she’s running hard on boarder issues. She’s pro 2nd amendment. Good.

But then I looked at their websites, and the Republican turns out to be just another “family values” type, with BS about “our Christian nation,” being pro-life (like I said, not that it really matters for a gov), and wanting to repeal our medical marijuana laws and “win” the war on drugs (giant money pit with lots of potential for civil liberties violations).

On the other hand, the Dem talks about, and has a good record, on civil liberties. While she doesn’t read from the NRA playbook, she’s not anti-gun, and she’s all about expanding the medical MJ program, and general decriminalization.

Now which candidate do I really think will intrude on my life less?

The one who probably will spend a little too much money, and drive us a little more into the red, or the “freedom loving” Republican on her moral crusade against non-Christian values and marijuana?

Real question. I’m torn. Hopefully as the election approaches a good 3rd party candidate will emerge who I can feel good about supporting.

54

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Technically I am not republican, I consider myself independent. I will probably vote that way this up coming election. The power base it way to one sided and I feel I need to even it out.

The worst fucking thing that happened to the Republican party is “family values”. That’s where the bus turned south. I want the freedom to have family values or not, but not be bothered by the governement in either case.
Then democrats go to far in the other direction. They try to make non-“family values” every bodies business. In either way you have governement intruding in to daily lives and I want that shit to stop.[/quote]

More and more the people who vote Republican 99% of the time, don’t self-identify as Republicans. All I can think is 1) they self-identify as rugged individualists, and think they’re too cool for a party and/or are total tools who like the “independent” moniker, or 2) they’re too lazy to get out there and push for a third party in their state and local elections.

Not saying that’s you. I just can’t believe how many people I know who ALWAYS vote straight Republican party ticket, and make a big deal about how they’re actually independent.

I agree with you on the “Moral Majority” aspect of the Republicans. It completely destroyed he self-consistent philosophy of a small, hands-off government, the Republicans used be able to legitimately pretend they had. Now they are so clearly just Democrats with a different social agenda.[/quote]

You have a point in terms of independents voting republican, but you also have to examine what options we have. I can get some of what I want from the republicans or nothing I want and lots of things I am vehemently against from the democrats.
I personally, under no circumstance whatsoever, will I vote for someone who is pro-choice. This pretty much eliminate most democrats from consideration. All though I have seen an emergence of the Pro-life democrat, as in Sen Stupak, the vast majority is pro-abortion. This is unacceptable, I will not support the killing of human life, to forward some other agenda.
Third party? I�?�¢??d love for the libertarian party to get some movement behind it, but the fact is that these people have been shockingly incapable of gaining traction. After years, they should be much more prominent in the political arena, but it just seems like a good idea that is fizzling. I am surprised as many people share these beliefs, and as well resourced as some of these people are, they should be a factor but they are not. I am loathed to give a seat to a democrat for an ideal that is not going to happen. The Tea Party seems to be going strong and if it becomes legit ticket, with a legit shot, I will take it.
Here is what I will consider voting for: pro-life republican, pro-life democrat, pro-life libertarian who has a legit shot, pro-life independent. ← Note the consistent theme, itÃ??Ã?¢??s a principal I will never compromise.
[/quote]

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue.

If enough people vote that way you end up with exactly the situation that exists now.

Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]

Yeah, exactly. Keep the government out of my life, except when my personal code ethics demands it.

Why do you (Pat) care about most candidate’s stance on abortion? Mayors don’t set abortion policy, congressmen don’t. The only vote you cast that really impacts it is president, because of their SC appointments. Right now, getting an abortion is a right in US, so what’s it matter what your gubernatorial candidate has to say about it?

I’m having a similar dilemma right now with my gubernatorial race.

The Dem will spend too much, and on the wrong things. She’s owned by the teachers unions. Boarder issues aren’t even on her radar. Bad.

The Republican on the other hand, I trust to actually cut the budget, she’s running hard on boarder issues. She’s pro 2nd amendment. Good.

But then I looked at their websites, and the Republican turns out to be just another “family values” type, with BS about our Christian nation, being pro-life (like I said, not that it really matters for a gov), and wanting to repeal our medical marijuana laws and “win” the war on drugs.

On the other hand, the Dem talks about and has a good record on civil liberties. While she doesn’t read from the NRA playbook, she’s not anti-gun, and she’s all about expanding the medical MJ program, and general de-criminalization.

Now which candidate to I really think will intrude on my life less?

The one who probably will send a little too much money, and drive us a little more into the red, or the “freedom loving” Republican on her moral crusade against non-Christian values and marijuana?

Real question. I’m torn. Hopefully as the election approaches a good 3rd party candidate will emerge who I can feel good about supporting.[/quote]

hallelujah :slight_smile:

55
57

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue. [/quote]

Weak.

You’re just choosing whose life YOU want the government out of.[quote]

…Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]This is just plain ol’ prima facie ridiculous. Government HAS answered this question. For instance, the Austrian government has determined that YOU are human life and worthy of protection, no?
[/quote]

There’s no biological grounds for asserting that a collection of cells is human.

It’s not the government’s job to protect all life; it protects human-beings. A collection of cells with the potential to become a human-being is not the same. If you follow that argument to it’s conclusion, you must also argue that sex-cells (which contain the same potential unfertilized) are deserving for protection under the law. Do sperm have rights?

We can disagree about when exactly the collection of cells becomes something sentient. And we can err on the side of caution, and do things like ban late-term abortion on demand (most people support such a ban).

But there no non-religious grounds for asserting the human-hood of a collection of cells. Human is an adjective, not a noun. Something is not human because it was created by other humans.

58

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

It’s not the government’s job to protect all life; it protects human-beings. A collection of cells with the potential to become a human-being is not the same. If you follow that argument to it’s conclusion, you must also argue that sex-cells (which contain the same potential unfertilized) are deserving for protection under the law. Do sperm have rights?

[/quote]

Gametes aren’t living human individuals. We know a human individual is a diploid organism, as opposed to your haploid example. You are the same individual organism as the embryo you once were. And that, is scientific fact.

59

[quote]orion wrote:

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue.

If enough people vote that way you end up with exactly the situation that exists now.

Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]

Whose life would I be intruding on? I don’t support killing a person because its convenient for another. It’s a life or death issue. I am on the side of life. I don’t take chances on life…

60

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue. [/quote]

Weak.

You’re just choosing whose life YOU want the government out of.[quote]

…Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]This is just plain ol’ prima facie ridiculous. Government HAS answered this question. For instance, the Austrian government has determined that YOU are human life and worthy of protection, no?
[/quote]

There’s no biological grounds for asserting that a collection of cells is human.

It’s not the government’s job to protect all life; it protects human-beings. A collection of cells with the potential to become a human-being is not the same. If you follow that argument to it’s conclusion, you must also argue that sex-cells (which contain the same potential unfertilized) are deserving for protection under the law. Do sperm have rights?

We can disagree about when exactly the collection of cells becomes something sentient. And we can err on the side of caution, and do things like ban late-term abortion on demand (most people support such a ban).

But there no non-religious grounds for asserting the human-hood of a collection of cells. Human is an adjective, not a noun. Something is not human because it was created by other humans.
[/quote]

Fine I’ll bite…Technically you are still a collection of cells. At what point would you consider a collection of cells to assume the property of humanness…Do you know for sure? And are you willing to take the chance even though you may be wrong and your actions can result in the death of another human being?