What I don’t get is the Republican Party, they say no government or less, but they are against pro choice. That and it really just seems to be a hang out for priests and c.e.o's. I don’t think the Christian right likes the constitution, or letting homosexuals live, or really the battle in public schools, so the republican, no government model is just the right type or vehicle for their platform. Then you have companies that want to do whatever they feel, in regards to the environment to monopolies to just not wanting government to set standards for operation. Then comes the tax issue, who wants to pay taxes, or maybe only for roads or something, of course the success or something close to it in a capitalist country wants all the money it can have, but where does that leave America?



so i guess my question for debate is, what is the republican party?

The basic tenet of the the Republican party (in my eyes) is personal responsibility. The government is not a baby sitter to be handing out goodies to every Tom Dick and Harry that happens along.

Pursuing that line further, since we don't think government should be giving out perks (which are inherently unfair to those that do not receive perks), the government should be smaller. Unfortunately, there are one or two broadly-defined words in the Constitution that are interpreted as giving the Federal government unbridled license to do whatever the heck it wants to (distinctly AGAINST the intentions of the Framers).

Many Conservatives, who also happen to be Republicans, feel that in order for laws to be valid, they must be grounded in morality. Morality is usually (but not always) associated with religious groups, which is why the Christian Coalition types are Republicans. I think it has very little to do with monetary policy and almost everything to do with morality.

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that the government exists to give people a helping hand. They feel that it is morally correct to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. This is admirable. However, in reality, when you start giving things away, it becomes unfair (as stated above) to give to one group and not to another. Thus a Pandora's box of entitlements is opened which can never be closed (by either side) for fear of angering the ones receiving the services.

This is another reason for limiting the size of government. Government can NEVER get truly smaller, since no politician will risk his career by angering receiver groups. Thus, we need to limit the size of government upfront to avoid (or try to delay) the inevitable growth of government.

As for the issue of WHO should be taxed, I believe most Democrats are a bit delusional. Although most people still pay for their "lockbox" of retirement benefits (Social Security and Medicare) via payroll taxes, the rest of the government is financed (via income taxes) overwhelmingly on the backs of the successful. This provides a disincentive to success (however small).

50% of this country pays NO income tax. Their beef is usually that their PAYROLL taxes are too high. The same payroll taxes which are actually NOT ENOUGH to provide for their "retirement package" via SS and Medicare.

The problem then arises that these same 50% of citizens do not benefit from tax reductions. They somehow feel it is inherently unfair that those who actually PAY income tax should benefit from a cut in income tax (the "tax cuts for the wealthy" fallacy). They personally see no benefit from a tax reduction, and so think it is unfair that someone else should benefit from one. This is one of the biggest problems with the progressive tax system.

I saw something funny about this on the "No Spin Zone" a few weeks ago. Bill O'Reilly asked Al Sharpton (yes, Democrats actually appear on Fox News) how much of his income should be taxed since he was probably in the upper 1% bracket. O'Reilly asked him if it should be 100%: [Sharpton is paraphrased by me, here] "No", said Sharpton, "I think 75-80% would be fair". O'Reilly asked then if that would be just federal tax, or all taxes combined. "Just federal, the state and local governments need their cut, too".

So where one group is taxed at 0%, Sharpton (and I am sure many other Democrats) want a federal tax on the "rich" to be astronomical.

A quote:

Unfortunately for us, the voters have discovered that they have control of the "largesse of the public treasury".

Nileriver

Republicans are against government interference in our lives on anything except issues where one person's actions violate the rights of another.

On your first point, if I wanted to legalize bank robbery, I would be called "pro-robbery", not "pro choice." PRO-ABORTIONISTS favor violating the rights of provably unique, living and human babies even when they are halfway born and full term (and often for mere sexual convenience, as birth control). Republicans oppose most abortion "rights." This is clearly consistent with their policy of only interfering when rights are violated.

I think many of their policies on gays ARE a contradiction though.

In case you didn't notice, the Republican party is also a hangout for the majority of voters too. Do you think just maybe you are misjudging the right?

And to explain it yet again, Republicans want more power for the local governments and the individual, so they seek to downsize the federal government.

Also, you apparently haven't actually read the constitution because most of the federal interferences and beauracracies that Republicans have such objections to paying taxes for shouldn't even exist according to it. REPUBLICANS are generally MORE adherent to the constitution.

Isn't this like the third or fourth incoherently worded, vague, grossly misguided rant about the entire Republican party?

Yawn.

Why don't you try starting a debate thats new, original, or at least substantive topic.

Why is dependence on the government when someone is hungry and cold bad, and dependence on the government when you are rich OK?

Why do Republicans continue to support susidies to major corporations, and not to the poor? Why does a Monsanto or an ADM get massive agricultural subsidies? Why do Republican legislators continue to ensure that most large corporations pay very little (if any) income tax?

So why is it OK for the ultra-rich to suck on the government teat, but not the extremely poor?



And yet you've just described both groups operating from a moral standpoint. Again, see my above comment. You're delusional if you think the Republican party doesn't believe in "give-aways" and perks. It's all about WHO gets the perks.

Republicans talk about "personal responsibility" and believe in the idea that people will "make it" through hard work and application. However they support the type of market economy which rewards people based not on their talents or merits, but (often) by how much money they had when they started. How do we define hard work? Is the work of a painter harder than a manager? Is ditch digging harder than songwriting? Is being a stockbroker harder than being a garbage collector? We pay Ken Lay millions. housewives (and househusbands) are paid nothing. Who works harder? Our definitions are subjective here. Republicans have chosen a certain narrow definition for these words, and then try to make it sound universal. There's no room in their debate to talk about the definitions; they are by and large accepted as given.

Consider if you will, that our government was formed by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich. Everything is geared towards protecting wealth. To bad our priority is not protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, thank you for making my topic a point of bashing when it was not intended to do so. My major point is this, we see what happens when a company is allowed to run without checks and balances, but just like bush jr, all republicans seem to just want to be friends with the big guys. These same companies run rampant in the lobby system, and eat at the credibility of our government.

Please don’t just use the worst possible abortion scenario, the republicans are against any type of abortion period. Not only that but with the rampant Christian right running a muck in their, we are also going into public schools and peoples daily lives and restricting freedoms. They go against planned parenthood and do not even like the idea of condom use, i don’t see any battle against the use of viagra though Social programs in the u.s are being destroyed, funding and replacement of such is going to faith based groups. In an attempt to bring a certain religion to all Americans. Anti-feminism is a good token of the republican party also, i wonder if that has to do with that supposed moral high ground you as a person can judge from.

If we opened up the taxes so a person would only pay tax on what that person wanted, one could only imagine the mess that could bring, not only that but how are you to tax the poor, taxing the middle class makes them poor and the rich hate it, but then again most of the money in this nation goes to about a small percent of it.

And my major concern besides is the environment of course, and of course all environmental standards are being destroyed to make way for a profit again.

I've got to pick this one apart. Talk about republican bashing! NR, you contradicted your self!

False, there are many republicans who are 'pro-choice'. It just isn't a plank in the parties platform.

Name one freedom please. It is christianity that is prohibited from public schools by various special interest groups, not the other way around.

Huh? Taken a poll lately? Or have any reference for this?

Again, please name one.

Really? Then there must be a lot of misguided Republican women.

Not only could I not understand this, I wish some would realize that many 'poor' don't pay income tax in the first place, so tax refunds and EITC in many cases is free money from the government. I think most republicans simply want all to pay their fair share. Yes, I know a lot of rich people and corporations don't, but I'm speaking of the average conservative american.


Where in the world are you getting this information!?!

Unless it's Christians interfering in the lives of non-Christians, of course. Or big business interfering in the lives of their employees. Then it's just fine and dandy!



If a fetus *HAD* rights, then abortion wouldn't be legal, would it? There's no such thing as a pro-abortionist. I have yet to see anyone in favor of every pregnancy ending in an abortion, have you? That would be genocide. Please do try to remain rational with your claims, this emotionally-loaded nonsense doesn't make Republians look good.



Except where the military is concerned. There's no such thing as too much military in the Republican viewpoint, but then again, most of them are paranoid and think everyone else is out to get us.

And with their abyssmal views on foreign relations, it's no wonder!



No, that's actually *ALL* religion that's prohibited from public schools, as it should be. I find it funny (and hypocritical) that the people who want prayer in school only want CHRISTIAN prayer. They throw a fit if anyone suggests that Muslims get the same rights. Do you want your Christian kids to have to bow to Mecca three times a day? No? Funny how many Christians want those Muslim kids to pray to their deity.

i found one of the most anti-republican sites on the net, for all that want to view it
go at your own risk.

anti-republican site.

nileriver - if you refuse to take your own thread seriously, how can you expect that of the rest of us?

I just did not want people to enter that with the idea i use it to lay to foundation of any thoughts i have on the Republican Party solely. I go from a wide range of varying sources as to not allow for personal interest to cloud my opinion if i can. I just wanted to throw that site out for people to view, as much as it may have bent views they are not without merit also. Sorry though, this thread in itself has gone very far in the wrong direction, amlord stayed on topic more then i have, but it still got buried in other stuff.

My goodness Cephus, you may want to consider a change in political parties. With all of your 'they' and 'their' in your rant of blanket statements, one might think your not really a republican.




*ALL* mainstream conservative groups that are pushing for some morality in public schools, are simply asking for a moment of silence for students to use any way they see fit.