Republican Party Principles=Doodley Squat

[PatrickHenry]

I hate the Republican Party. I think of them as a party full of liars and cheats. I think they are dedicated only to what gets them elected again, so real bedrock principles are secondary to campaign financing and cynical rhetoric with no commitment further than the election.

Here is what the Republican Women say about their Party: http://www.nfrw.org/republicans/principles.htm

Republican Principles 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. I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. I believe that free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity. I believe government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn. 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. I believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people. 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. I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world. Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government. Source: The Republican National Committee, www.rnc.org

All fine sounding rhetoric, but does it really guide Republican politicians? I don't think so. Any Republican debaters, show me how this stuff really works as policy with examples from the last five years.

I am calling out the Republicans on this thread and ignoring Democrats who shall be the target for my attack on another thread.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Hi PatrickHenry,

Based on your name which reflects a dead historic patriot, I'm guessing you are a libertarian? For some reason libertarians like to take the names of dead patriots, they are not that creative, so I am guessing that is your politics.
As a libertarian, you would not even relate to a conservative or a conservative Republican because libertarians tend to be big social liberals who want open borders, lots of drugs, prostitution and pretty much anything to the point of anarchy (in my opinion from reading them).

Republicans don't claim perfection and I would say there is a lag at this time between the politicians and the Republican voters on the issue of illegal immigration.
I would also say that I have an issue with Republican politicians seemingly lacking confidence despite being the majority party.

When Clinton first came to office and he passed gays in the military. His co-President wife attempted to confiscate a seventh of the US economy in a failed attempt at socialized medicine.
That brought in a Republican wave featuring the Contract with America.

Most of the Contract with America, welfare reform, tax reduction, and prosecution of all the crimial acts during Clinton such as Enron were done under Republican leadership.

I could go on and on, but the simple statement regarding this party is it works, the people are family types mostly that believe you should try and be more self reliant, and we wish all success in life.

You should have directed this at Democrats, they had meetings trying to establish what their core values are this last month (meaning they had none before that). LOL

God Bless America, take care PH.

[Matt W]

am calling out the Republicans on this thread and ignoring Democrats who shall be the target for my attack on another thread.

What part of this sentence didn't you read 'GodBless'? If you want to bash Democrats, you'll have plenty of opportunities in the other thread....

[GodBlessAmerica]

Sorry Matt, I thought he didn't want any "Democrats" to respond on this thread.

One party's failings brought another into power, so it's tough to not mention both in an explanation as to how Republicans have been more successful and what about them by far more in common with mainstream America today.

Since I'm already here to apologize to Matt, I guess I'll add a bit more.

People who vote IMO tend to vote their wallets, national security and sometimes their principles. I think the Republicans fit that definition in America more than other parties right now.

Republicans want the government to do more with fewer taxes.
They want safety nets for people, but for the capable ones we want those nets to be temporary.
We really want all people to do well, and whereas other parties NEED minorities, we WANT them in our party and we can make sure that another 50 years won't go by without results for them.

All people want to see the best for the generations that follow them, and we'd like to see more minorities finding that dream a reality.

I'm not too hung up about any list people want to put up for their groups at all. At best, those types of things would be the "ideals and goals" they would like to achieve and what they strive for. I don't think you can ever start a check list and say this and that goal has been met. We're always trying to get to that point though.
:-)

[Matt W]

No need to apologise, just thought Pat would appreciate thoughts on Republicans by Republicans, rather than the usual cross-party bunfight!

[GodBlessAmerica]

Thanks Matt,

A libertarian wanting to discuss the motives and goals of Republicans that starts off by saying they are full of "liars and cheats" doesn't seem in search of sincere debate to begin with.. Don't you agree?

PS, Social Security is going to go broke and the Republican President is the only one with the guts to make it an issue. If left to go on as it stands, people will later get a percentage of what they would have gotten in SS. That is why the President (A REPUBLICAN) wants to handle this now.

[PatrickHenry]

GBA, thanks for responding to my challenge. At least one Republican member is willing to engage in dialog about their Party when it is announced in a bluff and derogatory manner by a "libertarian." To clarify, I am not a Libertarian Party member, but I do find common ground with their political program in certain areas. The party I actually prefer is the Constitution Party, but I don't carry a card of theirs either and disagree on certain points of their program as well. But this thread isn't about me and my preferences. It was a rank challenge to justify how "principles" of the Republican Party are applied where the rubber meets the road, to use a cliche.

I think that the Republican Party may have had some principles in the days of Dwight Eisenhower, perhaps in the days of Richard Nixon, even some in the term of Ronald Reagan. Each of those Republican presidents had significant failures during their administrations, but the Party may have had adherence to some principles in those bygone times.

I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

Is this played out by the huge corporate donations to the campaign of GW Bush by criminal conspiracies like Enron, that defrauded the citizens of California of billions?

I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

Then why are there no elected black Republicans in Congress? Why does the Party have trouble attracting Black leaders?

I have plenty more ammunition for any courageous Republicans willing to brave the fusillade. Or will you all hunker in your bunkers and hope that mean PatrickHenry will go away?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Hi PatrickHenry, Based on your name which reflects a dead historic patriot, I'm guessing you are a libertarian? For some reason libertarians like to take the names of dead patriots, they are not that creative, so I am guessing that is your politics

If you guessed his affiliation based on a name, I am truely impressed. Although reading just a few posts of his would tell you too.

Being a libertarian myself, I may offer an explination as to why libertarians like historical patriots other than uncreativeness.

Libertarians want big sweeping changes. Changes on the magnitude that have not occured since the formation of this country. The only people to look to who caused changes this big are historical patriots, or people from the more recent communist revolutions (Che, Lennin etc.). When you understand how libertarian motives fit into history, it becomes evident why they look to the poast for role models.

As a libertarian, you would not even relate to a conservative or a conservative Republican because libertarians tend to be big social liberals who want open borders, lots of drugs, prostitution and pretty much anything to the point of anarchy (in my opinion from reading them).

Libertarians have trouble relating to both of the major parties. Even though we embrace views from boths sides, we hold also hold views that deeply offend both parties (welfare abolition and drug legalization for example). Of course on top of this we have the problem that a lot of libertarians are do damn dogmatic that they cannot compromise. It's thier way or the highway. This really hurts inter-party relations. Another problem we have is than many libertarians are just libertarians to get attention. They like telling someone about a libertarian belief that shocks them, just so they can get in someones face with an argument. I call this the libertarian macho flash. This type of bahavior is also very damaging to inter-party relations. However, libertarians tend to get along better with liberals becasue they are generally more tolerant and open minded.

Of course the other problem with the parties relating to eachother is the straw man argument that the 2 major parties perpertrate on the libertarians. You just did it. You called us anarchists. You people are so wrapped up in big government, that any downsizing get's met with accusations of anarchy. Letting people screw and ingest what they want (if they are volntary adults) is not anarchy. It's just freedom. Making murder and theft legal would be anarchy. Having no army would be anarchy. Allowing more civil liberties and doing away with government handouts is not anarchy. Let's do away with the "anarchist" word. Accusations like that are just as damaging as what libertarians do to themselves.





As far as criticizing Rep principals goes, I think it's intellectually dishonest to call the reps any worse then the dems. Power corrupts. It's almost a truism. You can't get away from it, If libertarians were in power, they would have corruption too. I like to think there would be less, because libertarians are generally very principaled, but it would definitely be there. Singling out one party as more corrupt and hypocritical is just silly.

[rcne]

I believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I would say that by winning the last two elections the Republicans have proven to be closest to the people. Voters count as people don't they?

Is this what you are after PH?

[Prometheus]

Reps got the majority, but %51 can hardly be called a strong statement from the people. I call it the flip of a coin.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: rcne Is this what you are after PH?

Yeah, along those lines, rcne. If the Republicans can't respond to a direct slap-in-the-face challenge from a guy who is as reasonable and genteel as myself, doesn't that just say that they are coasting on their previous publicity?

This is the Party that is ostensibly running things in America just now. Many areas of our national life are totally screwed up. Do they have a rationale? Can they defend their performance based upon principles? If not, I will use this thread to kick their nuts.

[rcne]

Quote by: Prometheus Reps got the majority, but %51 can hardly be called a strong statement from the people. I call it the flip of a coin.

In business, 51% is the magic number. If you control 51% of the votes you make the policy.

I'm not so sure of your 51% number as the actual number in either of the last two elections, but I'd take that flip of a coin number any day.

[rcne]

I believe that free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I'll add a recent bit of economic news -

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html

Federal budget deficit drops again Welcome news for President Bush Monday, August 15, 2005; Posted: 12:28 p.m. EDT (16:28 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Congressional Budget Office predicts a budget deficit of $314 billion for the coming fiscal year, almost a $100 billion decline from last year's deficit. The new report by the nonpartisan CBO, which does budget analysis for lawmakers in Washington, gave the latest proof that surging revenues and a steadily growing economy are combining to bring the deficit down from a record $412 billion posted last year. The coming budget year starts October .

The economic plans put in place by Republicans, much to the chagrin of the opposition, and despite the current high costs of fuel, still grows the economy at a better than expected rate.

The Gloom and Doomers will run their numbers to soften the effect but the underlying numbers point to an indication that the economy is increasing.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: rcne In business, 51% is the magic number. If you control 51% of the votes you make the policy. I'm not so sure of your 51% number as the actual number in either of the last two elections, but I'd take that flip of a coin number any day.

But the US government is not run like a board room is it? Half of our representatives are democratic. In a buisiness the 49% has no say, and is SOL if the 51% want to screw them. That is not how our government is. Especially since many decisions take a 2/3 majority. So lose the terrible analogy.

What do you mean 51% is not an acurate number? Bush won by the skin of his teeth. The majorities in the congress are razor thin. Are you contesting that the country is basically evenly divided?

[RVonse]

Quote by: Prometheus Reps got the majority, but %51 can hardly be called a strong statement from the people. I call it the flip of a coin.

I call it picking the least evil between 2 bad choices and no other alternatives.

[Prometheus]

Well either way, it's not a great process is it?

[Sonart]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Based on your name which reflects a dead historic patriot, I'm guessing you are a libertarian? For some reason libertarians like to take the names of dead patriots, they are not that creative, so I am guessing that is your politics.

LOL!!! And so where do conservatives get their handles? You all seem to have a penchant for wearing your jingoism on your sleeves?

.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Sonart LOL!!! .

ahem

[Cephus]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I am calling out the Republicans on this thread and ignoring Democrats who shall be the target for my attack on another thread.

Of course it's all rhetoric. So is everything the Democrats say. So is everything every other political party says. The only thing that matters to ANY of them is getting their asses elected to office.

Not sure why this is news to anyone.

[belverron]

rcne, having less of a budget deficit is just less of a screw-up.