Republican's Bait and Switch

[capsulecorpjx]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122100748.html

...
The five maverick Republicans-- Susan M. Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island -- joined James Jeffords, an independent from Vermont, and all Senate Democrats in opposing the bill, which would allow states to impose new fees on Medicaid recipients, cut federal child support enforcement funds, impose new work requirements on state welfare programs and squeeze student lenders.
...

Most of the people who vote republican are usually religious and poor. I'm sure they are regretting their decision now.

The Republicans put out the bait of fighting for religious values, being tough on terrorism and lower taxes.

Well they switch. Sure they lower taxes, but the poor/middle class who vote for them hardly notice the tax cuts, but the services that they depend on get cut, deeply.

Religious values? The Republicans generate controversy for the sake of fighting it to distract people from their real purpose. They put out non-issues like gay marriage, blow ethunasia cases out of proportion, then switch on the poor bastards who voted for them, but cutting services and giving most of the tax breaks to the wealthy.

[demotivater]

[url]
Most of the people who vote republican are usually religious and poor.

Where did you get that idea?

[Jacob Roman]

The modern democratic party wants a Socialist America, more government control, higher taxes, abortions on demand, gay marriage, gay adoption, teach kintergardeners that being gay is ok before they even think about teaching them sex-ed later on, separation of church and state, eliminate anything that has to do with Jesus and God, more politically correctness so they don't "offend" anybody, plus they don't believe in personal responsibility, are anti-war, etc. etc. etc. I can keep on going forever. If you don't believe in any of this, then you must be a Republican, or at least an Independent.

No offense but last time I checked, it's the opposite, with more poor people being Democrats than Republicans.

And I'm in the middle class too, but thanks to Bush's tax cuts, I ended up with a $1500 tax return last year alone.

[grilkip]

--- never mind ---

[Shaggy Hiker]

The modern democratic party wants a Socialist America, more government control, higher taxes, abortions on demand, gay marriage, gay adoption, teach kintergardeners that being gay is ok before they even think about teaching them sex-ed later on, separation of church and state, eliminate anything that has to do with Jesus and God, more politically correctness so they don't "offend" anybody, plus they don't believe in personal responsibility, are anti-war, etc. etc. etc. I can keep on going forever. If you don't believe in any of this, then you must be a Republican, or at least an Independent.

No offense but last time I checked, it's the opposite, with more poor people being Democrats than Republicans.

And I'm in the middle class too, but thanks to Bush's tax cuts, I ended up with a $1500 tax return last year alone.

I was going to write something else, but I lost interest. JR-welcome to the world events argument forum. I don't think I've seen you here before.

I have no idea what the Democratic party stands for. Many of the things you list do appear to be liberal concepts, but a few of them are debatable as to whether they are liberal or conservative, and a few others aren't supported by any party that I am aware of.

I thought I didn't understand the last sentence of your first paragraph, but I realized I mis-read it. I skipped the 'in'. That baffled me.

[capsulecorpjx]

The modern democratic party wants a Socialist America, more government control, higher taxes, abortions on demand, gay marriage, gay adoption, teach kintergardeners that being gay is ok before they even think about teaching them sex-ed later on, separation of church and state, eliminate anything that has to do with Jesus and God, more politically correctness so they don't "offend" anybody, plus they don't believe in personal responsibility, are anti-war, etc. etc. etc. I can keep on going forever. If you don't believe in any of this, then you must be a Republican, or at least an Independent.

No offense but last time I checked, it's the opposite, with more poor people being Democrats than Republicans.

And I'm in the middle class too, but thanks to Bush's tax cuts, I ended up with a $1500 tax return last year alone.

There is no black and white in most issues. I'm for personal responsibility, but it is also the responsibility of the government to provide aid and assistence to the desperately poor. In other words, provide education and welfare (for a limited time) to the poor. The upper middle class and rich often are very callous against all poor. Sure there are some crack heads and morons who deserve what they get, but there are also many people who are down on their luck, got laid off or missed oppurtunities due to their environment and upbringing.

But yes, I'm very against religion of any form in schools and courts. However some people are too PC, and want to remove Christmas from the public, that I think is wrong.

As for gay issues, I think people should have the freedom to marry who they want. I doubt many democrats advocate teaching homosexuality to kids, or ANY kind of sexuality before High School at the least. Personally I think the schools should not teach sex-ed at all, its the parent's responsibility.

What I hate about both Democrats and Republicans is that sometimes they try to muzzle free-speech. In that case I'm Liberatarian. I used to like Hillary Clinton for example, but ever since she slammed GTA 4, I can't stand her.

[Jacob Roman]

I have no idea what the Democratic party stands for. Many of the things you list do appear to be liberal concepts, but a few of them are debatable as to whether they are liberal or conservative, and a few others aren't supported by any party that I am aware of.

Knowing what the parties stand for is a good way to know what party YOU are. The democratic party of today is leaning greatly towards liberal concepts. And many of them are just too immoral for society. Who on earth would want 2 moms or 2 dads?

But yes, I'm very against religion of any form in schools and courts. However some people are too PC, and want to remove Christmas from the public, that I think is wrong.

Yes I can understand schools and courts, although our laws are based on Christian concepts. But removing anything that has to do with God? They were even debating removing "In God We Trust" from our currency, removing the 10 Commandments from a public park, and now changing Christmas. For those who don't believe anything the bible says, it seems that the book of Revelations is coming true.

As for gay issues, I think people should have the freedom to marry who they want. I doubt many democrats advocate teaching homosexuality to kids, or ANY kind of sexuality before High School at the least. Personally I think the schools should not teach sex-ed at all, its the parent's responsibility.

Believe it or not, the Democrats are pushing to get all elemetary schools to do this. It's already happening in some right now, like here in Florida. It's really sad. And I even heard on the news that they were thinking of issuing condoms to kindergarteners. I believe that sex should be taught in highschool, where they are mature enough to understand it, cause not all parents would teach their kids about sex, and next thing you know they go out experimenting, and not be aware of STD's or pregnancy. Either that or they just won't care and have sex anyways.

[grilkip]

If I look at the political landscape overhere, I can't see any equivelant for the GOP. Of course there are conservatives(in fact they are in power), but they will never create legislation that allows civilians to wear concealed fire-arms, nor will they undo the opening up of marriage to gay people (or adoption by gays), nor will they bring back the death-penalty.

The only party that comes close is a highly conservative christian party with only two seats in parliament.


Jacob Roman, open your mind a little, many children would do better with same sex parents than with none or just one.

[Jacob Roman]

Jacob Roman, open your mind a little, many children would do better with same sex parents than with none or just one.

Seriously, you may wanna consider laying off the reefer for awhile.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I agree that we are not mature enough to understand sex until later in life, but some of us were playing around LONG before that point.

Interestingly, age of sexual maturity is getting earlier and earlier. The onset of puberty appears to be linked to nutrition or some other factor, such that fertility can now come at an earlier age than ever before. 7th and 8th grade girls can get pregnant now, whereas it appears that they didn't become fertile until mid-late teens at the turn of the last century. That's not kindergarten, and it is unlikely the trend will continue much further, but STD awareness could easily start earlier.

Yes I can understand schools and courts, although our laws are based on Christian concepts. But removing anything that has to do with God? They were even debating removing "In God We Trust" from our currency, removing the 10 Commandments from a public park, and now changing Christmas. For those who don't believe anything the bible says, it seems that the book of Revelations is coming true.

The fight over a public ten commandmants monument was carried out in Boise in the last year or so. Because it was there, a preacher from Kansas wanted to erect a monument that had a caption like "Mathew Sheppard died because God hates fags" or something like that. (In case you forget, Mathew Sheppard was the homosexual who was killed in CO, or KS, or somewhere). Basically, he wanted to erect a hate monument in the park because the city allowed another religeous monument. The city decided to remove all such monuments so that they could legally prevent his (you can't allow one faith and not others on public property). The ten commandments monument was moved to a church yard, people went to jail, ran for office, got defeated, etc.

It reminds me of a big lighted cross that was erected above the city. Some folks complained. I was in a car with somebody who asked "what's the big deal if someone wants to erect a cross?". A conservative friend of mine asked whether the person would feel the same way if if was a giant lighted swastika overlooking the city. Out here, it's a likely option. Nobody doubts that such a monument would make national news, but why? If a swastika is the symbol of your beliefs, why shouldn't you be allowed to raise a giant lit one for all to see? And yet, that's how the cross is viewed by a percentage of the country and the world. I believe you have the right to put up whatever symbol you want on your land, but you should be aware that other people might be offended. If you don't care about their views, then go ahead.

Yes I can understand schools and courts, although our laws are based on Christian concepts.

Not entirely. Much of the writings that our laws are based on are not Christian in origin, though some of them are. The idea that our laws are based on evangelical teachings is a tactic currently in use to appropriate history for evangelical purposes. Much of our law came from Roman law, even pre-Christian Roman law. Most of our founding fathers were deists, and were not given to what passes for Christianity today.

There are elements who want to re-write history with a christian bent. There is currently a debate out here about Christmas itself. The christians want to say that Jesus is the reason for the season, which ignores the history of the holiday. The holiday was based on a mix of the Roman Saturnalia and pagan Germanic practices (lit trees, yule logs, presents).

We should resist this attempt to re-write the past.

This would also help with the whole gay marriage debate. The current practice of marriage is not the way it was only a hundred years ago. It has changed MANY times, and has taken on (and currently takes on) MANY different forms. When christian groups try to assert some kind of sanctity of the institution of marriage, they should be taken to task for it. It isn't sacred. It used to be a form of bondage, and remains that way in some parts of America (to the south and north of me). What it is now is not what it was 100 years ago, which is not what it was 200 years ago, etc. If we change it now, we are keeping with tradition, not breaking it.

[grilkip]

Seriously, you may wanna consider laying off the reefer for awhile.

Ahh, and this will give me the clarity I would need to see the truth in your beliefs?

I doubt it.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Seriously, you may wanna consider laying off the reefer for awhile.

Actually, there was a study conducted fairly recently to determine what factors can predict the success of a marriage. As you might imagine, this was a long term study. Several factors were highly correlated with success. It has been shown that all couples fight, they all fight about the same things, and they generally fight about the same amount. The key was how they fought. The study was able to train people to look for measures during arguments (who would want to fight with their spouse on camera?...somebody did). These measures were very accurate predictors of how couples would last. The measures were such things as listening to the other persons points (even if they were disagreeable), saying several positive things to each negative thing, and de-escalating issues when needed to keep the argument based on logic rather than defensiveness.

Homosexual couples were looked at next. These couples scored FAR better than even the best hetero couples. They were basically better to each other during the most contentious times than even the best hetero couples.

Based on that study, to say that homo- is worse than hetero- is doubtful at best.

Personally, I have no strong view on the subject. I would marry the right woman if she came along, but I have no interest in that kind of comitment for anyone less.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ahh, and this will give me the clarity I would need to see the truth in your beliefs?

I doubt it.

If you unfocus your eyes and look at your avatar, it looks like a drawing of a uterus.

[capsulecorpjx]

I just want to mention that America was founded as much on human-secularism as Christianity. I think many of the founding fathers were agnostic/atheist, at least Thomas Jefferson was. The fact that there is no State Church, or role of religion in the founding documents (except for occasional reference, but not political power given to God).

The reason America is so great is because:
1) Religion is taken out of government -> Prevents Theocracy.
2) Government is split into different branches, each able to reasonably check the other's power. -> Prevents Communism/Facism/Dictatorship
3) Rights of minorities (race/nationality/idealogy) are protected by the Constitution. i.e., the majority opinion can't bully the miniority opinion if it violates their consitutional's rights. -> Prevents dictatorship of the majority.

[Jacob Roman]

If you unfocus your eyes and look at your avatar, it looks like a drawing of a uterus.

More like a torso, with the head, arms, and lower region cut off.