What is the Republican vision for this country?

@slkshock7,

That's bullshit, such laws do not oblige you to tolerate such things in your home. Basically, you've got the conservative disease--you can't keep your nose out of other peoples' business.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

I've never understood why people have such a problem with gay marriage (or, as I like to call it, "marriage").

If my next door neighbors are gay and married, how does that affect my life in the least way?

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Quote:
When I contemplate a Republican vision of America, I see rock hard fundamentalism, of a sort that would use the power of the government it denigrates to force an economic and moral plan that conjures visions of Joe McCarthy and the robber barons of old. Anti science, anti personal freedom, with the exception of guns.

Edgar,
I daresay you see what you want to see. Painting your opponent as evil-incarnate has always been used with great effect to rally others to your cause as well as justify your own actions (both good and bad).
.

However, if Freeduck's vision (in the opening post) or your own here was the actual Republican vision of America, I can say with some certainty that I'd be a Democrat (pro-life blue-dog Dem, though).

Actually, I see what I don't want to see

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Freeduck,
So your examples 1,2 and 3 are all abortion-related. I'm guessing you are pro-choice. I am pro-life. So we have a fundamental disagreement (probably irreconcilable) about when life begins. From my perspective, every abortion is the legal govt-endorsed killing of a human being. Therefore defunding a major provider of those abortions, or opening the eyes of women as to the true nature of the fetus inside them is justified to protect the life of that child. I'm not sure on #3...I might agree with you but suspect strongly that you've mischaracterized the intent of that legislation.

#4 Not sure if Repubs were entirely responsible for the Stand Your Ground laws in the different states, but the law in Florida was written by two Repubs back in 2005. I don't think however, that you should so hastily and negatively judge the seven-year old law based upon a single tragic shooting that has yet to be proven unjustified.

#5 is tricky. I understand the sentiment of conservatives...in difficult economic times, the Government must be fiscally responsible and ensure that welfare recipients are using the tax dollars they are given to feed their children, not their drug habit. On the other hand, if fiscal responsibilty is our driver, then we should also ensure that the benefits outweight the cost of the test. I'd have to see this data before I could answer you...which would probably require a few states implement pilot programs and capture the metrics.

1 Reply

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

BBB,
With a simple word-swap, you and I are in complete agreement.

"While I'm often disappointed with the Republicans, I would always vote for them to prevent the Democrats from winning the presidency and naming Supreme Court members. That would be the worst thing to happen."

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

This all comes down to class warfare. It has been raging since the middle ages with the ruling class and serfs. People in tribes fought other tribes before that. In general the Repubs represent the rich, or those who identify with the rich but who really aren't rich. The Dems represent the poor, or those who identify with them. It's hippies against the establishment, from my generation. It's right vs. left.

I saw a guy on tv the other day who blamed the depression on FDR? That's as crazy as blaming our current recession we are climbing out of on Obama. But many people do it.

People can be so easily misled. They believe what makes them feel good, they don't have a clue how to determine the truth, which is often very well hidden.

Humans love to fight. It is a basic instinct. To fight, we need to identify the enemy. It doesn't matter if it's a legitimate enemy. Just pick one. We can justify it later. Look at the sports that are so popular. It's just an outlet for our aggression.

This fighting overwhelms any attempts at reasonable action to improve things. We are an aggressive, greedy species.

Don't look for reason and righteousness in anyone's message.

"The bottom line is that both Dems and Repubs are trying, in good faith, to do what they feel is best for the nation, for society and for the individual. It's patently unfair to characterize their position as anything different..."

Bullshit. They are really trying to gain an advantage.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

So your examples 1,2 and 3 are all abortion-related. I'm guessing you are pro-choice. I am pro-life. So we have a fundamental disagreement (probably irreconcilable) about when life begins. From my perspective, every abortion is the legal govt-endorsed killing of a human being. Therefore defunding a major provider of those abortions, or opening the eyes of women as to the true nature of the fetus inside them is justified to protect the life of that child. I'm not sure on #3...I might agree with you but suspect strongly that you've mischaracterized the intent of that legislation.

I assumed we would disagree, and the topic is debated often enough that there's no need for us to do that here. What I'm getting at is, given that you and the people who are doing these things are pro-life, the fact is that they are governing a whole state/nation of people, most of whom are not pro-life and half of whom are the ones directly effected by what is otherwise a philosophical position. Abortion remains legal in this country. So whether or not those laws are justified in your mind, the fact is that they have very real consequences for others, many of whom are not having abortions, and no clear benefit for anyone other than the warm feeling it gives lawmakers to know they are "opening women's eyes" and "saving babies", babies that they'll be attempting to incarcerate after they've been raised in poverty, or trying to kill medical benefits for when the parents cannot provide the obscene expense of caring for severely disabled children with almost no quality of life. Women don't have abortions because they're ignorant of what is inside them. They have abortions because they know precisely what it takes to bring a child into this world and raise them up to adulthood. If the vision for Republicans with respect to abortion is to have fewer women having abortions then a known effective way to do that is to pump money and support into birth control and sex education, and enact policies that help lift poor women out of poverty so that they can afford both contraceptives and children. They seem to be doing the exact opposite.

Quote:

#4 Not sure if Repubs were entirely responsible for the Stand Your Ground laws in the different states, but the law in Florida was written by two Repubs back in 2005. I don't think however, that you should so hastily and negatively judge the seven-year old law based upon a single tragic shooting that has yet to be proven unjustified.

Oh I'm not basing it on the single incident. Fact is Trayvon's case is somewhat unusual in that it did eventually lead to an arrest. Brandon Baker's killer is still free, and the state has several other cases which are similar and stretch the notions of self defense and justice. Justifiable homicides have tripled in the state and that's just the ones that are tracked. If police never make an arrest, nobody is counting. But again, my main point is that the law didn't solve any recognizable problem, but appears to be creating many.

Quote:

#5 is tricky. I understand the sentiment of conservatives...in difficult economic times, the Government must be fiscally responsible and ensure that welfare recipients are using the tax dollars they are given to feed their children, not their drug habit. On the other hand, if fiscal responsibilty is our driver, then we should also ensure that the benefits outweight the cost of the test. I'd have to see this data before I could answer you...which would probably require a few states implement pilot programs and capture the metrics.

Florida has implemented it. I'll look to see if I can find others. It was proposed here in GA but I don't think it passed.

I guess what I'm trying to articulate is that, to me, these policies seem to be ineffective toward Republican aims (whatever those might be) and detrimental to the public as a whole. Essentially, I'm saying it's bad government.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Sure, any of the several attempts by states to legalize gay marriage or to make "sexual orientation" a protected class such as race, religion or country of origin.

None of those things force you to accept those things 'in your home.' I mean, not even a little. You're free to be as discriminating as you want within your own home.

What they do force, is the law to see other people as equal. That's not related to you or your opinions at all. And it doesn't really affect you at all. So, I can't accept the examples you gave as valid ones for the thing you say you are trying to avoid.

Do you have any others?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

the bible man! The bible!

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

I Agree!

0 Replies

Another important aspect of the Republican vision is a moral component that has nothing to do with sex.

Conservatives, generally, believe that that providing people with opportunity is preferable to enabling them to live in the margins; dependent upon government handouts.

I would hope everyone believes that people are better off, on many levels, reaping rewards based on their talents and hard work rather than living a non-productive life of low means funded by a faceless bureaucratic machine that as easily deprives the needy as rewards those without true need.

Virtually every supporter of welfare programs insists they are needed to help unfortunate citizens get back on their feet, and then they turn a blind eye to the increasing number of citizens who depend on these programs for their livelihood.

The fact that these folks are far more likely to vote Democrat than Republican is not coincidental to Democrats unceasing efforts to increase the number of programs and expand the scope of existing one.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives appreciate that everyone cannot win, particularly those who refuse to compete. Usually this is described as Social Darwinism by their critics and the implication is that they are not only unmoved by the fact that some lose, but that it's part of a grand plan.

There are very few Republicans who oppose a social safety net intended to help people get back on their feet or care for those who will never do, but their "vision" is that it is better fir the individual and the whole for us to live in a land where opportunity abounds and the freedom to seize opportunity is not impeded by government.

Another fact of the matter is that no matter how expansive the welfare state becomes, there will still be losers. No matter what, liberals cannot fashion a society where everyone wins.

3 Replies

@slkshock7,

Quote:

I thought the primary focus of Congressional Repubs for months has been reducing the deficit,

Except that doesn't seem to be what they are doing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/tax-expert-paul-ryans-smoke-and-mirrors-budget-would-increase-deficit/2012/03/20/gIQAQ0cyPS_blog.html

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Conservatives, generally, believe that that providing people with opportunity is preferable to enabling them to live in the margins; dependent upon government handouts.

Hmm.. and how exactly do they provide opportunity? Unless you are arguing that taking away all handouts and government education somehow creates opportunity.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I disagree...

My discrimination, as you call it, would be characterized in the same light as racism, to my children in school. This would be reinforced in their minds by gov't laws, and by lawsuits or convictions of folks who fell afoul of that law. Persons who believe as I do would eventually be pariahs to friends and family alike...just because we object to sexual acts that could and should have been left in the bedroom.

And what if I'd like to preclude homosexuals from employment in my Christian business? Or not rent my home to a gay couple? Or my church not want to serve communion to a gay attendee? If sexual orientation was a protected class, I would be prohibited from doing most, if not all of those.

Quote:

What they do force, is the law to see other people as equal.

BS...the Constitution already mandates that people are equal...what these laws would force is toleration of a particular sexual vice.

3 Replies

@slkshock7,

Why would anyone want to preclude gay people from working? A what the hell is a christian business? Are you a preacher?
If a gay person rents your house, they pay rent (that's the goal, right) they don't turn inanimate objects homosexual... or do they.. nope, that's just silly.
What harm comes from giving gay people communion? What would Jesus do...? hmmm
Hate. yup, he was all about hate. He'd be proud of his followers. Not.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

I disagree...

My discrimination, as you call it, would be characterized in the same light as racism, to my children in school.

That's not inside your home. That's in a public school. You have the right to send your kids to private school or home-school them.

Quote:

This would be reinforced in their minds by gov't laws, and by lawsuits or convictions of folks who fell afoul of that law.

This is also not inside your home.

Quote:

Persons who believe as I do would eventually be pariahs to friends and family alike...just because we object to sexual acts that could and should have been left in the bedroom.

That's your problem, Silk. It has nothing to do with what's 'inside your home.' You're basically asking for society's laws to conform to your morals, so you won't be treated in a fashion you find uncomfortable.

This is essentially the same problem all bigots have faced for the last 150 years - and I don't find it compelling in the slightest. You are making logical jumps here in order to justify a failed argument.

Quote:

And what if I'd like to preclude homosexuals from employment in my Christian business? Or not rent my home to a gay couple? Or my church not want to serve communion to a gay attendee? If sexual orientation was a protected class, I would be prohibited from doing most, if not all of those.

You SHOULD be prohibited from that. Refusing to do business with people who have different opinions than you marks you as a bigot, Silk. I can't put it any plainer than that.

Quote:

Quote:
What they do force, is the law to see other people as equal.
BS...the Constitution already mandates that people are equal...what these laws would force is toleration of a particular sexual vice.

[/quote]

Homosexuality isn't a vice.

Your type is dying out, bro. By the time I'm old, your opinion will be unable to be voiced aloud, any more than it is acceptable to be a racist. Polling on this is clear. Your own political party has pretty much given this issue up, while mine keeps fighting hard to get full equality for everyone.

I guess the Conservative vision for America is in fact a society in which you are never made to feel uncomfortable because people have different opinions than you. A society in which you are protected from the consequences of bigotry. I'll never agree with such an opinion and I have to tell you that it lessens my opinion of anyone I hear voice such an opinion out loud. You're no different than any other bigot.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

Quote:

BS...the Constitution already mandates that people are equal...what these laws would force is toleration of a particular sexual vice.

Gay people have sex at work? or during communion?

The problem is you WANT to control behavior of SOME people slk in their private lives. There really isn't any other way to describe it

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo,
So because I refuse to compromise my moral convictions, I am a bigot? Well so be it. As you and others have repeatedly proven, there is no shortage of bigotry here on A2K...

May I assume that you have no moral convictions that you would stand by without compromise?

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

Quote:

So because I refuse to compromise my moral convictions, I am a bigot?

So, your moral conviction is that you can force your morals on others?

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,
So because I refuse to compromise my moral convictions, I am a bigot?

If your moral conviction is that people should be actively discriminated against by society, just for having a different opinion of what is and isn't correct than you, then yeah - that's pretty much the textbook definition of a bigot.

Quote:

Well so be it. As you and others have repeatedly proven, there is no shortage of bigotry here on A2K...

Yeah, it's always everyone else who is at fault, right? Never ourselves. Very Christian attitude, that one.

Quote:

May I assume that you have no moral convictions that you would stand by without compromise?

I have no moral convictions that cause me to believe others should be treated unequally. Or that say it's okay to discriminate against people because of their opinions. For example, I don't find the opinion that gays are lesser people or somehow engaged in a vice to be an acceptable one. But, would I not rent my house to you? Refuse to serve you in my business? Want you treated differently than I was by the law? Never.

What you see as a strength, is actually a failing. Your opinions - if you truly believe them - shouldn't be affected by what others do, or what others' beliefs are. I would argue I have far more conviction in my beliefs than you do yours; you seek to be protected from the consequences of having them. I invite others to know my beliefs, and think whatever they wish about it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

What is the Republican vision for this country?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know