NationStates Jolt Archive

I just had a discussion with a friend's mother, over the Iraq war. Apparently, she is a Conservative. And frankly, she was rude. She'd called me a "hippie", even though I am not anti-war. She said many of her family was in the military, and I explained that both of my parents served in the Navy 30 years, many on my mother's side served in the Navy, and on my father's side, I have relatives in the British army going back 500 years. She called me a coward and I said, "Stop attacking me", and she said, "Oh, I am GOING to attack you", so I walked away, her continuing to insult me as I walked away.

And so, I am in the mood to talk about the psychology of Republicanism. First and foremost, Republicanism is a doctrine of fear. There is always the pervading paranoia that there is this "thing" out to get us, whether that be Communism or Terrorism. We must constantly be reminded that we are in a physical and psychological war with an ambiguous, unknown enemy, so that, through fear, we may turn a blind eye to domestic issues, whilst making the rich richer from the spoils of war, and the poor poorer. It teaches that we must not judge ideas by how much sense they make, but by their source. If it is "Liberal" or "Communist", it is to be immediately disregarded. Please, tell me, how many Americans were killed by the "threat" of Communist Russia? None. And with the money we'd spent on the nuclear and technological arms race, we could have ended world hunger--or at least within our own borders. I'm also curious to know, truly, after the military had already been testing nuclear weapons, knowing full-well their capability, how did they expect "duck and cover" to work? Is not the color-coded chart and Homeland Security website of today, the modern-version of "duck and cover", teaching people that there is a threat and to react in a certain irrational, futile way?

Republicanism dehumanizes citizens of China, Mexico, and the Middle East, to the point where "they aren't from our country, therefore they are of less value." It is a philosophy of hatred fueled by panic that turns "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" into "Torture is too good for them." "Them." Republicanism, like all Conservativism, is the natural fear of inevitable social change, no different than the Catholics who feared Martin Luther or the fundamentalist Muslims today who fear women's rights. It seeks to prevent the unpreventable, and to enforce morality through immoral means.

Republicanism makes our prosperity more important than that of immigrants'. It teaches that freedom in foreign countries cannot be gained by charity, by inviting them to join in our freedom, or by diplomacy, but strictly by war and destroying their microeconomies by flooding their countries with Wal-Mart factories, for all of which support is generated by love for one's country. It is better to love the world than to love one's country. A country loving itself is no different than individual arrogance and greed. We find it absolutely necessary to invade Iraq, and yet with the millions in Saudi Arabia's slave-trade, and Saudi Arabia harboring and funding terrorism (Bin Laden was even from Saudi Arabia), Republican politicians befriend such people when they offer economic advantages and only villify such despots when they threaten our free trade. Republicanism is the doctrine that turns the leaders of South America and Cuba into demons, but the leaders of China and Saudi Arabia into saints, depending on whether or not they invite us to trade with them.

If anyone wishes to know the heart of Republicanism, read Plato's "The Republic." In it, Plato mentions that the people are too stupid to make their own decisions, and so we must be ruled by a wise, Philosopher King, who, at times, may even sometimes decieve the people and do so with a clear conscience because it is for the greater, moral good. Clearly, today, the United States is turning the President into a king, by allowing greater leniency with the power of Executive Orders, by never requiring the President to speak to the people directly, because he has his "messenger boys" do it for him, and by giving him direct and secret control over the military. And even if he speaks to the people, it is a speech he hasn't written, to a crowd that is staged. And while the President may not be a philosophy king, he is certainly a religious king--one that promises that poverty can end poverty (for why should we provide for the needy?!) and that healthcare can be provided by miracles, as long as the poor convert to Christianity (and we've clearly seen such results from feudal Europe under the Catholic Church), and that he will personally throw urine on every person who militarily or even intellectually opposes the U.S. government, and revert our society to a combination between a backwards, 1950's state, where people having sex in movies must keep one leg on the floor, along with a 1984 corporate police-state. That is Republicanism.

Very eloquent. Very true too. Tis sad really.

The key difference between Liberal and Conservative, is that Liberals help the lower class by sacrificing the economy, Conservatives help the economy by sacrificing the lower class.

But don't take my word for it. Check out NationStates.
http://fapfap.org/ns.gif

And personally, I believe that preventing people from suffering is far more important than economic growth.

This monologue is Double Plus Good.

Now please accompany the Thought Police for Questioning.

:D

Whoa, you obviously do not like republicans. However, they do have some alright ideas, after all we do need to have a military presence, perhaps not use it but have enough to be respected. As well economic growth is important as well, it keeps the economy strong and capable. A good economy is one of our nation's strengths and it can not be disregarded. Finally, the moral force that is applied by republicans does have some benefit in maintaining a morality. Although it is arguable that that is not the government's place, still a good national morality does help create a strong dedicated nation. Anyway I mention most of this for the sake of argument, I am a totalitarian, so I disagree with republican economics. As well people are too stupid to make their own choices.

Indeed, I still remember how my father accused a friend of mine of being a drug dealer by the way he dressed and such.

The republican party is built on élitism, greed, and a love of authority.

Aye, a lot of conservative types will get on you like that if you don't agree with them, but a lot of liberal types will bust out the 'bigot' card if you don't agree with them, so I think it all evens out.

Ugh, now matter how much I might dislike the partisan hacks on the right side, I also dislike partisan hacks in general.

You show very little knowledge of the GOP with this topic. Please, PLEASE stick to your election conspiracy topics. Those were interesting and provided something but an analysis of what the Republican party has become in only the last 10 or 15 years. True Republicanism, whether it be that which was espoused by Ike (something akin to very moderate libertarianism) or the very liberal stances of Abe Lincoln (who am I kidding? The man suspended Habeus Corpus...he WAS faced with a Civil War, though, so...), the Republicans have managed to pull it together for the last 150 years. Why begrudge them a period a tenth that size just because they got taken over by (very smart, cunning, and extremely conniving) power hungry corporatists? Hell, the same thing happened ot the Democrats, they're just doing a better job of hiding it.

Do you need a nap, Shrub?

"This thread needs an enema!" - the Joker

I think thats more of "neo-conservative" (whatever the hell THAT means :rolleyes: ) than conservative.

The conservatives of early days were nothing like that the conservatives now, who have unwittly allowed some fascist vaules into their agenda.


Not saying I'm a conservative; I'm a left-wing radical.

Now now, your making blanket statements.
Remember, Democrat does not equal Moor
Republican does not equal Bush

I also note that many of your statements could be applied to some liberals, with a few of the words changed, which shows, basicaly, that extremists suck. Meh.

Republican equals Ann Coulter! AH!

I just had a discussion with a friend's mother, over the Iraq war. Apparently, she is a Conservative. And frankly, she was rude. She'd called me a "hippie", even though I am not anti-war. She said many of her family was in the military, and I explained that both of my parents served in the Navy 30 years, many on my mother's side served in the Navy, and on my father's side, I have relatives in the British army going back 500 years. She called me a coward and I said, "Stop attacking me", and she said, "Oh, I am GOING to attack you", so I walked away, her continuing to insult me as I walked away.

And her behavior excuses your own? Or the behavior of jackasses who violate the law, march down streets, break windows, insult and attack police et all? Nope, doesn't excuse either. Both are very wrong. But hey, those jackasses haven't caused you to sit down are write up 'the psychology of me', no no. That would require actual insight.

And so, I am in the mood to talk about the psychology of Republicanism. First and foremost, Republicanism is a doctrine of fear. There is always the pervading paranoia that there is this "thing" out to get us, whether that be Communism or Terrorism. We must constantly be reminded that we are in a physical and psychological war with an ambiguous, unknown enemy, so that, through fear, we may turn a blind eye to domestic issues, whilst making the rich richer from the spoils of war, and the poor poorer.

While, er, yeah. I was going to say intersting. But its not really that intersting or insightful of an idea. The republican party, talking points, issues, etc... does not turn a blind eye to domestic issues. In fact it addresses them rather well. Such nice things as the stance on abortion, school vouchers, taxes, welfare, social security etc... it address all the domestic that face us. Just because they way it addresses them is different than how you would like them to be addressed does not change the fact that they are indeed addressed.

It teaches that we must not judge ideas by how much sense they make, but by their source. If it is "Liberal" or "Communist", it is to be immediately disregarded.

? 'Republicanism' teaches no such thing. Idioticy teaches such. And you'll find that particular sympton has been allocated to both political parties in rather equal amounts.

Please, tell me, how many Americans were killed by the "threat" of Communist Russia? None.

Communist Russia? Probably a good deal of people who were spying on them. Communist China? Go talk to some Korean War veterans and find out how many of their friends died from soldiers trained by Chinese, firing Russian Guns.

And with the money we'd spent on the nuclear and technological arms race, we could have ended world hunger

Not really.

--or at least within our own borders.

We pretty much have.

I'm also curious to know, truly, after the military had already been testing nuclear weapons, knowing full-well their capability, how did they expect "duck and cover" to work?

They didn't. Though they did expect it to work if you were far enough away from the center of the blast. Little things like that didn't occur to you?

Is not the color-coded chart and Homeland Security website of today, the modern-version of "duck and cover", teaching people that there is a threat and to react in a certain irrational, futile way?

Hmm. No.

Republicanism dehumanizes citizens of China, Mexico, and the Middle East, to the point where "they aren't from our country, therefore they are of less value."

Nonsense. It recognizes that different countries are in fact, different. Unlike 'liberalism' which tends to ignore economic realities of different cost of living in different areas. Of course we also have to consider that nations need to go through different stages. America suffered from similiar problems that China now faces and resolved them. China can, and will, do the same given time. Let it evolove natuarlly and it will come out better.

It is a philosophy of hatred fueled by panic that turns "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" into "Torture is too good for them."

A wild leap of logic with no basis in reality.

"Them." Republicanism, like all Conservativism, is the natural fear of inevitable social change, no different than the Catholics who feared Martin Luther or the fundamentalist Muslims today who fear women's rights. It seeks to prevent the unpreventable, and to enforce morality through immoral means.

Um right. Wait no, absolutely wrong. You see Republicans want to cause social change. Not resist some 'inevitable' social change that you happen to think is inevitable. Republicans want to go somewhere different than you, not simply resist the changes you deem as inevitable. Hell, Republicans were the ones who deemed slavery wrong. Republicans were the ones who voted through Civil Rights bills. Republicans have caused a good deal of Social change in this particular nation.

Republicanism makes our prosperity more important than that of immigrants'.

Er, no it doesn't. 'Republicanaism' creates the idea of the 'succesful immigrant, who comes here, works hard and makes millions'. 'Republicanism' virtually worships that idea.

It teaches that freedom in foreign countries cannot be gained by charity, by inviting them to join in our freedom, or by diplomacy, but strictly by war and destroying their microeconomies by flooding their countries with Wal-Mart factories, for all of which support is generated by love for one's country.

:rolleyes: I see you live on a different world than the rest of us.

It is better to love the world than to love one's country. A country loving itself is no different than individual arrogance and greed.

:rolleyes: I see you live on a different world than the rest of us.

We find it absolutely necessary to invade Iraq, and yet with the millions in Saudi Arabia's slave-trade, and Saudi Arabia harboring and funding terrorism (Bin Laden was even from Saudi Arabia),

We like Saubi Arabia. Its better for us to not deal violently with Saudi Arabia. Nevermind that they have a modern US equiped army and not the antique soviet shit that Iraq had.

Republican politicians befriend such people when they offer economic advantages and only villify such despots when they threaten our free trade. Republicanism is the doctrine that turns the leaders of South America and Cuba into demons, but the leaders of China and Saudi Arabia into saints, depending on whether or not they invite us to trade with them.

Uh, Republicanism has turned the leaders of China into saints? Whauaha? Are you perhaps living on Earth 2?

If anyone wishes to know the heart of Republicanism, read Plato's "The Republic." In it, Plato mentions that the people are too stupid to make their own decisions, and so we must be ruled by a wise, Philosopher King, who, at times, may even sometimes decieve the people and do so with a clear conscience because it is for the greater, moral good. Clearly, today, the United States is turning the President into a king, by allowing greater leniency with the power of Executive Orders, by never requiring the President to speak to the people directly, because he has his "messenger boys" do it for him, and by giving him direct and secret control over the military. And even if he speaks to the people, it is a speech he hasn't written, to a crowd that is staged. And while the President may not be a philosophy king, he is certainly a religious king--one that promises that poverty can end poverty (for why should we provide for the needy?!) and that healthcare can be provided by miracles, as long as the poor convert to Christianity (and we've clearly seen such results from feudal Europe under the Catholic Church), and that he will personally throw urine on every person who militarily or even intellectually opposes the U.S. government, and revert our society to a combination between a backwards, 1950's state, where people having sex in movies must keep one leg on the floor, along with a 1984 corporate police-state. That is Republicanism.

That little triade there is so full of inaccurate bullshit that I can't even begin to reply to it without throwing up. So I'll keep my desk clean.

I'd put out a nice reply about the psychology of Liberalism. But I'd be wasting my time. All you need to do is visit a nursery. Picture the babies as democrats, the workers as the government and you will understand the psychology rather well.

Cheers.

I just had a discussion with a friend's mother, over the Iraq war. Apparently, she is a Conservative. And frankly, she was rude. She'd called me a "hippie", even though I am not anti-war. She said many of her family was in the military, and I explained that both of my parents served in the Navy 30 years, many on my mother's side served in the Navy, and on my father's side, I have relatives in the British army going back 500 years. She called me a coward and I said, "Stop attacking me", and she said, "Oh, I am GOING to attack you", so I walked away, her continuing to insult me as I walked away.
Great so you get all pissy and decide lets vent on a message board. Just great.

And so, I am in the mood to talk about the psychology of Republicanism. First and foremost, Republicanism is a doctrine of fear. There is always the pervading paranoia that there is this "thing" out to get us, whether that be Communism or Terrorism. We must constantly be reminded that we are in a physical and psychological war with an ambiguous, unknown enemy, so that, through fear, we may turn a blind eye to domestic issues, whilst making the rich richer from the spoils of war, and the poor poorer. It teaches that we must not judge ideas by how much sense they make, but by their source. If it is "Liberal" or "Communist", it is to be immediately disregarded. Please, tell me, how many Americans were killed by the "threat" of Communist Russia? None. And with the money we'd spent on the nuclear and technological arms race, we could have ended world hunger--or at least within our own borders. I'm also curious to know, truly, after the military had already been testing nuclear weapons, knowing full-well their capability, how did they expect "duck and cover" to work? Is not the color-coded chart and Homeland Security website of today, the modern-version of "duck and cover", teaching people that there is a threat and to react in a certain irrational, futile way?
You think the us versus them attitude is just used by republicans? I got news for you bud every country uses this tactic. Its a simple way to rally the people against a cause. The Soviet Union, Germany, France, America and numerous other countries have all used this tactic to gain support and getting rid of enemies. To label this just a republican tactic is ignorant.

Republicanism dehumanizes citizens of China, Mexico, and the Middle East, to the point where "they aren't from our country, therefore they are of less value." It is a philosophy of hatred fueled by panic that turns "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" into "Torture is too good for them." "Them." Republicanism, like all Conservativism, is the natural fear of inevitable social change, no different than the Catholics who feared Martin Luther or the fundamentalist Muslims today who fear women's rights. It seeks to prevent the unpreventable, and to enforce morality through immoral means.
You know every other Republican I have met has never said that people from different countries are of less value. You seem to be making broad generalizations because of an arguement you got into and are now pissed about.

Republicanism makes our prosperity more important than that of immigrants'. It teaches that freedom in foreign countries cannot be gained by charity, by inviting them to join in our freedom, or by diplomacy, but strictly by war and destroying their microeconomies by flooding their countries with Wal-Mart factories, for all of which support is generated by love for one's country. It is better to love the world than to love one's country. A country loving itself is no different than individual arrogance and greed. We find it absolutely necessary to invade Iraq, and yet with the millions in Saudi Arabia's slave-trade, and Saudi Arabia harboring and funding terrorism (Bin Laden was even from Saudi Arabia), Republican politicians befriend such people when they offer economic advantages and only villify such despots when they threaten our free trade. Republicanism is the doctrine that turns the leaders of South America and Cuba into demons, but the leaders of China and Saudi Arabia into saints, depending on whether or not they invite us to trade with them.
The comment on our prosperity being more important isnt just an issue with republicans. If the left is not as concerned by this then why did they complain so much about outsourcing? Then you go on to talk about a small group of people in the Republican party who's viewpoint is now shared by the whole. You are making broad generalizations lumping in the whole party with the few nutjobs.

If anyone wishes to know the heart of Republicanism, read Plato's "The Republic." In it, Plato mentions that the people are too stupid to make their own decisions, and so we must be ruled by a wise, Philosopher King, who, at times, may even sometimes decieve the people and do so with a clear conscience because it is for the greater, moral good. Clearly, today, the United States is turning the President into a king, by allowing greater leniency with the power of Executive Orders, by never requiring the President to speak to the people directly, because he has his "messenger boys" do it for him, and by giving him direct and secret control over the military. And even if he speaks to the people, it is a speech he hasn't written, to a crowd that is staged. And while the President may not be a philosophy king, he is certainly a religious king--one that promises that poverty can end poverty (for why should we provide for the needy?!) and that healthcare can be provided by miracles, as long as the poor convert to Christianity (and we've clearly seen such results from feudal Europe under the Catholic Church), and that he will personally throw urine on every person who militarily or even intellectually opposes the U.S. government, and revert our society to a combination between a backwards, 1950's state, where people having sex in movies must keep one leg on the floor, along with a 1984 corporate police-state. That is Republicanism.
Dude Plato's Republic advocates a very strong governement with large control over people's lives. That is the opposite of what republicnas want. You are confusing the party with the form of government and Plato's government is more totalitarian then republican.

All you have done is make a huge generalization here while trying to sound smart and showing how the republicans are the bad guys. Do us a favor and take your own advice on the us versus them part and stop trying to get people against a group. Instead try realizing that there is a grain of truth to both sides. The sooner that we work togther instead of having petty stereotypes or generalizations shape our view the sooner we can try to make the country a better place.

Edit:Shrub if you are doing this stuff just to provoke a reaction/ like screwing around with political debates/ etc., do us a favor and stop. You can yank your chain where ever the hell else you want to but being an ass on a message board really shows how low you need to sink for attention. Its not funny and your being an idiot. Stop

I'd put out a nice reply about the psychology of Liberalism. But I'd be wasting my time. All you need to do is visit a nursery. Picture the babies as democrats, the workers as the government and you will understand the psychology rather well.

ROFL

ROFL
*heh* He pretty much nailed it, didn't he? :D

Mr. Shrub, are you or have you ever been a republican?

Mr. Shrub, are you or have you ever been a republican?
HAHAHA! McCarthy. :D

you could die for all i care!

that comment about "turning leaders of saudi arabia and cuba into demons, but china and russia into saints" ot something like

wow

seeing as how im cuban and my parents ESCAPED when Castro took over i think he was a demon before the "mean 'ol Republicans" came in

so yeah never mention Cuba ever again cause you have know idea what your talking about

my grandpa went to Cuba on a once in a lifetime visit which he can never go again.

he went to go visit his house.........7 families were living in it....was THAT the work of Republicans?

thats actually the Communist leaders (pssssst by the way Communism = extreme Liberalism)

I ran this through babelfish with the "Conservative" to "English" option and here's what I got.

Great so you get all pissy and decide lets vent on a message board. Just great.

Large! You sieze much urine in pursuit of free speech. The inticated is America anus. Talking is prohibitivly expensive.

You think the us versus them attitude is just used by republicans? I got news for you bud every country uses this tactic. Its a simple way to rally the people against a cause. The Soviet Union, Germany, France, America and numerous other countries have all used this tactic to gain support and getting rid of enemies. To label this just a republican tactic is ignorant.

One believes Republicans have justice? I have novelty unripe flower strategy. Republicans = Largest of all evils.

You know every other Republican I have met has never said that people from different countries are of less value. You seem to be making broad generalizations because of an arguement you got into and are now pissed about.

One in two Republicans is bigoted. You are grand military mindlike, and produce persuasion.


The comment on our prosperity being more important isnt just an issue with republicans. If the left is not as concerned by this then why did they complain so much about outsourcing? Then you go on to talk about a small group of people in the Republican party who's viewpoint is now shared by the whole. You are making broad generalizations lumping in the whole party with the few nutjobs.

Republican do not talk to money magazines. Liberals care about poverty, why do they talk about it? The celebrated part of the Republicans is the anus. You listen to their testicles.

Dude Plato's Republic advocates a very strong governement with large control over people's lives. That is the opposite of what republicnas want. You are confusing the party with the form of government and Plato's government is more totalitarian then republican.

Republicans oppose Plato. There is a confusing circus staged by the autocrats.

All you have done is make a huge generalization here while trying to sound smart and showing how the republicans are the bad guys. Do us a favor and take your own advice on the us versus them part and stop trying to get people against a group. Instead try realizing that there is a grain of truth to both sides. The sooner that we work togther instead of having petty stereotypes or generalizations shape our view the sooner we can try to make the country a better place.

You have large military doings. You cleverly point to evil Republicans. Our request is that you remove knowledge of opposition and be lazy. Attempt to look at sand all around. That will be productive earlier. Small kinds of radios and militaries look like us.

Edit:Shrub if you are doing this stuff just to provoke a reaction/ like screwing around with political debates/ etc., do us a favor and stop. You can yank your chain where ever the hell else you want to but being an ass on a message board really shows how low you need to sink for attention. Its not funny and your being an idiot. Stop

Hedge nonspecific conditional efforts indicated to be looked at. Enjoy sex talk. Grant our request and don't. You may flush all the toilets other than those in hell. You are being an emphatically wise fool.


Ok. There's quite a bit of gibberish in there. That's what you get with online translators. But I think that it gives the English speaking population a decent idea of what Republicans are trying to say.

I don't get it at all. Call me slow, but from where I sit, you embarrassed yourself in front of what you call a friends mother. (In her own house?) You apparently flee there and are so overjoyed with the fact that she believes you to be a coward and wishes to inflict great bodily harm on you, that you have to come here and post more vile, untruthful and completely rediculous slander. What is it you are looking for? A mental health referal? How old are you?

Dude Plato's Republic advocates a very strong governement with large control over people's lives. That is the opposite of what republicnas want. You are confusing the party with the form of government and Plato's government is more totalitarian then republican.
This whole "Republicans want a small government" thing is a myth, if not a damn lie.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are willing to shrink the government. It may have been true a few decades back, in the last century or even before... but right now, the government gets bigger, no matter the party. And it's been like that for a long time.

Would you say that under GB Bush's leadership, the government got smaller or bigger? Come on.

HAHAHA! McCarthy. :D

Tailgunner Joe, the Patron Saint of Modern Republican Foreign and Domestic Policies. Go figure.

:rolleyes:

This whole "Republicans want a small government" thing is a myth, if not a damn lie.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are willing to shrink the government. It may have been true a few decades back, in the last century or even before... but right now, the government gets bigger, no matter the party. And it's been like that for a long time.

Would you say that under GB Bush's leadership, the government got smaller or bigger? Come on.

These are Republicans dammit. What they've done isn't important. What's important is what they would do, or just do in general.

In the second paragraph you labeled Republicans as fear mongerers who use paranoia and exaggerate the evils of another ideology.

In the third paragraph you seperated Republicans that divide people into us and them.

Pot kettle black, bud.

Tailgunner Joe, the Patron Saint of Modern Republican Foreign and Domestic Policies. Go figure.

:rolleyes:
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/bbpix/enema.jpg

In the second paragraph you labeled Republicans as fear mongerers who use paranoia and exaggerate the evils of another ideology.

In the third paragraph you seperated Republicans that divide people into us and them.

Pot kettle black, bud.

Where did he say he didn't do such things himself, or that the Democrats didn't?

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/bbpix/enema.jpg

In other words, you can't refute that observation so you cop out with a cute .JPG file.

:D

In other words, you can't refute that observation so you cop out with a cute .JPG file.

:D
Or he's disgusted by your inability to see the irony in the McCarthy comment.

Where did he say he didn't do such things himself, or that the Democrats didn't?

I assumed from the wording of his rant that he did not approve of this style of politics.

And anyways it would still be a situation of the pot calling the kettle black even if the original poster said that he follows the tenets that he described.

Dude Plato's Republic advocates a very strong governement with large control over people's lives. That is the opposite of what republicnas want. You are confusing the party with the form of government and Plato's government is more totalitarian then republican.

I wasn't going to get into this, but I couldn't let this statement go unchallenged. Dude, I don't know what country you live in, but right now, the Republican party is the party that wants to control whether or not a woman can take birth control pills, wants to determine if she can have an abortion or not, wants to determine when you can die if you're terminally ill or in a persistently vegetative state, and wants to proscribe what you can put into your body. If that's not government control over people's lives, what the fuck is?

And I haven't even gotten into issues involving consensual sex between people of the same gender--they want to outlaw that as well. The Republican party may have been libertarian leaning some time back, but they haven't been for as long as I've been politically aware, and that's since Reagan was president.

I wasn't going to get into this, but I couldn't let this statement go unchallenged. Dude, I don't know what country you live in, but right now, the Republican party is the party that wants to control whether or not a woman can take birth control pills, wants to determine if she can have an abortion or not, wants to determine when you can die if you're terminally ill or in a persistently vegetative state, and wants to proscribe what you can put into your body. If that's not government control over people's lives, what the fuck is?

And I haven't even gotten into issues involving consensual sex between people of the same gender--they want to outlaw that as well. The Republican party may have been libertarian leaning some time back, but they haven't been for as long as I've been politically aware, and that's since Reagan was president.
Ironically, this is because of the evangelical's mobilization after Roe v Wade. And which party advocates gun bans and land/income seizure again?

Or he's disgusted by your inability to see the irony in the McCarthy comment.
BINGO! *nods*

*gives you a dozen of my special home-made chocolate chip cookies*

And which party advocates gun bans and land/income seizure again?

Both parties want to limit freedom based on what they believe the public good is. If both parties took a step back from playing the polls and sat on their hands for a while we could be in better shape.

Or he's disgusted by your inability to see the irony in the McCarthy comment.

Oh please, McCarthy took intimidation politics and scapegoating to a new level. So far the Bush Administration has utilized principles pioneered by McCarthy, labelling anyone who questions his actions and policies as terrorist cell members at worst and unpatriotic at best. And like McCarthy, Bush is cowing the general public into submission with a scapegoat, in this modern era The Muslim Terrorist.

Ironically, this is because of the evangelical's mobilization after Roe v Wade. And which party advocates gun bans and land/income seizure again?
Gun bans? Neither of the major parties advocate them on the whole. There are a few Democrats who favor it, but none with any real stroke in the party. Democrats have basically taken the states' rights position on gun control, which is a good one as far as I'm concerned, since a one-size-fits-all policy in a country this size won't work.

Land seizure? I guess you're referring to the Kelo decision, and since you're characterizing it in this way, I'm assuming you've neither read the decision nor know anything about the precedent upon which it's based. When I first heard of the decision, I felt the same way. Then I read it, discovered that nothing had really changed, and got over it. I suggest you do the same, else you look like even more of a partisan idiot than you do generally.

Oh please, McCarthy took intimidation politics and scapegoating to a new level. So far the Bush Administration has utilized principles pioneered by McCarthy, labelling anyone who questions his actions and policies as terrorist cell members at worst and unpatriotic at best. And like McCarthy, Bush is cowing the general public into submission with a scapegoat, in this modern era The Muslim Terrorist.
*sighs loudly* Shrubbie boy in posting his tirade is using the same tactics as McCarthy. Keep up already.

Gun bans? Neither of the major parties advocate them on the whole. There are a few Democrats who favor it, but none with any real stroke in the party. Democrats have basically taken the states' rights position on gun control, which is a good one as far as I'm concerned, since a one-size-fits-all policy in a country this size won't work.

Land seizure? I guess you're referring to the Kelo decision, and since you're characterizing it in this way, I'm assuming you've neither read the decision nor know anything about the precedent upon which it's based. When I first heard of the decision, I felt the same way. Then I read it, discovered that nothing had really changed, and got over it. I suggest you do the same, else you look like even more of a partisan idiot than you do generally.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

Both parties want to limit freedom based on what they believe the public good is. If both parties took a step back from playing the polls and sat on their hands for a while we could be in better shape.

:D Yep.

The only reason I, personally, support Republicans is because of their stance in The War on Terror. To have freedoms in the first place, you have to defend them, and if you don’t see terrorists as a threat to our way of life then you are sadly mistaken. Complacency and appeasement never solved anything. In fact, if I can recall, it created more problems.

*sighs loudly* Shrubbie boy in posting his tirade is using the same tactics as McCarthy. Keep up already.

Unlike McCarthy or Bush, Shrub is not in a position of political power where such tactics can and will inflict severe damage on people's lives.

:rolleyes:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable
Oh, put some fucking context in there, for Christ's sake. Quote the whole damn thing.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

She was talking about rolling back the tax cuts that have disproportionately benefited the richest people in the country, while simultaneously adding to the already massive national debt. You lose, dipshit.

You lose, dipshit.
Wow! You have the most convincing and enlightening arguments EVAR! :rolleyes:

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/bbpix/eject.jpg

i am a republican... i can sit here and be angry at your unsupported and very very bad attempts at rational and realistic thoughts and statements. However, i believe you were 'put in your place' by others already. so instead i would like to add a "HA HA" to you. you know why?... ill tell you why.

Because the Democratic party is going down the tiolet bowl right now... and has been for the past decade atleast. Apart from Clinton,, when has a democrat really 'won' anything lately. Honestly. The democrats have lost major ground in the senate, house of reps, the supreme court... basically, i hate to be the one to break the news to you if you didnt know yet.. but your precious democratic party is dying... and will probably not exist in about 20 years.

oh and by the way, making a thread about a conversation you had with a republican that 'angered you' is a very bad way to get your message across. You may not be a pot-smoking, peace-loving, hippie, but you sure have no balls to talk straight to the republican and say, "im sorry i disagree with you, maybe if you let me tell you my ideas, then we can really get into this conversation"... but ofcourse being a liberal pussy that you are... you didnt think of challanging someone else's ideas to their face. Anyway.. probably better you didnt.. b/c based on the arguements you made in ur opening message.. you dont seem to have a grip on reality or what a republican really is.. you probably would have made yourself look like an ignorant fool and then your ideas would have been 'shot down' by your republican friend.

so have a nice day.. and enjoy the democrats while you can... b/c they wont be around for much longer.

Because the Democratic party is going down the tiolet bowl right now... and has been for the past decade atleast. Apart from Clinton,, when has a democrat really 'won' anything lately. Honestly. The democrats have lost major ground in the senate, house of reps, the supreme court... basically, i hate to be the one to break the news to you if you didnt know yet.. but your precious democratic party is dying... and will probably not exist in about 20 years.

You seem to be happy that the US might someday turn into a single-party pseudo-democracy. If you really love your country, you would care for your opponents. Because they are not your enemy... they are your partners in democracy.

You seem to be happy that the US might someday turn into a single-party pseudo-democracy. If you really love your country, you would care for your opponents. Because they are not your enemy... they are your partners in democracy.


im sorry my intentions and beliefs have been mistaken.. i think it is very important that there are two parties to keep each other in check.. im am in favor of killing those who are extreme right-wings and extreme left wings.. they piss me off.. though i am a little right leaning.

im saying the democratic party is dying.. if and when they do.. im hoping another kind of party will surface and gain support.. either that ..or the republicans get a little more liberal with their ideas... (kind of like John McCain- who id love to see as president)

im hoping another kind of party will surface and gain support

Yes, by 2025 the two major parties in the US will be…… drum roll…….




The Republicans and the Libertarians!
If only...

She was talking about rolling back the tax cuts that have disproportionately benefited the richest people in the country, while simultaneously adding to the already massive national debt. You lose, dipshit.
Apparently, you missed the this part

land/income grab.

And considering HRC's party won't even attempt to fix the easier of the two major budget crisis that are coming up, the other being medicare, why the FUCK should I give them more money?

Because the Democratic party is going down the tiolet bowl right now... and has been for the past decade atleast. Actually, I'd say the democrats right now are the strongest they've been in the last five years. They're close to labeling Bush as a lame-duck and much of his agenda has been stalled and/or unsupported.

The democrats have lost major ground in the senate, house of reps, the supreme court... basically, i hate to be the one to break the news to you if you didnt know yet.. but your precious democratic party is dying... and will probably not exist in about 20 years. Have the democrats been hurting? Of course. They weren't exactly mobilizing on much and they ran with essentially no platform in 2002. But you seem to have no understanding on politics. This is a back and forth thing that has been going on for over a century. The republicans once faced just as dire a situtation a couple decades back when the democrats held the house, senate, and presidency. They recovered from it, as will the democrats now, because there are loyal constituencies in both camps. Both parties will exist 30 years from now and beyond.

You may not be a pot-smoking, peace-loving, hippie, but you sure have no balls to talk straight to the republican and say, "im sorry i disagree with you, maybe if you let me tell you my ideas, then we can really get into this conversation"... but ofcourse being a liberal pussy that you are... you didnt think of challanging someone else's ideas to their face. And you are so much better with the flaming?

so have a nice day.. and enjoy the democrats while you can... b/c they wont be around for much longer. Wait til the next election my friend. The firestorm that gave the republicans the house in '94 is already half-formed for the democrats in '06.

Land seizure? I guess you're referring to the Kelo decision, and since you're characterizing it in this way, I'm assuming you've neither read the decision nor know anything about the precedent upon which it's based. When I first heard of the decision, I felt the same way. Then I read it, discovered that nothing had really changed, and got over it. I suggest you do the same, else you look like even more of a partisan idiot than you do generally.
Nope, no change at all.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239024

June 23, 2005, 11:35PM

Freeport moves to seize 3 properties
Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina
By THAYER EVANS
Chronicle Correspondent

FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.
map

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.

Over the years, Freeport's lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.

"This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city," City Manager Ron Bottoms said.

Lee Cameron, director of the city's Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city's downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs. He said three hotels, two of which have "high interest," have contacted the city about building near the marina.

"It's all dependent on the marina," Cameron said. "Without the marina, (the hotels) aren't interested. With the marina, (the hotels) think it's a home run."

Since September 2003, the city has been locked in a legal battle to acquire a 300-by-60-foot tract of land along the Old Brazos River near the Pine Street bridge as well as a 200-foot tract and 100-foot tract along the river through eminent domain from Western Seafood Co. and Trico Seafood Co.

Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use upon payment of the fair market value.

The tracts of land would be used for a planned 800- to 900-slip marina to be built by Freeport Marina, a group that that includes Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He would buy the property from the city and receive a $6 million loan from the city to develop the project.

Freeport Marina would then invest $1 million in the project and contribute a 1,100-foot tract of land, valued at $750,000, to it before receiving the loan.

Western Seafood spokesman Wright Gore III said the wholesale shrimp company was disappointed with the Supreme Court decision, but believes the ruling does not apply to the city's eminent domain proceedings.

He said there is a provision in state law that allows residents of a city to a circulate a petition to call a vote on whether the city can take property using eminent domain.

"(This) is far, far from over," Gore said. "(We) would have liked to have seen a victory on the federal level, but it is by no means a settled issue."

Gore said Western Seafood's 30,000-square-foot processing facility, which sits on the 300-by-60-foot tract, would be forced to close if the land were seized.

That facility earns about $40 million annually, and Western Seafood has been in business in Freeport since 1946, he said.

City officials, however, have said the marina will still allow Western Seafood and Trico Seafood, which did not return telephone calls or e-mail Thursday, to operate their facilities.

In August, U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent ruled against a lawsuit filed by Western Seafood seeking to stop the city's eminent domain proceedings. The seafood company then appealed its case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a request that initially was denied.

The appeals court then decided it would take the case, but not rule on it until after the Supreme Court made a ruling on the New London, Conn., case.


See the bolded part?*spits*

Actually, I'd say the democrats right now are the strongest they've been in the last five years. They're close to labeling Bush as a lame-duck and much of his agenda has been stalled and/or unsupported.

Congratulations to the Democrats! You have been able to completely stall progress. Good for you. The American populace loves it when their representatives block everything without coming up with any ideas of their own.

Congratulations to the Democrats! You have been able to completely stall progress. Good for you. The American populace loves it when their representatives block everything without coming up with any ideas of their own.

It happens. But then, i wouldn't call John Bolton's nomination or Bush's Social Security project "progress". Anyways, its a savvy tactic they've pulled out in that its been bruising up the republicans worse. The US populace hates ineffectivity more than blocking, and with the approval ratings of Bush and republicans in the house and senate at an all-time low, they need to pull out some sucesses in their agenda to keep from taking mass-losses in 2006. Mind you, the democrats also need to suceed on a few more issues. Their numbers aren't as dire but aren't anything to gloat about either.

The appeals court then decided it would take the case, but not rule on it until after the Supreme Court made a ruling on the New London, Conn., case.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together,"

This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city,"

Creepy sounding. Like an evil genius or something.

I just want to say that this thread starter's first post is largely false, and I'm too lazy to say anything else about it...

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Apparently, you missed the this part



And considering HRC's party won't even attempt to fix the easier of the two major budget crisis that are coming up, the other being medicare, why the FUCK should I give them more money?
If by income grab, you mean taxes, then buddy, you're in a world of shit no matter which party you support. Whatever--you're obviously incapable of an intelligent discussion on anything like this. Have a good life.

I just want to say that this thread starter's first post is largely false, and I'm too lazy to say anything else about it...

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Absolutely. The one point I'm going to add is that the "'threat' of Communism" killed 100 000 Americans. Korea and Vietnam would have been cakewalks without massive support from China and the USSR.

Must....resist.....flamebait.....

While, er, yeah. I was going to say intersting. But its not really that intersting or insightful of an idea. The republican party, talking points, issues, etc... does not turn a blind eye to domestic issues. In fact it addresses them rather well. Such nice things as the stance on abortion, school vouchers, taxes, welfare, social security etc... it address all the domestic that face us. Just because they way it addresses them is different than how you would like them to be addressed does not change the fact that they are indeed addressed.
Education: Being criticized for not funding the No Child Left Behind program, so what did the Republican Congress do with their next Health and Human Services budget? They cut it by another $800 million!

Taxes: Giving the largest tax-cut in history, and also the largest budget deficit!

Social Security: Trying to end it. Not being able to pass it, in either the Republican-dominated House or Republican-dominated Senate, as well as losing support from the largest demographic of voters: senior citizens. Why? Because it doesn't make any fucking sense!


? 'Republicanism' teaches no such thing. Idioticy teaches such. And you'll find that particular sympton has been allocated to both political parties in rather equal amounts.
"Idioticy"? Really?


Communist Russia? Probably a good deal of people who were spying on them. Communist China? Go talk to some Korean War veterans and find out how many of their friends died from soldiers trained by Chinese, firing Russian Guns.

Okay, tell me: How many trillions did the U.S. and the Soviet Union spend during the nuclear and technological arms race of the Cold War?


We pretty much have.
Well, I'd like to argue with poverty statistics, but unfortunately, I'm aware that almost 100% of our "poor" own televisions, and roughly 2\3 of those at or below the poverty line own cable TV, so I can't argue you with on that one.


They didn't. Though they did expect it to work if you were far enough away from the center of the blast. Little things like that didn't occur to you?
"Far enough away"? Uhhhhh.. I don't even think I can answer this one. I mean, the nuclear fallout carries farther than the actual blast. And if you're hit by the blast, even slightly, you're basically fucked anyway. Ducking and covering wouldn't do anything and I find it laughable that you believe it would.


Er, no it doesn't. 'Republicanaism' creates the idea of the 'succesful immigrant, who comes here, works hard and makes millions'. 'Republicanism' virtually worships that idea.
Successful immigrant who comes here legally.


We like Saubi Arabia. Its better for us to not deal violently with Saudi Arabia. Nevermind that they have a modern US equiped army and not the antique soviet shit that Iraq had.
Yeah, you're right. Even though Saudi Arabia is more technologically advanced and they have a lucrative slave-trade of millions, yeah, in the U.S., we're cowards. We only go after the "imminent threat" and "axis of evil" that has antiquitated equipment. Oh yes. Antiguitated equipment, BUT THEY HAD WMDS!!!


Uh, Republicanism has turned the leaders of China into saints? Whauaha? Are you perhaps living on Earth 2?
China! The Most-favored Nation!

Dude Plato's Republic advocates a very strong governement with large control over people's lives. That is the opposite of what republicnas want. You are confusing the party with the form of government and Plato's government is more totalitarian then republican.
Only economically. And even with that, if Republicans had the chance, they'd make unions illegal. Bush already signed an Executive Order requiring all businesses to put up signs, explaining that you don't need to be in a union.

Mr. Shrub, are you or have you ever been a republican?
Jesus fucking Christ, man. Don't scare me. You sound like a fucking Jehova.

"Are you or have you ever been a believer in Christ?"

you could die for all i care!

that comment about "turning leaders of saudi arabia and cuba into demons, but china and russia into saints" ot something like

wow

seeing as how im cuban and my parents ESCAPED when Castro took over i think he was a demon before the "mean 'ol Republicans" came in

so yeah never mention Cuba ever again cause you have know idea what your talking about

my grandpa went to Cuba on a once in a lifetime visit which he can never go again.

he went to go visit his house.........7 families were living in it....was THAT the work of Republicans?

thats actually the Communist leaders (pssssst by the way Communism = extreme Liberalism)
And yet Cuba has far more doctors than the United States, and (at least a while ago anyway) outranked the U.S. in literacy.

Ironically, this is because of the evangelical's mobilization after Roe v Wade. And which party advocates gun bans and land/income seizure again?
Gun bans, not really. Just gun control. And remember: The British Labour Party which is rather economically conservative supports gun bans (don't know about the Conservative Party). And on Land\income seizure, that's generally opposed by both sides. There was a recent court ruling that said property can be taken to build shopping malls (I see someone in this thread quoted the article), and all the Liberals I know opposed it, as well as the Conservatives. Pretty much no one likes "eminent domain", except for the politicians that like to have fun using it.

The appeals court then decided it would take the case, but not rule on it until after the Supreme Court made a ruling on the New London, Conn., case.

This may come as a shock to you, Ravenshrike, but the fact is that delaying the taking of a case until the Supreme Court decides one that may or may not have a direct effect on the outcome of the case it's hearing is fairly common. Just because the Appeals court decided to hold off doesn't mean that Kelo is going to make much of a difference in what they decide. It's entirely possible that the appeals court thought Kelo might go the other way, and wanted to be able to take that into account once they heard the case, so as to avoid having to rehear it later--it turned out to be a 5-4 decision, after all. Fact is, I don't know, and neither do you. So quit getting your panties in a twist over it.

Kelo upheld established law--the courts have never--never--decided what public use is defined as. They've always left it up to legislatures to make that call. And that's what they did in Kelo, O'Connor's diatribe notwithstanding. (If you can comprehend the dissent, I suggest you read it closely--her argument basically consists of "it's constitutional to take the land, but I don't like it, so nyah.")

But the situation in Freeport may not be the same as the one in New London, so Kelo may not be a binding decision in this matter. I reiterate--I don't know the facts of the case and neither do you. So quit trying to act as though the world's coming to a fucking end. Eminent domain is written into the constitution--you want to get rid of it? Write an amendment and try to get it passed.

Bush reminds me of invader zim.....he says all this stupid crap that would easily get him caught out over here, but no-one seems to care.

Republicans for the most part call themselves Christians and conservatives. While they cater to the rich and steal from the poor, talk of peace but are always creating wars and are against welfare but all for corparate welfare. They do nothing but murder, lie, cheat and steal. Hypocrits at their best!

This monologue is Double Plus Good.

Now please accompany the Thought Police for Questioning.

:D

Excellent advice.

Bush reminds me of invader zim.....he says all this stupid crap that would easily get him caught out over here, but no-one seems to care.

Bush is the world's biggest welfare recepient. He's also the Golden Child of the Republican Party in that he could make severe fuckups that would have you or me fired or fired at and everyone adores him like the Olsen Twins when they were babies. As David Cross said, he could eat a Jewish Baby on national television and people would apologize for him.

And yet Cuba has far more doctors than the United States, and (at least a while ago anyway) outranked the U.S. in literacy.

Because when you can't make money or go into your own business literacy is sooo important. Also, the literacy rates in the US are caused by the public school situation and the apathy of parents towards their kids' schoolwork. Also, have you seen the state of the hospitals that most people in Cuba have to use? Not the rich tourists or the ones shown to various groups by Castro-approved tours, but the rest of them?

Um right. Wait no, absolutely wrong. You see Republicans want to cause social change. Not resist some 'inevitable' social change that you happen to think is inevitable. Republicans want to go somewhere different than you, not simply resist the changes you deem as inevitable. Hell, Republicans were the ones who deemed slavery wrong. Republicans were the ones who voted through Civil Rights bills. Republicans have caused a good deal of Social change in this particular nation.
The stances of the parties has changed. For a while, Republicans were the liberal party. Lincoln was a liberal, it didn't start to change until Theodore Roosevelt. Until him and Wilson the Democratic party was conservative, and the switch became full with Franklin Roosevelt.

The word conservative means to keep things the same. Conservatives, by definition like things as they are. These neocons are more Reactionaries, who want to go back socially.

Republicans for the most part call themselves Christians and conservatives. While they cater to the rich and steal from the poor, talk of peace but are always creating wars and are against welfare but all for corparate welfare. They do nothing but , lie, cheat and steal. Hypocrits at their best!

Very intelligent and well thought out post. :rolleyes:

Can we stop the flaming for God's sake? This whole thread has been full of stereotypes and insults. Can't we have some civility....I cannot stand all the ignorance!

Then you should not have posted, if you consider yourself so ignorant. GOD bless!

Although you are both eloquent and obviously well read, your comments cast a sweeping generalization over Republicans. People are people and parties mean nothing. The labels of which you speak say nothing about people and only serve to obscure true beliefs.

The republican party is built on élitism, greed, and a love of authority.It's so cool the way you use accents and ligatures in words like élitism and pædophilia ...

The key difference between Liberal and Conservative, is that Liberals help the lower class by sacrificing the economy, Conservatives help the economy by sacrificing the lower class.

But don't take my word for it. Check out NationStates.
http://fapfap.org/ns.gif

And personally, I believe that preventing people from suffering is far more important than economic growth.

The key difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals think that people are helpless beggars who can't do anything for themselves and that it is those who work hard, who earn money, who shyould pay for every lazy asshole who decides to sit on his ass even though he's perfectly able to work.

You fool, economic growth PREVENTS PEOPLE FROM SUFFERING BY GIVING THEM JOBS. That's how things work... you hurt business, you hurt people; you help business, you help people. Except for your cherished lazy ones, that is. Any questions?

lmao!

i will not let pinkos define my party/political persuasion. Stances for Frangland (a fairly conservative -- at least economically -- country):



a)The #1 guarantee for a people should be its safety, for without safety nobody can enjoy any freedoms/rights. National defense should be perhaps the top priority of the federal government.

b)Helping other countries get rid of bad dictators is not a bad thing... especially when the people of said country are overwhelmingly behind his ousting and when they are given the opportunity, via the vote, to elect their own leaders.

c)Redistribution of wealth via high taxes on rich/middle class is a bad concept, for it punishes success and rewards sloth... it is counter-productive. A better tax plan is to keep taxes relatively low on everyone in order to maximize their financial freedom. In terms of a welfare state, it should only include those who cannot help themselves or who have recently been laid off.

d)In that same vein, business/entrepreneurialism should be encouraged. One way to do this is to keep taxes relatively low for all sizes of companies/small businesses. We republicans understand that businesses provide jobs for people, and to hurt the business hurts the worker. Because we want people to have jobs, we will encourage entrepreneurialism.

e)We will engage in free trade when our trading partners agree to lower tariffs on our exported products. When imports and exports are taxed equally (when such agreements are in place) we'll gladly trade.