FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Republican Name Hypocritical?





Soulfire
Now, I identify (slightly) more with the Republican party than the Democratic party... but here is what is perplexing me.

The Republican Party is supposed to be the least government interference, at least, that's how I understand. Laissez Faire and whatnot.

Yet, Republicans want the government to ban abortion, to ban gay rights, etc.

Anyone else seeing this at all?
coolclay
The Republican party as a whole does not want to ban abortion, or gay rights, where did you get that from. I am a Republican, and a town chairman for my town, and chairman of my college republican chapter. I can tell you that most republicans are not for banning abortion, and definetely not for banning gay rights. I know more democrats that are homophobes, and want are against gay rights then republicans. There are people that believe in both on either side of the ticket. You will never hear the republican party say they want to ban either. There are individuals that may, just as there are individual democrats that may, but its a personal issue not a political party one.

I am very involved with the Republican party and most people that I meet, and am involved with are exactly what you stated less government interference.

What I think you may be confusing here is the term Neocon. Neocon (new conservative) individuals are largely for stronger government among other things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#_note-BBC1 they also usually run under the flag of republican but are largely rejected by many paleoconservatives.
the1991
a political party being hypocritical!? that's unheard of!!
Soulfire
the1991 wrote:
a political party being hypocritical!? that's unheard of!!
Excellent use of sarcasm, lol.

And I suppose you're correct, but it appears that this Neocon concept must be what our government is currently in.

Our teacher laid it out simple:

Republican = Leissez Faire
Democrat = Socialism

Granted it becomes much more complex, with varying degrees, but still.
R2.DETARD
DEMOCRAT=SOCIALISM!!! WTF?
you guys have a two party system and think its the shit because you have so much freedom. but in reality the parties are essentially the same. If you look at real socialists they are so different on political and economical issues than democrats. both parties are lasseiz faire (damn french people and their crazy spelling).
Davidgr1200
Despite the language R2.Detard is pretty well spot on. In USA there are two main parties:
Democrats (Right wing)
Republicans (slightly further to the right)
Compare with most european countries where there are parties of the right, centre and left plus smaller parties on the far right and far left.
Take the UK:
Right wing: Conservatives (Roughly equivalent to Democrats)
Centre: Liberal-democrats
Slightly left: Labour

(Labour were a left wing party before but have gone closer to the centre)
Bondings
From what I understood about USA politics, it's rather:
Republicans: right and conservative
Democrats: both right and left liberals and a bit progressive

What I don't understand is the debate about "big government", I guess it's the same thing as what you call government interference. I think that both parties want to push their own ideology (conservative/liberal) and that could either be more or less government interference, depending on the issue. Their ideology isn't more or less government itself.

@Coolclay, isn't Bush and his administration mostly neocons?
Esperanto
coolclay wrote:
The Republican party as a whole does not want to ban abortion, or gay rights, where did you get that from. I am a Republican, and a town chairman for my town, and chairman of my college republican chapter. I can tell you that most republicans are not for banning abortion, and definetely not for banning gay rights. I know more democrats that are homophobes, and want are against gay rights then republicans. There are people that believe in both on either side of the ticket. You will never hear the republican party say they want to ban either. There are individuals that may, just as there are individual democrats that may, but its a personal issue not a political party one.

I am very involved with the Republican party and most people that I meet, and am involved with are exactly what you stated less government interference.

What I think you may be confusing here is the term Neocon. Neocon (new conservative) individuals are largely for stronger government among other things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#_note-BBC1 they also usually run under the flag of republican but are largely rejected by many paleoconservatives.


Well - your Republican Supreme Court recently upheld a partial-birth abortion ban; you can not tell me that Republicans are not for banning abortions. Plus directly from the 2004 Republican Party Platform:

Quote:
As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right tolife which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protectionsapply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of thatright against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortionand will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judgeswho respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to bepunitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We opposeabortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women whohave an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoptionservices, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance toadopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President insupporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children. We praise the President for his bold leadership in defense of life. We praise himfor signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures thatevery infant born alive – including an infant who survives an abortion procedure – isconsidered a person under federal law.We praise Republicans in Congress for passing, with strong bipartisan support, aban on the inhumane procedure known as partial birth abortion. And we applaudPresident Bush for signing legislation outlawing partial birth abortion and for vigorouslydefending it in the courts.In signing the partial birth abortion ban, President Bush reminded us that “themost basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person,however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world.” We affirm theinherent dignity and worth of all people. We oppose the non-consensual withholding ofcare or treatment because of disability, age, or infirmity, just as we oppose euthanasia andassisted suicide, which especially endanger the poor and those on the margins of society.We support President Bush’s decision to restore the Drug Enforcement Administration’spolicy that controlled substances shall not be used for assisted suicide. We applaudCongressional Republicans for their leadership against those abuses and their pioneeringlegislation to focus research and treatment resources on the alleviation of pain and thecare of terminally ill patients. --page 84, GOP Platform: www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf


Please explain that to me, Mr. Republican Town Chairman. You deal with local issues and having nothing to do with the national level of politics, you must be out of touch.

Bondings seems to have the best understanding of US Politics. Currently, we're seeing more progressives than right wing Democrats - the party has unified to a degree since Bush.

@Bondings: Each party's ideology supports "big government" in some shape or form - the Democrats who wish to control the economy and the Republicans who wish to maintain a solid defense network. However, the Dems believe that government should protect the rights of the individual, which one could conclude would mean less interference in daily life. Republicans seems to be unclear in this issue - personally, I deduct that they look out of the rights of corporate America. Bias aside, they don't carry a true stance to civil rights.
nilsmo
Soulfire wrote:
The Republican Party is supposed to be the least government interference, at least, that's how I understand. Laissez Faire and whatnot.

Yet, Republicans want the government to ban abortion, to ban gay rights, etc.


Republicans have policies of little government interference in terms of economics, but they have many traditional Christian values, too, which they seek to put into law. It doesn't make sense, and it is simply not supposed to make sense. It's how it is.
Kaisonic
Political parties are just as stupid as religion.

'Nuff said.
Esperanto
Kaisonic wrote:
Political parties are just as stupid as religion.

'Nuff said.


You see - this opinion gets America (or democracy in any country) nowhere! Apathia is the worst possible thing that can happen to a country. If you have criticism to the system (and believe me, I have plenty of it) - take what has been established and use it to your advantage! Change the system and start a revolution using the very party system that democracy is founded under!

But don't be an apathetic and careless human. If we all were apathetic, we'd currently be in worse trouble.
Soulfire
Apathy is the death of democracy.
{name here}
You cannot compare Democrats and Republicans correctly. All they are are vote hungry liars devoted into screwing the other party so they get the vote rather than the candidate that might be better representing of the beliefs of the people. The will of the people means nothing in American politics. Politicians serve themselves, not their country. If we were to remove the parties and substitute something else in place of a party system, I guaruntee you this country would be in better shape because there would be nobody to be devoted to but the people you represent.
eday2010
Esperanto wrote:
Well - your Republican Supreme Court recently upheld a partial-birth abortion ban; you can not tell me that Republicans are not for banning abortions.


Just a side note for me: I am all for pro-choice, but I think partial-birth abortions are wrong. Something seems very very wrong with pulling a baby part way out of the mother, making an incision in its head, and sucking it's brains out. By the second trimester, the fetus is pretty much a baby with a baby shape and everything. A lot of you may not feel that way, and I didn't before. But once I we had our first son, and I saw a brand new baby, made from almost nothing, looking at me and moving around in my arms, I got a different view of everything. Second trimester abortions should be reserved for emergencies. If you can't tell you are pregnant in the first three months, then more often than not you are pretty dumb.

Now, Soulfire, perhaps you would identify more with Libertarians than Republicans. They believe in having minimal government, for national security and infastructure. Everything else is up to the individual. They believe that someone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesnt take away any rights from someone else, and that people should be responsible for themselves. So you can blast your Conway Twitty albums at 3am as long as it doesnt disturb anyone else. It's pretty much as little government as possible while still keeping order.
furtasacra
{name here} wrote:
You cannot compare Democrats and Republicans correctly. All they are are vote hungry liars devoted into screwing the other party so they get the vote rather than the candidate that might be better representing of the beliefs of the people. The will of the people means nothing in American politics. Politicians serve themselves, not their country. If we were to remove the parties and substitute something else in place of a party system, I guarantee you this country would be in better shape because there would be nobody to be devoted to but the people you represent.


That is more or less part of what I was going to say. Thanks for doing all that typing for me, Esperanto. Smile That said, my personal opinion of the political parties in the US is this:
Republican party = environment-raping, misogynistic, and homophobic.
Democratic party = money-wasting, bumbling and clueless.
Everybody else = under-represented, voiceless, and totally left out.
And they're ALL hypocritical.

Before anybody gets their knickers in a twist, this is my perception of the parties themselves, NOT the individuals within the parties.

I know perfectly well that not all Republicans are Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christian loonies who want to pave the rainforest.
I am equally aware that not all Democrats are babbling idiots who want to sling tons of money at the symptoms of social and economic problems instead of addressing the underlying causes.

At any rate, I just don't like politicians, regardless of party affiliation. I find the current crop to be unusually slimy and loathsome. I wish they would stop arguing amongst themselves and just do what we tell them, which is what they're supposed to do, anyway.
{name here}
furtasacra wrote:
{name here} wrote:
You cannot compare Democrats and Republicans correctly. All they are are vote hungry liars devoted into screwing the other party so they get the vote rather than the candidate that might be better representing of the beliefs of the people. The will of the people means nothing in American politics. Politicians serve themselves, not their country. If we were to remove the parties and substitute something else in place of a party system, I guarantee you this country would be in better shape because there would be nobody to be devoted to but the people you represent.


That is more or less part of what I was going to say. Thanks for doing all that typing for me, Esperanto. Smile

Erm, I said that not Esperanto. Razz
Related topics
Ok a little help for a semi-beginner
Can I use a .com.ru domain name when requesting free hosing?
Free domain names
Subdomain name change
Conflict: Global Terror Name Changed
Celeberty 's :D:D
Hosting my own domain name on Frihost
What happend with my name??
Can anyone (preferrably a Republican fan-boy) splane this?
Big News: A Republican governor talking sense & cooperat
Another fine Republican candidate
Things only a Republican could believe
Vacations a Human Right
Republicans trashing US economy for political points?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.