although both bother me with their beliefs, Republicans are more constitutional than Democrats. The constitution was written by brilliant men who felt that these were the god given rights for man. now, i will admit that the constitution can be interpreted in many ways, but it shouldn't be changed because "well, it's a modern era". now, with the growth of society, we do add laws based on Democracy. Like laws on pornography. To say that it shouldn't be given accessible by minors is against free speech, but there's nothing in the first ammendment on harmful material towards children (which most parents agree that it is harmful). this is what interpretation is for. the patriot act is one thing that scares me. yes, we are at war, but i'm afraid of its use after the war (if it comes to that). it expires, which is a good thing, but god forbid it becomes a permanent law, because that would be unconstitutional.
Posted 70 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
Valliant is a odd word to describe the state of ones political leanings..seems to me, based on what is good and righteous, and the means by which those are achieved would be the metric for determining such a characteristic, but what is good and righteous to one person (ecspecially in American politics) is bad and immoral to the other, (AND ON NEARLY EVERY SINGLE ISSUE IN THE AMERICAN POLITICO!!)...perhaps you would like to re-phrase your question...
Posted 68 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
Valiant, do you mean? Was that a spelling error my friend? Really? Huh, that's an odd adjective. Well, it is impossible to be unbiased in this case. I am a STRONG republican, who shares few liberal views. So, therefore I am promoting the republican side. However, if you had used a better adjective(s) like morally right. I would give you a thoughtful response. Oh well, sad for you I suppose. =]
Posted 62 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
I think republican values are more justified -- values like liberalism and freedom. I won't say valiant because only a person can be valiant. Democrats, conversely, have always maintained illiberal, subversive, and wishy-washy ideals. That doesn't mean that republicans, as individuals, are more valiant or more right. Just calling yourself a republican does not mean you fit the criteria I mention. Under my definition, Bush is more of a democrat than anything. Which is why this year I am supporting third party candidates, with Obama as fav out of the two main parties.
Posted 70 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
I'll be sticking with the word valiant here, and make only one point... Republicans are far more valiant. Heroic, for instance, and tough... None of this means smart, but stubborn, or conservative. You all have to remember that the old school "republicans" were the ones that were against the confederation and for the abolition of slavery. In my eyes, that was one of the greatest things our nation has done for itself. Looking back on the issue of slavery, and their, then current, situation. The plantation and the economy that depended on it. The Republicans, or the Union made the choice to take the more difficult, ethical, path rather than the easy one. The one that relied on slaves as a workforce... and the republicans, as noble as they were, and independent, sought to reunite the southern states with the Union. That is valiant to me. Take the dangerous ethical path, challenge the south, win, and all the while try to keep the U.S. together, and FREE people who were at the time, not considered "people". I wonder what ever happened to the "understandable republican"... Now we have a nation full of hicks and yuppies (I joke).
Posted 65 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
Then why is the KKK Republican? At any rate, the parties have switched, the party that ran against Lincoln no longer exists, and those Republicans split in time and one side renamed themselves Democrats. Sorry, I know how much your party loves to take credit for Lincoln, but really both parties have an equal claim. The Republican party is more likely to resort to swift boat tactics, to turn a war hero like Kerry into a liar. Meanwhile no liberal has ever denied McCain is a war hero, and we pay him great respect for it while disagreeing with his policies. Also I've never heard a liberal say they want to shoot all the Conservatives, but Conservatives say stuff like that all the time. I mean all the time. I can't have more than 2 back and forths with a conservative on a debate before they resort to violence. That doesn't seem very valient to me.
Posted 64 days ago | Tagged As: Democrats
The Republican party is not my party. Look up my profile, notice "INDEPENDANT". It is true that the party in opposition to the republicans at the time is no longer around, but that doesn't mean the Republicans at the time were not REPUBLICAN. The debate doesn't specify of which generation of each party to choose from, so to me it doesn't matter how much alike the old republican party is to the new. GOP, Grand Old Party, the Republican party, is who I argued for, and using that time as a point. Do not assume that one's arguments are also one's beliefs. An argument is an argument here, nothing more. Also, my argument can be read about in countless textbooks and historical documents if you'd like to know more about it. You're argument though is baseless until you site your sources. It looks like a bunch of opinions to me.
Posted 64 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
Democraps suck. Simple as that. We can't deal with another democrat. McCain may agree with a few of Bush's ideals, but that doesn't make him an exact Bush. If stupidity plays into the picture, then Obama isn't just a exact Bush. He's a freakin Bush with thorns!
Posted 44 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
I think republicans make more sense, are smarter, and make better desicions.
Posted 44 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
Democraps stink. Big time.
Posted 44 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
The last Demoncrat was Clinton, and how did that turn out? Maybe he could've helped our country a little more and got it on with secreteries a little less.
Posted 44 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
Republicans understand that human nature has not changed in 200 years. The constitution has withtood the test of time.
Posted 71 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
I am not in favor of slandering large groups so I say this knowing that there are of course exceptions and not all Republicans act this way. Although I agree that human nature, at its most fundamental level, has not changed significantly, our (and our I mean all of mankind) view of the world has changed to a certain extent. For example after the first and second world wars humans became disillusioned with the glory of war and saw its consequences. Advancements in science have sent us to the moon and explained the world in new and exciting ways that weren't even imaginable to people 200 years ago. We have also seen the tremendous impact humans have had on the earth. 200 years ago the western frontier seemed limitless and our impact on our environment negligible. Now, in a world that seems a lot more crowded then it would have to our forefathers, there is global warming, overfishing of the oceans, and the great pacific garbage patch (look this one up, its kinda scary) just to name a few. In addition, as a world superpower, we now have to think not just how our actions affect us, but the rest of the world as well. From your comment I presume that you are referring to the Republican ideology that when it comes to government, less is more. If Republicans stuck to this principle in their actions then I would be supporting you one hundred percent. I do agree that for the majority of things that and individual does the government should in fact just mind there own business. Unfortunately, Republicans do not always follow their montra, and I will give you some examples. Medical Marijuana: Despite the fact that Republicans want less government they still find it necesarry to make marijuana legal as a medicine despite the fact that it has a wide variety of uses. This is not true for all republicans, (Ron Paul for example supports medical marijuana adamantly) but most people who support medical marijuana are democrats (Barney Frank, Nancy Pilosi, Obama etc...). Separation of Church and State: This issue stems more from the fact that a good portion of the Republican parties base are fundamentalist Christians. My problem with this is that what we end up with is god in a whole lot of places he shouldn't be. "Under God" and "In God we trust" were added to the pledge of allegiance and our money, respectively, during the cold war when we were fighting "Godless Commies." Since then though Christians have used this as an argument for combining church and state. When President Bush (the 1st one) was asked if Atheists could be considered patriots he responded "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." Also there's the whole abortion thing with freedom of choice and teaching Intelligent Design in schools but I've written way to much already!
Posted 70 days ago | Tagged As: Democrats
I find it hard to argue against some of your points because I am a conservative, not a Republican. But we don't have a third party and Republicans are closer to what I believe, so.... After the first and second world wars humans realized that there are wars that are just and should be fought. That there are tyrants that should be taken out. Yes, there are way to many people on the planet and there are only three solutions. Manage their impact on the planet, take them out, or do nothing. Good luck with that managing thing. Yes, less government is preferable. I wish Republicans started dismantling many government agencies. If people want to do drugs, fine. Just pass a law that states that if you have a drug related problem, the tax payer doesn't have to pay to cure your ass. You smoke, you got cancer, you can't pay for medication, then I guess you are just gonna have to die. Too bad. Sorry. We don't want stupid people in the gene pool. I'm not weighing in on the separation of church and state. As far as abortion, you get pregnant and don't want the baby, put him up for adoption. You don't want to go through the labor? You should have thought about that before you spread your legs. If you're the father, you're financially responsible. Don't want to pay? Too bad. Should have thought about that before you whipped it out. This is an Innocent human life we're talking about. Not an inconvenient medical condition.
Posted 70 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
Ok, first I apologize for assuming that you supported everything republicans did, that was narrow minded of me. I will now address you based only on your stated beliefs. The point I was making with the first and second world wars was that human perspective changes, not that we shouldn't go to war for just causes. If a leader of a nation is committing mass genocide then, by all means, send the troops. If you look at slightly more recent wars, such as the Vietnam war, what we have learned is that unilaterally trying to control every little conflict in the world is not the best policy. This is especially true when the government uses false pretenses to send troops into a war, as was done in Vietnam (see the metaphor I'm implying). What you state is that you have very little confidence in diplomacy, and sadly you are correct, in many cases diplomacy does not work. One of the reasons for this though is because when certain American leaders (I think you can guess what group I'm talking about here) talk about diplomacy, they propose terms they know the leader will be unable to accept, just so they can say "hey we tried diplomacy, now lets bomb the hell out of 'em." When we try diplomacy it should be really trying to reach a peaceful solution and not just acting like we are. This won't work for those leaders who fit the super-villain stereotype, but the world is not that black and white. This is my main problem with what you said about having only "three options." You assume that the people we're fighting are always all bad and that we represent a flawless moral authority. As far as your drugs comment you misrepresented my point. I did not say that I wanted all drugs legalized. In fact most drugs are very harmful and should be made illegal. Marijuana on the other hand has proven medical uses, and unfortunately the biggest problem with decriminalizing it (not legalizing), for states to decide, is republican opposition. Also as an unrelated side note about you saying mostly stupid people do drugs, almost all the good music or art out there was inspired by people on drugs and even modern psychology and the structure of DNA were discovered with cocaine and LSD respectively. I'd love to hear your opinions on separation of church and state but if you want to keep them to yourself thats your prerogative. I knew bringing up abortion was a bad idea just because its an issue that always gets peoples panties in a bunch. I will say one thing about it though. Whether abortion is legal or not: Someone who wants to keep their baby will do anything to try and keep it and someone who doesn't want a baby will do anything to try and get rid of it. This fact is what most pro-life people keep in mind. I am going to quote John McCain here because I think he made a good point back in 1999 when he said "...I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." Since then his position has changed.
Posted 69 days ago | Tagged As: Democrats
Granted, trying to control every little conflict in the world is not the best policy. Granted, we used false pretenses to get into Iraq (Saddam wanted to accept currencies other than the dollar for his oil. That would have wrecked havoc with our economy. Iran plans to commit a larger sin.). I do not assume that the people we're fighting are always all bad and that we represent a flawless moral authority. I do assume that there's a great divide between the people we're fighting and the U.S. If you ever get divorced (God forbid) you will have first hand experience with this. I didn't say that you said that all drugs should be legalized. What I meant was that as far as I'm concerned you can expand your comment to include all drugs as long as the tax payer is not held responsible for any health related issues. In other words, I don't care if they legalize marijuana. Again, I didn't say only stupid people do drugs, what I meant was that if you do drugs with the expectations that society will help you pay for your health related issues, then you're stupid. Here's my position on abortion: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What_do_you_think_about_this_3 Church and State.... there has got to be some reasonable middle ground.
Posted 68 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
I'm glad to hear you say some vary sane things about war. As for Iran, thats a monster of our own creating. They tried to free themselves from French rule and create a government of their own (much like an early U.S. did). The French didn't like this though and good ol' U S of A pitched in and helped install a puppet monarchy. This was then taken over by an anti-western regime and now we are where we are today. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop them from getting a nuke or that their current leader isn't a complete bastard (he denies the holocaust and that homosexuals even exist in Iran), but only that some of their U.S. sucks feelings are reasonable and we should probably try to do something to improve our image over there. Woo Legalize it!!! (just kidding, I'm not one of those guys) I read your thing on abortion and it sounds pretty reasonable. It seems to say that your pro choice (weather you like the label or not). What exactly do mean by a middle ground? Since this started as a debate about whether Dems or Republicans are more "valiant" in their beliefs I will talk about the typical Republican viewpoint on this issue (if it doesn't coincide with your views then please feel free to agree with me). You seem to be very concerned with the original constitution so lets check out the Bill of Rights. Republicans are very concerned with the exact wording that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now I tend to agree with Republicans here because the constitution is very clear on this. Unfourtanately the Bill of Rights also is very clear about religion, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the practice thereof." Let me repeat that for those Republicans who didn't hear me the first time, "no law respecting the establishment of Religion." For a group that seems so concerned with the government infringing on our rights when their guns are being taken away, they seem slightly more lax when it comes to the first amendment. So when it comes to Church and State, lets hope that the middle ground your talking about isn't common ground, because then we might have an issue.
Posted 67 days ago | Tagged As: Democrats
I don't think we are as far apart on what I call middle ground as you might expect. Here's what I mean. The fact that we have "in God we trust" on our money, the fact that some court house in Texas has the 10 commandments inscribed on its doors, the fact that some government meeting start with a silent prayer, The fact that a nativity scene is displayed on government property, etc., are a non-isue for me. As far as I'm concerned, no law respecting the establishment of Religion has be written. When people start bitching about these things it makes me roll my eyes to the point where I'm wearing them out and have to stop or have an eye transplant.
Posted 67 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
I'm just waiting to see you two start making out... ew, that would be sick... I'll be waiting.
Posted 64 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
|
Constitutional???? Who???? The separation of church and state is a fundamental doctrine derived from the first amendment of the United States Constitution. Do you remember that that was in large the motivation for the founding of this country - religious freedom - the restriction of government to influence beliefs. The mergence of church and state has become a major platform of the conservative party. Don't use that as your argument. Bush wanted to rewrite the constitution to allow himself a run at third term. Hogwash. Valiant-whose beliefs are more so? That's strictly an opinion. My opinion is that Obama has demonstrated valor time and again in this whole campaign. Do you concider it valiant to outright lie to sway votes? My opinion is that the last 8 years have been anything but valiant, and we all know this. I guess the real question is your valor.
Posted 70 days ago | Tagged As: Democrats
That's a very contentious issue. I believe the separation of church and state should be absolute, but there is no evidence that that is how the founding fathers intended it. Most were religious themselves, and the ones that weren't still believed in "natural rights" which are basically divine laws for a country endowed by a creator. It seems that it was most likely that electing people based on issues and keeping the idea of a national church, like they have in Russia, suppressed. As for tax exempt churches, or the ten commandments in court houses, or "faith based initiatives," those things shouldn't happen by logical extension, but I don't believe the founding fathers would have found any contradiction with the constitution they so diligently devised. Nevertheless, it's not like Obama is against faith based initiatives and tax exemption for churches, either.
Posted 70 days ago | Tagged As: Republicans
McCain has said he would overturn Roe v. Wade, that teaching creationism in schools is ok, and that the decision on teaching evolution should be made on the local level. Obama has said he would uphold Roe v. Wade and that creationism should stay out of schools. McCain is definitely more in favor of intermingling church and state.
Posted 66 days ago | Tagged As: Democrats
I have to add one more thing here. To the abortion issue. This is a sensitive issue. Any abortion is the taking of a life. Period -whether you are a victim of rape or or just plain stupid. The end result is the same no matter the situation. Here is my argument. A fetus at 11 weeks or what ever the legal limit for the procedure, can not sustain life outside of the woman's body. If life could be sustained without the woman, by all means abortion should be illegal. But since it can not, it is a moral issue to be taken up with the woman and her God - not the government. That is my argument. Not that abortion is right, but that it is not within the reach of government influence. I have struggled with this issue. It is a very fine line, but a line that must be drawn.
Posted 70 days ago | Tagged As: Democrats
|
