Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

InvisibleBlack -> Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 12:14:26 PM)

Republican National Committee member Jim Bopp has put forward a resolution that would require Republican candidates to pledge to support at least seven out of ten party positions in order to receive any funding from the RNC.

http://coloradoindependent.com/42863/rncs-jim-bopp-authors-purity-resolution-for-republican-candidates

The ten positions are:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion;

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;


Comments? Critiques?



Moonhead -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 12:16:11 PM)

*pisses self laughing*



popeye1250 -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 12:18:50 PM)

Well I don't agree with having Troops in S. Korea anymore. Fifty some years was WAY too long!
And another pledge; "I will not allow Lobbyists into my office or take any money from big corporations or "business interests."



luckydawg -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 12:19:57 PM)

Makes perfect sense to me.

If you don't support most of those things, why would you even be running as a Republican

Thats why Republicans can actually do things while in power, unlike the Democrats.

Tell the people what we stand for, and then let them decide.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 12:27:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

The ten positions are:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Good

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

Good

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

Good

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

Not familiar with to be good or bad.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Good.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

Not Good

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

Not Good.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Don't really care.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion;

Good. (Though most of it is rhetoric).


(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

Good.


Comments? Critiques?


I just don't understand the obsession with war. If he dropped that out, I could vote for a person holding those ideas.







Moonhead -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 12:29:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Makes perfect sense to me.

If you don't support most of those things, why would you even be running as a Republican

Thats why Republicans can actually do things while in power, unlike the Democrats.

Tell the people what we stand for, and then let them decide.

You don't think that there's a slight conflict between plank 1 and planks 6-9?



Lucylastic -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 12:34:50 PM)

what does "particularly effective action" mean?
oh never mind, I'm with moonhead on this one,
LMFAOPIMP



Mercnbeth -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 12:50:35 PM)

~ Fast Disgust ~


'1000 Points of Light'
'Contract With America'

Why is it that Republican's need a slogan to mobilize?

As a candidate I would never lock myself into any "Purity Resolution"; nor would I place my vote for someone doing so. Under current conditions we need people capable and willing to think OUT of the box, not lock themselves into one.

Sure on the surface it seems reasonable to support many of the bullet points; however I'm just as capable of making a case against them and give example where just the opposite makes as much, if not more sense.

Marriage, for instance, shouldn't involve the government at all. The intent is responsibility better served by a contract. Whether your contractual partner is male, female, or something in between shouldn't be government determined. Don't open the law to broader interpretation - eliminate it. Leave it to the partners to define it, leave it to the allegedly separated from government 'religions' to have a ceremony for it.

Immigration - Penalize the buyers (employers) heavily, not the sellers (employees), including the cost of any enforcement.

Take policing other countries out of the responsibility of the US government. Declare victory and leave Afghanistan and Iraq and let the locals get on with killing each other. There are enough other local countries with guns and willing to use them not to involve the US.

You don't need a Trillion dollar health care Bill and resulting bureaucracy if you simply eliminated the cancellation provisions from existing policies and covered all uninsured under the same health care provided to Congress. Better yet - establish a Medical US 'Peace Corp' paying for the education expense for anyone wanting to work in the clinics provided for those currently voluntarily, or by current insurance company exclusion, uninsured.

Although I recently got my first gun, I don't see a need to protect me from a government that wants to regulate my 'right' to purchase a rocket launcher as a cornerstone to any election campaign.

If 'cap & trade' can somehow include a reciprocity from every country in the world along with reciprocal application in import tariffs I could make a case for supporting it. It's only the current 'more equal' status provided that makes it impossible to support sacrificing US jobs while allowing at the same time the exact prohibited practices to be allowed outside the US.

Lots of bones and not a lot of flesh in the knee-jerk response; but you can look at each and every point and do the same thing.

It's bullshit and a should have been expected attempt considering that the last bit of jingoism 'CHANGE!' seemed to have worked so well for the other side. While at the same time - not producing a damn bit of result. Obviously rhetoric over substance isn't party specific.



AnimusRex -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 1:05:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
You don't think that there's a slight conflict between plank 1 and planks 6-9?


You beat me to it.
During the 1970's, Reagan went around the country giving stump speeches about "fiscal conservatism". He also supported the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would have required the government to well, balance the budget.
He promptly forgot that on Jan 20, 1981, and never once supported or pushed for a balanced budget again.
Since that time, no serious Republican candidate has ever worked for or mentioned a balanced budget. Even today, they rail against deficit spending, but have not once proposed a way to balance the budget.

Likewise, Republicans have consistently supported the enlargement of government power and scope, to where they now support warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions of American citizens, and electronic spying on Americans.

So this "fiscal conservatism" and "limited government"; what do they mean, in English?



Lucylastic -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 1:08:55 PM)

Fiscal Conservatism...rob the poor to pay the rich
Limited Government.... Only useful when the Dems are runninng things.




servantforuse -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 1:10:24 PM)

The dems had control of Congress when Reagan was President.



Moonhead -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 1:13:01 PM)

Now I look at this again, I thought the Republican hive mind stopped supporting plank 6 since January? They've greeted Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan with much the same warmth they've always shown towards gay marriage.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 1:19:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Makes perfect sense to me.

If you don't support most of those things, why would you even be running as a Republican

Thats why Republicans can actually do things while in power, unlike the Democrats.

Tell the people what we stand for, and then let them decide.

You don't think that there's a slight conflict between plank 1 and planks 6-9?



Only with 8, and only if you think "big government" means more than $$.



Moonhead -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 1:25:48 PM)

So the government intervening in people's private lives is not out of order because it's inexpensive?



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 1:28:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So the government intervening in people's private lives is not out of order because it's inexpensive?


Where did I say that? I said its not encompased in the phrase "Big Government" imo. If it isnt then there is no conflict.



Moonhead -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 1:40:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So the government intervening in people's private lives is not out of order because it's inexpensive?


Where did I say that? I said its not encompased in the phrase "Big Government" imo. If it isnt then there is no conflict.

Any increase in government powers is "big government", or at least "bigger government", sunshine. It may not be the Patriot Act, but it's still an extension of government powers into an area that is fuck all to do with them.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 1:46:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So the government intervening in people's private lives is not out of order because it's inexpensive?


Where did I say that? I said its not encompased in the phrase "Big Government" imo. If it isnt then there is no conflict.

Any increase in government powers is "big government", or at least "bigger government", sunshine. It may not be the Patriot Act, but it's still an extension of government powers into an area that is fuck all to do with them.


you're quite entitled to your opinion, darkside.



AnimusRex -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 2:36:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
The dems had control of Congress when Reagan was President.


Yes they did. But Reagan never proposed a balanced budget; he pressed strenuously for massive defense spending, and the deficit spiraled out of control. He owns that deficit, and laying it off on Congress is nonsense.

Again- name one Republican who is talking about balancing the budget. Name one who actually wants to reduce the government's power over our lives.

Don't feel bad- I go around on right wing blogs and ask this same question over and over, and all I get is crickets. because there are none.

The conservative movement has become a cargo cult, miming the appearances and clothing of conservatism, but without the meaning or substance.
I don't criticize them for being conservative, I criticize them for not being serious.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 3:31:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
The dems had control of Congress when Reagan was President.


Yes they did. But Reagan never proposed a balanced budget; he pressed strenuously for massive defense spending, and the deficit spiraled out of control. He owns that deficit, and laying it off on Congress is nonsense.

Again- name one Republican who is talking about balancing the budget. Name one who actually wants to reduce the government's power over our lives.

Don't feel bad- I go around on right wing blogs and ask this same question over and over, and all I get is crickets. because there are none.

The conservative movement has become a cargo cult, miming the appearances and clothing of conservatism, but without the meaning or substance.
I don't criticize them for being conservative, I criticize them for not being serious.


Balanced budgets are, in fact, inappropriate because the cost of some services should be shared by the future generations that also benefit from them. It is a basic tenet of private accounting to charge future generations of shareholders by amortizing costs, and it should be no different in government accounting.

Roads and other infrastrucure, war expenditures and R&D are obvious examples. Healthcare, which benefits only those currently receiving it is an obvious counterexample. Its funny how liberals campaign on the evils of deficits, and then when they are in power they arent so bad. Barney Frank is the poster child for hypocrisy on the issue.

The key to deficit spending is to keep it in line with the ability to repay the loans via economic growth, something that the liberal agenda can only impede.



Moonhead -> RE: Purity Resolution for Republican party candidates (11/25/2009 3:34:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
The dems had control of Congress when Reagan was President.


Yes they did. But Reagan never proposed a balanced budget; he pressed strenuously for massive defense spending, and the deficit spiraled out of control. He owns that deficit, and laying it off on Congress is nonsense.

Again- name one Republican who is talking about balancing the budget. Name one who actually wants to reduce the government's power over our lives.

Don't feel bad- I go around on right wing blogs and ask this same question over and over, and all I get is crickets. because there are none.

The conservative movement has become a cargo cult, miming the appearances and clothing of conservatism, but without the meaning or substance.
I don't criticize them for being conservative, I criticize them for not being serious.


Balanced budgets are, in fact, inappropriate because the cost of some services should be shared by the future generations that also benefit from them. It is a basic tenet of private accounting to charge future generations of shareholders by amortizing costs, and it should be no different in government accounting.

Roads and other infrastrucure, war expenditures and R&D are obvious examples. Healthcare, which benefits only those currently receiving it is an obvious counterexample. Its funny how liberals campaign on the evils of deficits, and then when they are in power they arent so bad. Barney Frank is the poster child for hypocrisy on the issue.

The key to deficit spending is to keep it in line with the ability to repay the loans via economic growth, something that the liberal agenda can only impede.

Quite.
That's why the conservative Clinton left a surplus and the liberal Bush left a deficit that's in the process of bankrupting the country.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875