Whose beliefs are more valliant?
Both parties believe that what their political values (morals) are are suppior to the other's. So who really does have more valliant beliefs? Democrats, or Republicans?
Republicans
Side Score: 52
|
 |
Democrats
Side Score: 56
|
|
|
|
|
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. Side: Republicans
2
points
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... Side: 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. =] Side: Republicans
1
point
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. Side: 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). Side: 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. Side: Democrats
Republican's = KKK? I do believe that the only ex KKK member in Congress is a Democrat! How do Republican's take credit for Lincoln you ask, simple, he was a Republican, how in the world do you give Dems credit for Lincoln? Let's see, Dems apposed freeing slaves, Dem Governors fought for segregation and it was Rep. Pres. Eisenhower who sent the national guard to end it, a greater % of Dems voted against civil rights than did Rep. And it was Dems who blocked civil rights legislation in the senate, it was a Rep. Pres. Nixon who created affirmative action. I am sorry but it is not the Republican party who should be ashamed of their history on race issues, it is Dems who have carry that honor. Side: Republicans
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. Side: Republicans
1
point
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! Side: Republicans
1
point
1
point
1
point
-1
points
3
points
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! Side: Democrats
5
points
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. Side: 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. Side: Democrats
2
points
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. Side: 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. Side: 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. Side: Democrats
2
points
I support abortion rights up to the end of the first 6-8 weeks because it is more than enough time and after that point the fetus is developing what I consider important human traits: the capacity for suffering; fully developed lungs; eye lashes and the ability to blink, think, and feel. Conversely, Viability, the idea that the baby must be able to survive outside the womb, is one of the more amoral criteria I've ever heard. Infanticide is disgusting -- I hope we can agree. But I don't see it as any less disgusting to murder an equally authentic human baby with fully functioning organs, and with most of the same mental and emotional capacities (under the viability threshold it is possible for your baby to cry tears!), just because it isn't fat enough. Side: Republicans
I am upvoting you on this. I do not begrudge anyone the right to decide where that line lies. I am vehemently opposed to the idea that it is merely a choice, but you acknowledge that it is taking a life so you are giving due thought to that side of the equation. I may or may not disagree with where you draw the line but honor the thought you put into the taking of a life before deciding it is OK to do so. Unlike our other pissing match this is not as easy as just looking up something in a dictionary. :) Side: Republicans
The problem is that Obama has drawn that line at the time of delivery. He is one of the most left-wing, pro-abortion candidates ever to run for office. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was first introduced in the Illinois legislature in 2001 after nurse Jill Stanek revealed that babies born alive in Christ Hospital in botched abortion procedures were left to die, unattended by medical personnel. That same year Stanek testified before the Judiciary Committee, where Obama asked whether the bill would subvert a woman's right to abortion. Obama voted against the bill in committee but "present" on the Senate floor. When the bill was reintroduced in 2002, Obama again voted against it in committee and was the only state senator to speak against it on the Senate floor. Again the bill was defeated with Obama voting "no" and leading the opposition. 2002 was the year the U. S. Congress passed and President Bush signed the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Unlike Obama in Illinois, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to support the bill. In fact, the bill passed the Senate 98 to 0 with pro-abortion senators like Boxer (D-CA) and Reid (D-NV) supporting it. In 2003, the bill was introduced in the Illinois legislature for the third time and directed to a committee chaired by Obama, Health and Human Services. They refused to bring the bill to a vote. Only when Obama left for Washington in 2005 did the Born Alive Infant Protection Act pass the Illinois legislature. Side: Republicans
3
points
Even though I've written my argument on the Democratic side of this debate I do believe there are people of valor on both sides of the aisle. I am a registered Democrat but if a Republican candidate strikes me as the right person for what America's needs are at the time, I've been known to go that way. Is there anyone more valiant than John McCain vis-a-vis his five year stay at the Hanoi Hilton when he could have gone home but chose not to until his mates were also released? In that way and in that time he was a man of incredible strength, honor and valor. That notwithstanding I cannot vote for him because of his entire platform as well as his choice for VP. Substantively there is nothing innately wrong with either party's tenets or values so it comes down to what you believe and what you have seen either party accomplish through the years. I'm not trying to straddle the fence on this one...it is simply what I believe to be true. Side: Both at various times
Democrats believe in a more equal society for all citizens of this great country. Although they often lose sight of their goals, the Democratic party as least strives for a country where everyone has the same or similar rights and often realize that in order to do so, the constitution should be modified. Whereas the Republican party often goes strictly by the constitution, even though it was written over 200 years ago, and times have changed, and with that, so has the need for more, different, or modified rights that are or are not stated in the constitution, which the democratic party realizes and strives to succeed. (Even if their methods are sometimes skewed). Side: Democrats
I disagree with your premise. The Democrats believe that the courts should change the laws, subverting the Constitution, the laws of the land, the intentions of the founding fathers and the separation of power. Republicans allow for changes to the constitution but done the way the laws call for and the way it was set up and is supposed to be done. Congress makes changes to the Constitutions in the form of amendments. The Warren Court subverted the laws of the US and legislated from the bench, in some cases much to the approval and even benefit of the people/nation but still illegally. The Legislative Branch is representative of the people and thus it is up to them to change the laws, including the Constitution, not the judiciary who is not elected by nor do they represent the people. Side: Republicans
Of course everyone is entitled to their beliefs but i think that democrats are more valiant, just maybe not from the standpoint of corporations. Democrats try for a better life for everyone, aside from just themselves and that i think is far more valiant than believing that if you aren't doing well in life it is entirely your fault. Now i don't think that the democratic politicians have done much or been able to do much to support the beliefs and goals of democrats and those that had a strong chance, were killed before they could. Politician wise, Republicans tend to get their beliefs across and accepted better it seems than Democrats but they are also willing to lie just a little more to do it, the resulting consequences are of course of no importance if it goes against conservative ideology. The only thing of the constitution i have seen that the democrats have wanted to change is the 2nd amendment but not the more important things such as freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. The republicans haven't declared that they want the constitution changed, they just ignore any part of it that interferes with their goals, siting ambiguity of its language for justification if questioned. I believe that society must work to make sure that everyone is living a good life and not suffering. Democrats work towards and for these goals, and that is why i think they are more valiant because they care for the future of society and the less fortunate. Side: Democrats
Definition of valor If say it was a regular practice to fire bomb abortion clinics, then democrats would be more valorous, as there would be inherent danger in that belief in a right. If we were allowed to beat the "God hates fags" people with sticks (which would be awsome) when they protested at soldiers' funerals, then that would be a "valorous" belief. It's not necessary for something to be good or right in order to be valorous. That's a misunderstanding of the word. If you take into account the major political figures that have been assassinated for their beliefs through out our history, then you have to agree that liberal thinking is more likely to lead to death, thus more valorous. But for the most part ideas cannot really be called valorous in this country, which is a good thing. Side: Democrats
I was just defining the word. The KKK could only be considered valiant by its definition if there were some inherent danger in being a member. Like wearing the little KKK getup at a black panthers meeting would be valiant. Stupid, evil, suicidal, and valiant. Valiant does not necessarily mean good or just. It does require there to be some inherent danger. In the 1600s it was valiant to believe the Earth was not the center of the universe because you might be killed for it. It's interesting if you think of how few people are killed throughout history for being wrong, and how many for being right. Nothing to do with the arguement, but a litmus test I use. The more violent a group is against an idea, the better chance that that idea is correct. Thus why conservatives are always running for their guns. Side: Republicans
2
points
If by valiant- and I am assuming that there was a typo and you are talking about valiant the adjective and not the town in Oklahoma- you mean brave, courageous, and stout hearted, there is no question in my mind that the Democrats are the more valiant in there collective beliefs. Of course there are many variations within each party, and each party has had a varied past, with different beliefs prominent at different times, so let's assume that we are talking about the prevalent ideologies of the past forty years or so. JFK urged the nation to be bold and put a man on the moon within ten years. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, knowing full well it would cost the Democratic party their traditional majority in the South. Nixon opened trade with China- a communist country lead by a tyrant of epic proportions. Ford pardoned Nixon who has the distinction of being the only president (so far) to resign in disgrace. Carter brokered the Camp David Accords. Reagan covertly sold arms to Iran. Bush 41 invaded Panama. Clinton intervened in the Balkans. Bush 43- well, the list of non-valiant things he did is too long, but let's just say Katrina, Iraq, and Enron and leave it at that. Those are the valiant, or not so valiant, things that come to mind when I consider our most recent leaders. Side: Democrats
1 : possessing or acting with bravery or boldness : courageous 2 : marked by, exhibiting, or carried out with courage or determination : heroic So this argument is basicly about which beliefs are more brave. It does not consider whose are right, but only whose are bravey. I must say, democrats are usually the ones attacking trying to make america more progressive while republicans are trying to defend traditional America. Hmm, I think that democrats actually are much more valiant, republicans usually change their minds especially when the issues are relating to equality. I guarentee you 20 years from now gay marriage will be completely legalized in all states, and even republicans will be scoffing fand calling people sexist who are against gay marriage. Side: Democrats
1
point
|
