I AM A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE...
I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that
each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
Except the people should not be able to use drugs,
solicit prostitutes, or have abortions.
I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all,
regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. But gays should not be able to marry, because, well, they're gay.
I believe free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have
brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity. But clearly I don’t believe we should allow that to
continue.
I believe government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow
individuals to keep more of the money they earn. I
never use the word “tax increase” without putting “Democrat” in front of
it.
I believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only
those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private
organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
But the government should legislate the
bible.
I believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is
government closest to the people. So close, in fact,
it should be in their bedroom.
I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong
while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing
times. Yeah, and that makes me
unique.
I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and
pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the
world. Now let’s take over an oil field!
Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating
these ideals into positive and successful principles of
government. Am I missing something?
Friday, August 17, 2007
Some edits...
The Howard County GOP has a fancy-pants new website. It contains an interesting description of what Republicans believe. I am not trying to offend, but I have a few edits:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
How funny. Can you do one for the Democrats, too?
What exactly do you find funny about this? This was not a joke, I am quite serious. I don’t think it is funny for a political party to posture about how great they are when they are so obviously hypocritical.
Right back at you and the DemocRats. Talk about cheap shots with no basis or rationale other than to malign the GOP. You're pathetic!
Kids, please stay in school so you don’t wind up like anon 9:15. He or she says that I am taking a cheap shot because his Party is a bunch of homophobic hypocrites and then he/she throws an ad hominem insult. A true intellectual giant.
Tom? Is that you?
Well - you didn't offer any explanation of your smears and your passive agressive insults of the GOP and apparently all republicans. Do you always stereotype everything and everyone so wildly? What's your basis for your "edits"? Can you turn that critical light onto yourself. Talk about the epitome of hypocrisy. You're the champ.
An explanation? No problem. For instance, the Republican propaganda line says:
“I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all,
regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.”
Despite professing their belief in equal rights, Republicans discriminate against gays by voting against measures that would allow them to marry. If you don’t see the hypocrisy in this, then I don’t know what to tell you. Republicans made their bed, if they don’t want to sleep in it that is their problem.
Now please explain to me how I am a hypocrite.
FreeMarket - please continue with your explanations - I'd like to see you address all your edits, not just the obvious homosexual issue. What is the basis for the rest of them?
I;m new here so besides being pro-free market, are you a libertarian? If so, then you should have equal issues with the other party and their tag lines as well. If not, then you are being hypocritical - Your choice.
Anon 1:31, why don't you take the lead now in pointing out where you think FM is being unfair? You agree with him on the "obvious" homosexual issue. Perhaps a close read of his statements would bring the same conclusion. Do you need him to draw pictures for you as well? Or do you hold the patent on "smears and passive agressive insults"?
I don't agree with the obvious homosexual issue - I just think that's the low hanging fruit in his critique. he can hammer his point on that snide comment (even if there is truly a fundamental difference of opinion by someone else - their opinion is clearly wrong to listen to FM) but ignores the other comments he insinuates in his editorial.
I don't want pictures drawn out - I want a cogent discussion without the name-calling, hypocracy, stereotypes and emotional button pushing both sides often resort to when trying to create meaningful dialogue. Is that too much to ask?
If you re-read my prior comment, I didn't do any of those things, I just asked him to continue with his explanations of something he had already put his name to. You read the emotion into it and made it into something it was certainly not (Or do you hold the patent on "smears and passive agressive insults"?)
Are you a bit too touchy for such a dialogue?
The edits I made are common criticisms of the Republican party (some of which are just as applicable to Democrats- I don’t see them legalizing drugs and hookers any time soon) so I am not going to elaborate on any of the common ones. With respect to the word “Democrat” before the words “tax increase” I was thinking specifically of the float at the Howard County Fairgrounds. It was too partisan for my taste.
I consider the Republican cold shoulder to gay marriage an un-American attack on the civil rights of others, so that really alienates me from the Republican party, even though I agree with R’s on many other issues. You might consider it to be “emotional button pushing”, but to many people it is flagrant discrimination.
If the State will collect the tax money of gays, then gays should have the same legal rights to marry that I do.
You are mixing civil rights with religious doctrine. Many "R"s don't support gay marriage (as is my position), but DO support civil unions. I do not accept two men or two men marrying - MARRIAGE is a sacred union between a man and woman. I realize that you may not hold my religious beliefs, or you could be agnostic or atheistic - which is your right. However, I, along with many other people feel that gays are cramming their agenda down the chruch's throat by saying that to oppose gay marriage is hateful or discriminatory.
Well, what about pedophiles or beastiality. Should they be allowed to marry children or animals? Should they? If you don't are you discriminating? You see, it all comes down to where people draw the line on decent acceptable behavior and moral values. Not that all churchgoers are without fault - we all know about the horrible catholic church scandals (sidenote - if the catholic church would allow priests to marry, there would be more people entering the priesthood and probably a lot less abuse of alter boys).
I understand that you think "R"s are being discriminatory. But, you're wrong. You simply use that as a convenient weapon to put them down in a lame attempt to elevate your position. That's not going to win me over to your side.
You also have a tendancy to claim that you're equally critical of "D"s but you are most definitely not. I guess you're discriminating against "R"s, aren't you?
Thank you for comment. I am not a religious person, so I don’t pay as much attention to my religious terminology as I should. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, to me it’s a duck; but I realize that there is a big difference between gay marriage and civil unions, especially in the eyes of church goers. I am referring to civil unions when I say “gay marriage”. I too don’t think that gays or anyone else should push their agenda onto churches, and vice versa. Particularly the vise versa.
You do realize that comparing homosexuals, that is, the love shared between two consenting adults, to pedophilia and beastiality only confirms all the stereotypes about republicans that you say aren't so?
Not allowing priests to marry has no effect on pedophilia. Priests don't molest boys because they aren't allowed to get freaky with a woman. Pedophilia is an illness. A criminal illness, but an illness all the same. Pedophilia involves an adult and abuse of a child who is not of age to consent to sexual contact. Marriage does not play a role.
I agree that churches that believe homosexuality is a sin should not perform religious marriage. However, when a man and a woman are married, regardless of whether or not that ceremony is held in a church, it is a MARRIAGE. Getting married in a courthouse does not change that. Do you also support changing that legal contract to be termed "civil union"? If it is not sanctioned by the church, it is not a marriage, regardless of the genders of the two parties, correct?
If you don't agree, then you are indeed denying homosexuals the rights afforded to heterosexuals. You're just fooling yourself into thinking you're being fair.
To ANON - your misreading what I wrote. I did not say that homosexuality was the same thing as pedophilia or beastiality. I asked if gays are allowed to marry, then shouldn't the same "right" extend to other people's concept of love/sex? Why shouldn't an adult be allowed to marry a child? I'm playing devil's advocatae here - I do NOT support such a marriage, just as I don't support gay marriage.
I think that marriages conducted outside of a church (of whatever denomination) should be called civil unions. Yes, it's the same concept, except that marriages are considered sacraments administered by a church official, whereas a marraige in a courthouse is not a "sacrament".
The problem with your argument is that your suggestion to extend the same right to other “concepts” of love is that the other concepts you mentioned do not include two consentual human beings. Homosexual relationships do. Pedophilia involves the sexual abuse of children, who are not of age to enter a consentual sexual relationship. If you can name other concepts of love in which both parties to the contract are consenting to such contract, we’ll talk.
Current US law does not allow for animals to enter into contractual relationships. They are also deemed not able to give consent and therefore, again, are not relevant to the discussion.
A better avenue for discussion would be to question why the government continues to disallow polygamy, which is another “concept” of love which involves consentual adult humans.
Good point. That is a better analogy than my examples. So - what does the blog host have to say about the polygamy issue?
I also wonder if Freemarket is a Rudy Guilianni supporter. Rudy is fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Does that fit your policy desires?
And, what are your thoughts on conservative Democrats - there are some out there?
As far as polygamy goes, as long as it is between consensual adults it is fine with me. I don’t think it is immoral, and I darn sure don’t think it should be illegal. Polygamy does not produce a single externality that affects anyone but the participants. I am not interested enough in any of the presidential candidates to have an opinion at this juncture. I am going to write in Anon 1:53 for president. Conservative Democrats? Good for them. Yawn.
I too, think that polygamy should be legalized, although not necessarily sanctioned by churches. I don't know much about the history of polygamy, except that Utah was blackmailed into disallowing it in order to join the Union.
Sidenote- should the # of exemptions be limited for income tax purposes? Is there a limit with regards to children?
I believe that churches should deny marriage to those they want, and others allow marriage to whom they want. Call it a perfect example of the free market. You want to hold fellowship in the company of others who share the same belief, and this is one issue, such as abortion, birth control, and other life choices that should be considered when joining a church.
However, for the state to outlaw something based on a single religious belief (not all churches are against gay marriage) is wrong. And if all the same rights are afforded to heterosexual couples, only using a different name, I am fine with that. But that same name should be extended to anyone obtaining a secular marriage. Make marriage the religious sacrament and remove it from the govt terminology altogether.
It's been a real pleasure engaging in this discussion with you. Usually the conversations evolve into nothing but insults so this was refreshing!
“It's been a real pleasure engaging in this discussion with you. Usually the conversations evolve into nothing but insults so this was refreshing!”
Make that a double. I would also like to thank the anonymous Republican (I presume) commenter for this discussion.
I am a registered "R". However, I am very much independent minded. Unfortunately, though, the current system in our country does not bode well for "third party" candidates. I really wish the system would do away with party affiliation altogether. No "R, no "D", no "I" after a candidate's name. Then, voters would be forced to more closely examine a candidates credentials or policies before pulling the lever.
I think the conversation went well. I guess I just wanted FM to realize that even though "R"s may be in the cess pool more right now, the "D"s spend a lot of time there too - it's a shame either way.
Sayonara
Post a Comment