board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Future of Republicanism

Post Reply   Page 2 of 18  [ 345 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 518 »
Author Message
ellienor
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 28 Apr , 2009 10:15 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon 13 Dec , 2004 9:07 pm
 
Freddy, I understand that those are moral/ethical issues. The point is that there is a strain of Republicanism which I think is more akin to Libertarianism that basically wishes that the government would stay out of people's personal business, i.e., get smaller and interfere less with people's lives. It seems to me that the Republicans that want to legislate on moral/ethical issues (at least on issues where other people don't get harmed, consenting-adults type issues) are in conflict with the Republicans who want the government, particularly the Federal government, out of their hair. This sets up the dissonance which can cause fractures within the party.


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 28 Apr , 2009 11:04 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Feredir wrote:
Because those are moral/ethical issues, not issues involving the size of government.

freddy
Really?

I thought that having a government big enough to intrude into moral/ethical issues such as those did mean that the government was bigger than a libertarian would prefer.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 28 Apr , 2009 11:19 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Feredir wrote:
Because those are moral/ethical issues, not issues involving the size of government.

freddy

Well how does the government who doesn't believe in gay marriage regulate that gays aren't getting married? by setting up government laws to monitor those things and tada...government is bigger. Then law enforcement has to enforce those laws, much like they used to when abortion was illegal. Or a better example when alcohol was illegal. Any law that regulates morals or ethical issues will cause government growth, somebody somewhere is going to need to make sure people aren't breaking the law. Thus raising taxes.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 28 Apr , 2009 11:21 pm
 
 
ellienor wrote:
Freddy, I understand that those are moral/ethical issues. The point is that there is a strain of Republicanism which I think is more akin to Libertarianism that basically wishes that the government would stay out of people's personal business, i.e., get smaller and interfere less with people's lives. It seems to me that the Republicans that want to legislate on moral/ethical issues (at least on issues where other people don't get harmed, consenting-adults type issues) are in conflict with the Republicans who want the government, particularly the Federal government, out of their hair. This sets up the dissonance which can cause fractures within the party.

Oh, so your talking about me!?!? :D


Top
Quote
Feredir
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 28 Apr , 2009 11:27 pm
 
 
Ara-anna wrote:
Feredir wrote:
Because those are moral/ethical issues, not issues involving the size of government.

freddy

Well how does the government who doesn't believe in gay marriage regulate that gays aren't getting married? by setting up government laws to monitor those things and tada...government is bigger. Then law enforcement has to enforce those laws, much like they used to when abortion was illegal. Or a better example when alcohol was illegal. Any law that regulates morals or ethical issues will cause government growth, somebody somewhere is going to need to make sure people aren't breaking the law. Thus raising taxes.
Not completely. You can enforce the laws with the same size government that you currently have. Ohio continues to make new laws that they desired to be enforced but they don't provide more officers to each department to enforce these laws.

freddy


Top
Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 28 Apr , 2009 11:29 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
The scope of things that the government can regulate is part of how the size of government is defined. Moreover to enforce laws against victimless crimes necessitates a large government in terms of both numbers of people involved and the ability to intrude into the private dealings of others.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 28 Apr , 2009 11:46 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
This is a bit like somebody proclaiming that there is a "right size" of pants to be worn by everyone without any consideration to the measurements of each individual and what constitutes the "right size" for that person.

There is no "right size" for the government. The size of the government is dictated by the functions it must performs. The functions it must performs is dictated by the American people acting through their elected public officials.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 1:42 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
sauronsfinger wrote:
This is a bit like somebody proclaiming that there is a "right size" of pants to be worn by everyone without any consideration to the measurements of each individual and what constitutes the "right size" for that person.

There is no "right size" for the government. The size of the government is dictated by the functions it must performs.
So each of us should have our own individually sized government? What a spectacular idea! You can have the dictatorship you seem to desire that will tell you what to do all the time about everything, and we can have a government that leaves us alone and we can be free. That's a good one, sauronsfinger.

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 11:29 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Meril - you completely misunderstand the point. Those who march down the street waving the gold embossed banner of SMALL GOVERNMENT do so foolishly. There is no such thing. There are no firm definitions for what constitutes small government or medium sized government or big government. The size of government is what it is and that is determined by the functions government needs to perform and what its citizens want it to perform.

The pants worn by an individual are a metaphor for the government of a nation - NOT AN INDIVIDUAL. Pants must be tailored to the size of the individual who wears them. Some persons might only need a yard of cloth while others need two or even three yards of cloth. The same with government. There is no "one size fits all". A person the size of an NBA center needs much more cloth than a person the size of a racing jockey. The amount of cloth you need may vary with the seasons and extremes of temperature. Government expands or contracts depending on the current situation the nations finds itself facing at a certain point in time. There is no rule which applies to all and at all times in all situations. There is no "right size" for government be it large or small or anything in between and that assumes that you can measure and quantify such vague classifications.

But that is exactly what the proponents of "small government" pretend they can do with society and the nation. And the individuals who trumpet that cause ignore the will of the people as expressed through elections.

The American people, through their elected representatives, have determined what functions they desire government to perform. Of coure, within that greater society there is discussion about that, even dispute about that, but those decisions are made collectively as a society and not as individuals.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I desire dictatorship while you desire freedom.
Quote:
What a spectacular idea! You can have the dictatorship you seem to desire that will tell you what to do all the time about everything, and we can have a government that leaves us alone and we can be free.
That is the sort of false dichotomy that is intended to paint me as demonic and your side as angelic. In the real world it fails miserably because it is false on its face. You live in a society with 300 million other people. There is no such thing as absolute, total and complete freedom of any individual who lives in that society. It was never intended to be that way. To hold that up as some sort of standard or goal is fools gold. They only way you can achieve anything like that is to purchase your own island and run it as your own monarchy. And that is part of your liberty and freedom to make that choice. To stay here with the rest of society is also making a choice. You willingly choose giving up some of your individual liberty for certain societal protections and benefits. You really cannot have it both ways.

There seems to be a nostalgic fondness for returning to the days of 1776 and small government. If we ever return to that time when we are a small nation collected on the fringe of the American Eastern seaboard with only 4 milion farmers and merchants who are isolated from most of the world - perhaps that would be something to consider.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 1:36 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
An article in todays edition of the Wall Street Journal seems to echo many of the points I have been making since the November election results. For many on the conservative side of the continuum, it may be an inconvenient truth, but it is truth just the same.
Quote:
By GREG HITT and SUSAN DAVIS
WASHINGTON -- Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to become a Democrat underscores his former party's political downward spiral.

In losing control of the House and Senate over the past four years, congressional Republicans have also lost much of their ideological and geographic diversity -- raising questions about the GOP's viability as a national party. The party has suffered in particular in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions, and among moderates.

"We have to broaden the party," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) Tuesday. "We have to find places in the party for people who couldn't win in South Carolina," he added, vowing to help recruit moderates back into the Republican fold. "I'm a right-of-center guy, but ideological purity is not going to win the day."

Senate Republican leaders denied they had slipped into the danger zone. "I believe that we will be able to regain our status as a national party by being competitive nationally, as we should be," said Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), who runs the Senate campaign operation for Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) rejected the idea that moderates are not welcome among Senate Republicans, who now total 40. But moderate ranks have dwindled sharply -- by some counts down to two: Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. "We have moderates in our conference who have an enormous amount of influence," Mr. McConnell said.

After Mr. Specter's departure, questions loom about whether Sens. Collins and Snowe might also switch parties. Both said they intend to remain Republicans. But Sen. Snowe offered a strong warning to her GOP colleagues, arguing the party needs "to be more broadly inclusive" and that many voters are "alienated and disaffected" with the images and agenda put forward.

In his post-2008 analysis, veteran election expert Curtis Gans calculated that the Democratic Party scored gains in every geographic region in the country, most notably in the South and Mountain West, effectively the last Republican strongholds on the political map.

"The GOP is out of contention in New England and the West. It is getting out of contention in the mid-Atlantic states and the industrial Midwest, its bases of former support in the farm Midwest, Mountain States and South are eroding," he wrote in his December report for American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

Mr. Gans calculates that the Republican Party currently enjoys a "durable advantage" in just 10 states: Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas. Currently, the Republican Party controls none of the U.S. House districts in the six states that make up New England. In New York State, Republicans now control just three districts, compared with 13 just three years ago.

David Wasserman of the non-partisan Cook Political Report says the party is "deeply divided" between centrists and traditional conservatives.

"You have some Republicans who believe that the course back is to amplify their conservative message and not to alter it, and then you have those who want to alter and not amplify," he said.

Mr. Wasserman noted that GOP moderates can still run and win in Democratic-leaning states -- citing the 2008 victories of Erik Paulsen in Minnesota and Leonard Lance of New Jersey. Part of the problem Republicans face now is convincing prospective candidates to run for office when there's little hope on the immediate horizon of serving in the majority.

Write to Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com" target="_blank and Susan Davis at susan.davis@wsj.com" target="_blank

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 2:15 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Feredir wrote:
Ara-anna wrote:
Feredir wrote:
Because those are moral/ethical issues, not issues involving the size of government.

freddy

Well how does the government who doesn't believe in gay marriage regulate that gays aren't getting married? by setting up government laws to monitor those things and tada...government is bigger. Then law enforcement has to enforce those laws, much like they used to when abortion was illegal. Or a better example when alcohol was illegal. Any law that regulates morals or ethical issues will cause government growth, somebody somewhere is going to need to make sure people aren't breaking the law. Thus raising taxes.

Not completely. You can enforce the laws with the same size government that you currently have. Ohio continues to make new laws that they desired to be enforced but they don't provide more officers to each department to enforce these laws.

freddy

But are those laws being fully enforced?
My point is this push of moral/ethical laws are going to be really difficult to enforce, unless Big Brother is in your house watching you every second of the day. However, it's some republicans who push these moral and ethical laws, while wanting a smaller government. Which either means by smaller government they want smaller cameras in the houses or they only want smaller government where their own interest are involved. But more government interference where 'bad' people who don't live up to their moral/ethical standards are involved.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Nienor SharkAttack
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 2:52 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 2:34 pm
Location: Norway
 
[quote="Francis Fukuyama: "State Building: Governance and World Order in the Twenty-First Century""][On weak and strong states] It therefore makes sense to distinguish between the scope of state activities, which refers to the different functions and goals taken on by governments, and the strength of state power, or the ability of states to plan and execute policies and to enfore laws cleanly and transparently - what is now commonly referred to as state or institutional capacity.[/quote]

I'd say that an increase in either of those dimensions, or both (scope and strength/capacity), will necessarily require more people and resources and will therefore have an impact on the size of government.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 3:08 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Meril36 wrote:
sauronsfinger wrote:
This is a bit like somebody proclaiming that there is a "right size" of pants to be worn by everyone without any consideration to the measurements of each individual and what constitutes the "right size" for that person.

There is no "right size" for the government. The size of the government is dictated by the functions it must performs.
So each of us should have our own individually sized government? What a spectacular idea! You can have the dictatorship you seem to desire that will tell you what to do all the time about everything, and we can have a government that leaves us alone and we can be free. That's a good one, sauronsfinger.
I agree. Each of us having our own government is a brilliant idea. I'm glad he came up with that.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 3:47 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
CG... I see by your posts today that you want to fight again. That is your normal pattern.
Be argumentative and intentionally provocative with snarky comments like the ones above
engage in a protracted fight
withdraw when others get angry about it
try to exercise self control and stay low for a few days
return to the fight with baiting posts, provocative and snarky commenst like the ones above

This pattern has happened over and over and over again and I see it begins anew.

I know you can read and I know you can proces what you read by you now demonstrate an inability to understand it would seem ( or perhaps merely a refusal to want to understand) because I clearly responded to Merils inaccurate and false interpretation of my statement yesterday.

So which is it?
Quote:
Quote:
from Meril

So each of us should have our own individually sized government? What a spectacular idea! You can have the dictatorship you seem to desire that will tell you what to do all the time about everything, and we can have a government that leaves us alone and we can be free. That's a good one, sauronsfinger.

response from CG
I agree. Each of us having our own government is a brilliant idea. I'm glad he came up with that.
.

If we are to get along civily here - which everybody else seems to want - it would be nice if you exercised common sense and civility yourself.

Meril was flat out 100% wrong when she wrote her comment intended to be witty but was only half so. You failed to even achieve that low bar when you breezed right by my detailed explaination to her posted this morning.

by the way- I am all in favor of you and Meril having your own government - your own nation - your own island or anything else that sets you two up independent and apart from the nation you seem to hate and loathe so much. And have repeatedly told you how to achieve that dream of your own godhood.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 5:43 pm
 
 
Ara-anna wrote:
Feredir wrote:
Ara-anna wrote:
Feredir wrote:
Because those are moral/ethical issues, not issues involving the size of government.

freddy

Well how does the government who doesn't believe in gay marriage regulate that gays aren't getting married? by setting up government laws to monitor those things and tada...government is bigger. Then law enforcement has to enforce those laws, much like they used to when abortion was illegal. Or a better example when alcohol was illegal. Any law that regulates morals or ethical issues will cause government growth, somebody somewhere is going to need to make sure people aren't breaking the law. Thus raising taxes.

Not completely. You can enforce the laws with the same size government that you currently have. Ohio continues to make new laws that they desired to be enforced but they don't provide more officers to each department to enforce these laws.

freddy

But are those laws being fully enforced?
My point is this push of moral/ethical laws are going to be really difficult to enforce, unless Big Brother is in your house watching you every second of the day. However, it's some republicans who push these moral and ethical laws, while wanting a smaller government. Which either means by smaller government they want smaller cameras in the houses or they only want smaller government where their own interest are involved. But more government interference where 'bad' people who don't live up to their moral/ethical standards are involved.
No law is ever "fully" enforced, each person who does the enforcement has discretion. Not everyone gets a speeding ticket, or convicted of murder.

How do I want smaller government? Get them out of my paycheck, get them out of my personal business, get out of how I raise my child, get out of how I decide to sell my personal property, get out of how many guns I own, get out of how I decided to school my child, etc etc. You see, smaller government doesn't always means creating new laws it can mean just getting the government out of things it has no business in.


freddy


Top
Quote
Alatar
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 6:50 pm
of Vinyamar
Online
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Really Freddy? You don't think you should pay any Tax at all and that guns should be freely available to anyone who wants them? That you should be allowed to abuse or beat your kids if you feel that's the right way to raise them? Or not school them at all if you feel that's a good idea?.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious. Cause that's the end result of what you're suggesting. I don't get the bit about selling personal property unless its another tax thing.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 7:00 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Ultimately, when all is said and done, Republicanism is about 'me', Democratism is about 'us'. Do you accept the fact that you are a person in a society, a cell in a body, an atom in a molecule, where anything you do affects others and vica versa - or are you an individualist, where the selfish gene is the optimum route for you and the species (or where the 'you' route should be maximised at the expense of 'us').

Ooh, almost Commie talk there...

In a simple world 1,000 years ago Republicanism would have worked. The world is too complex and intertwined these days for that to work now.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 7:21 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Freddy,

So the GOP doesn't want the government in their personal life.....yet when it comes to gay marriage they'll send billions in advertising against it. Funny how that works, if it's the Republican's personal life the government better stay the heck out of it, no one better tell them how to raise their kids or over tax them to pay for their Iraq war. But if its the gay man who wants to marry his partner there better damn well be a constitutional change to stop that from happening, because they don't want someone interfering with their personal life.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 8:02 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Ara-anna has hit upon a key flaw in the Republican big ten strategy. Like any major party, the Republican party is a coalition of several different groups which have things in common. They also have differences. When you are in power, those differences can be glossed over and minimized. When you are out of power, and really thoroughly out of power the way the Republicans are now, they can be magnified.

The more libertarian wing of the party is not happy with intrusions into the private lives of people. But the Christian evangelical wing certainly is. The Wall Street wing probably does not give a damn either way as long as the money keeps lining their pockets. So now we are seeing a fractioning of this coalition and the contradictions only seem more obvious.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 29 Apr , 2009 8:45 pm
 
 
OK, where to start.

First, I said out of my paycheck not a thing about taxes. There are other ways to raise tax revenue that is FAIR to everyone and not abusing those that have become successful. We are all successful in some fashion of our life, just some are financially successful.

How I raise my child- If I choose to raise my child that an act is immoral based on my religious beliefs then the government has no right to tell me I can't do that. Corporal punishment, within reason, is my decision and not the governments. Child abuse, no way. Causing harm to another, no way.

Guns- If I can legally own a gun (no domestic violence, no felonies, etc) then it is none of their business how many guns I own or who I trade them with. If I knowingly sell one to a felon then hold me accountable.


Republicanism/Conservatism is not about "me" or "us" or "me-v-them." It's about people being responsible for themselves and not punishing those that have applied themselves and become successful. Some people need help, I'm not arguing that. The mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, etc should receive help for their entire life. Those that refuse to work, then tough luck.

Ara-anna- To be honest, I am not sure how I feel about the whole gay marriage thing. These people do not answer to me in how they live, that will be for a being greater than me to judge them. Also, the Iraq war vote was bi-partisan.

As far as "over taxing", I simply think it should be equal across the board. The Fair Tax would be something that I would support 100%.

For all the reasons that SF listed, I list myself as a conservative and not a Republican. They have lost their way and their identity. They'll find it again and it will be a moderate platform like it was a few years ago.

If I missed something please let me know and I will try to cover it. It most likely won't be today but I'll try.

freddy


Top
Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 18  [ 345 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 518 »
Jump to: