Republican Debate?

[chickened]

I have yet to see a candidate that one does not have to hold his nose to vote for. I know that if we do not change direction we will not be a world leader and be in debt to the Chi-coms, not good. Social debates should be up to the states not the Feds. Nothing angers me more than to see any President break the rules or ignore them. The checks and balances system only works within a lawful government. all the issues you listed are here to stay and the Feds IMO should not be in that area again it should be up to the states and if a red state supports ones ideals then that would seem logical to live where you are happy but do not complain if you cannot find work there is how I view it. I am in the logging business it makes sense to live where there are trees to log so I put up with the social views that come with the territory.
Quote:

 

[debilorrah]

Quote:
Thank you!!!

I love differences in opinion -- I think if everyone thought the same, there'd be stagnation and no progress. I think it all comes down to owning your opinion. If you disagree, say "I disagree. I think...." rather than "No, you're wrong. This is how it is." The only times that works is in matters that are absolute -- such as "I'm taking my umbrella because it's raining outside" and you reply "No, you're wrong. It's not raining outside." We get into trouble in situations like "I'm taking my umbrella because it's going to rain" and you reply "No, you're wrong. It's not going to rain."

It's all about language.

It is more about keeping your cool and having a discussion than anything. People are VERY passionate about politics and religion. I am too, but I have learned to temper my responses knowing that I can yell my fool head off and it won't change a thing.

I am a Republicrat. Thrown in libritarian in there and you have me. Parties used to be MUCH more divided and the Dems used to be what Reps are now. My grandfather was Secretary of State for CA in the 40's as a Dem, and he has old standard Rep beliefs. Odd how time changes things.

 

[cupman]

I sort of agree and I sort of disagree. It's complex. I think things like civil rights should be given to everyone regardless of what state you belong in. Think of the south during the civil war and slavery. I'm sure there's parts of Mississippi right now that if they went to a vote we'd all be using different drinking fountains. Even the majority can be wrong sometimes. Other issues like affirmative action, gun control, immigration. I'd be fine leaving it up to the states to decide.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:

Yes, some things should be left to the states, but restricting a freedom protected by the federal government is not one of them. As I understood the Republican party when I was younger, its appeal lay in the idea that personal no-harm freedoms should not be limited by government interference. This was carried into economic policy by reducing restrictions on businesses that would hamper growth. The economic part stayed, but then the social part flipped. Now, in order to gain support from social conservatives, Republicans have to say they are all for restricting personal freedoms that counter the morality of the social conservatives. Old Republicans would say it's none of the government's business what people do in their own lives, but new Republicans say they want to make (or keep) things illegal that go against conservative morality. Politicians should not be legislating morality with respect to no-harm personal choice. And the very idea of social conservatism runs counter to the progression of society -- if we kept things the way they were 100 years ago, I doubt many of us would maintain a socially conservative stance, yet 100 years ago, social conservatives were trying to do just that (remember -- the 100th anniversary of women's right to vote won't happen for another nine years).

In short, let the politicians be in charge of running the country, but let me be in charge of running my life.

 

[HHandbasket]

I don't like ANY of the GOP candidates, and I will certainly not vote for Obama again. Sadly, it's gonna be another lesser-of-two-evils election.

I was so happy when McCain was running and was COMPLETELY ready to vote for him. Then he picked Sarah, and I was like YES!! A woman VP is just what this country needs. But then, alas, Sarah opened her mouth and started talking and ruined the whole bloody thing for me... and how ANYONE is still listening to her is beyond me. She's never completed ANYTHING, has never been able to keep a job, and quits everything she starts (including her infamous bus tour earlier this year). I ended up voting for Obama because few things scare me more than the concept of Sarah Palin ending up in charge. If you think Obama's scary, let Sarah take the helm. Talk about your race to the bottom!

I wanna see McCain run again with a BETTER running mate! I still like him and his values and the direction he wants to go, but sadly, his age is working against him.

We need a good, solid independent candidate... not just some figurehead that bleeds votes away from the two major parties, but like someone said, a candidate who cares not only about America but also about AmeriCANS. Someone the people can back and believe in because he or she deserves it, not because they are the lesser of 2 evils.

I'm a "liberative"... social liberal, fiscal conservative, and I vote my conscience, NOT my party (in fact, it's kinda 50/50 in so far as voting for my "party's" candidate in any given election).

 

[Duramaxgirl]

I just wish politicians would keep their word! I get tired of all the 'I Promis to do ______' and it never happens after they get elected. I'll be voting for Ron Paul. At least his voting record backs up his word. Nice that this thread hasn't been closed yet! I like it when people get along

 

[Royd]

Quote:

Yes, some things should be left to the states, but restricting a freedom protected by the federal government is not one of them. As I understood the Republican party when I was younger, its appeal lay in the idea that personal no-harm freedoms should not be limited by government interference. This was carried into economic policy by reducing restrictions on businesses that would hamper growth. The economic part stayed, but then the social part flipped. Now, in order to gain support from social conservatives, Republicans have to say they are all for restricting personal freedoms that counter the morality of the social conservatives. Old Republicans would say it's none of the government's business what people do in their own lives, but new Republicans say they want to make (or keep) things illegal that go against conservative morality. Politicians should not be legislating morality with respect to no-harm personal choice. And the very idea of social conservatism runs counter to the progression of society -- if we kept things the way they were 100 years ago, I doubt many of us would maintain a socially conservative stance, yet 100 years ago, social conservatives were trying to do just that (remember -- the 100th anniversary of women's right to vote won't happen for another nine years).

In short, let the politicians be in charge of running the country, but let me be in charge of running my life.

I agree with the no harm, no foul concept of living, but the only problem with the concept of progressivism, is that there is never a moral line, which cannot be fudged.
As for the Republicans being co-opted by social conservatives,[ a nice friendly, noconfrontational word] the Democratic Party has also been hijacked by socialist idealogues, whose political and social agenda, [and yes, they do have one], runs counter to everything which has made this country the envy and desire of the rest of the world.
This agenda has been a long time in coming, in it's implementation. The old frog in the pan of water analogy.
Whether it started out as a long term plan, or just some do nothing professor, with a wild idea, who knows.....Something tells me that Karl Marx never really got down into the mud with the people he was trying to influence.
Regardless, it seemed to have been spawned in the higher halls of learning and thought, and therefore, who could question it. It was implemented under the guise of free thinking, when its actual intent was to take individualism from the individual, and create a complete system of group think. Meaning that, we'll do your thinking for you.
It is a system of mental and spiritual slavery, where no individual is allowed to reach their full potential, for their own sake. If you are allowed to excel, it had better be for the good of the state, and you'd better not have any thoughts of going rogue.

The implementation is twofold. Start with children, using brainwashing and groupthink, and for the older generations, who have known freedom, give them just enough to keep them from rising up and complaining.....Thus, the permanent welfare state...What a voting block.

 

[Rusty Hills Farm]

I was so happy when McCain was running and was COMPLETELY ready to vote for him. Then he picked Sarah, and I was like YES!! A woman VP is just what this country needs. But then, alas, Sarah opened her mouth and started talking and ruined the whole bloody thing for me... and how ANYONE is still listening to her is beyond me. She's never completed ANYTHING, has never been able to keep a job, and quits everything she starts (including her infamous bus tour earlier this year). I ended up voting for Obama because few things scare me more than the concept of Sarah Palin ending up in charge. If you think Obama's scary, let Sarah take the helm. Talk about your race to the bottom!

This was me. Once Hilary Clinton was out of the running, I was strong for McCain until Sarah opened her mouth. From that point on, I was working hard for ANYONE who was not her. This round isn't much better. I can't find anyone in either party to really get behind. When Royd wrote :

The implementation is twofold. Start with children, using brainwashing and groupthink, and for the older generations, who have known freedom, give them just enough to keep them from rising up and complaining.....

he could have been talking about BOTH parties. "Groupthink" from the Democrats and "Conservativethink" from the Republicans and both viewpoints are a major perversion of what each party once believed and campaigned for.

Hopefully the entire country will not crash and burn before I am gone from this earth. I'm getting too old to willingly give up my old image of what we once were and once stood for and trade it in for this "new" version I now seem to be living in.

sigh.


Rusty​

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Of course there are moral lines. The issue is that artificial lines have been drawn that have no basis other than tradition. They don't exist in all cultures, thus they aren't "necessary" for a society to function.

I also said that the same issue concerns the Democrats, regarding candidates having to espouse the entire list of "takes" on the issues. Regarding the "higher halls of learning and thought" promoting group think -- I feel that just the opposite happens. By exposing students to the full range of ideas presented, they are no longer boxed into dogmatic thinking -- if they so choose. Your concept of "brainwashing and groupthink" really doesn't apply to "halls of higher learning" and being a Democrat as it does to what the former USSR did to promote its dogma, and what other entities do to promote their dogma. The essence of personal liberty and free-thinking is the absence of dogma, so I don't understand how one would "indoctrinate" a child into not following dogmatic doctrine.

 

[Amigo]

Royd, you are so correct!