quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

So I'm listening to certain Republican "goals"and some I can really jive with. Balance the budget, limit government power, maintain rights under the Constitution....all of this I can really go for.

What I don't get is how Republicans (because Democrats the I can tolerate listening to don't go spouting this stuff) can say they hope to limit government influence and control by deregulating the business sector but at the same turn scream about limiting individuals' rights by being invasive about people's personal business (who they marry, how they fuck, parental planning, etc). I mean, if governmental involvement is required by a societal situation, would impacting major influencing bodies like businesses take less money and less invasive efforts from the government than trying to control what every individual does in their own lives?

Is this like a big picture problem?

I just don't understand the reasoning behind it. I don't want to debate who's right or wrong, I want insight into the logical process that brings Republicans, as a whole, to this conclusion.

boi

What you are confusing you is that you are confusing fiscal and governmental conservatives with the religious conservatives. They overlap, but are not identical groups.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

SubRob,

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/06/22/2010-06-22_texas_gop_platform_criminalize_gay_marriage_and_ban_sodomy_outlaw_strip_clubs_an.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/republican_party.htm#Abortion

Abortion, gay marriage, sodomy....sounds like invasive personal issues to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Of course there is pork in every budget, but 20%?

We could start with cutting funding to such asinine things as N.P.R, the National Endowment for the Arts grants which always seem to go to those artists who are most avant-garde and/or offensive, we could purge oversight committees on congressional spending on defense, welfare, education and other areas and put others in charge who will deal with a sharper knife and a willingness to stand up to those entities that think that because the government will pay for it, they can charge what they will...all of those things would make a start. 

NPR gets 4% of it's operating budget from the Federal government. The majority (40+%) comes from individual donors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

See I would have ,were I to find myself in such a situation,chosen anything other than "interesting".....troubling would work for me.Disturbing is another good one....the phrase " I need to see a doctor" would also work.
Interesting does not make the list.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

SubRob, if the position is "that's just what they're saying to get votes" then conservatives would have no problem voting Democrat...because "that's just what they're saying".

When Republicans make noise and attempts to introduce bills that would limit a women's right to choose or amendments to state constitutions to ban gay marriage, it's not just "that's what they're saying", it's stated goals for social policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FitExpDomwPic

The largest expansion of the Federal Govt since Pres. Johnson's New Deal took place during the W. Bush administration--while Republicans also controlled both houses of Congress. .

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Rob,

You said platforms don't matter because those stated goals don't really happen-clearly these things DO happen.

The Republican platform in Florida successfully helped pass a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage just two years ago. That IS where I live.

Your arguments don't get to have it both ways...either these stated goals should be looked at on a state-by-state and national level issues because it is possible to pass legislation that rolls back social progress OR the Republicans need to change their stated platforms.

The platforms are goals for each party. If the stated platform of the Republican party is to create a social threat to the personal liberties of ANY American, then they are not, in ANY way, attempting to "limit" government. It's a damn lie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Rob,

You said platforms don't matter because those stated goals don't really happen-clearly these things DO happen.

The Republican platform in Florida successfully helped pass a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage just two years ago. That IS where I live.

Your arguments don't get to have it both ways...either these stated goals should be looked at on a state-by-state and national level issues because it is possible to pass legislation that rolls back social progress OR the Republicans need to change their stated platforms.

The platforms are goals for each party. If the stated platform of the Republican party is to create a social threat to the personal liberties of ANY American, then they are not, in ANY way, attempting to "limit" government. It's a damn lie.

I'd say it's more than a Republican problem if Fla, which went for Obama passed a same sex marriage ban in 08, wouldn't you?

Both parties have been limiting personal freedom's for a lot longer than the last two years

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Freedoms just another word for nothing in the law prevents it. (with due apologies to KK).

Iowa just threw out 3 of their justices who decided against their gay marriage law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Here in Iowa, good and bad. Then there is the purely comical.

They re-elected Branstad....morons. Such a short memory most people have.

Voted to get rid of judges because, OMG, the three we can voted to uphold the state constitution and support gay marriage. Yet, get this, they also voted to not allow changes with the state constitution. A big "WTF!!!!"

The happiest news of all, Miller-Meeks LOST!!!!!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

I live in Flordia too.The Flordia Republican's are about has far right social conservative's as it come's... The state senate,the state house of rep's(assembly) and the Governor's mansion is about to be filled with extreme right,bible thumping people... It's hard for me to believe that these Flordia Reublican's really care about freedom.Maybe econimic freedom for big business but that's about it.As for social policy,the Flordia Republican's are more about limiting people's right's,not expanding them..... Governor Charlie Crist was a rare Republican in Flordia.He actually did believe in more personal freedom for people.The social conservative's didn't like that and that's why Charlie Crist had to run as an Independent for the U.S. Senate.