Let’s look at the big issues. The difference is as obvious as day. The Republicans are NOT against government intrusion. They’re NOT for smaller government. They’re just against intrusion that limits their ability to advance their agenda (centered on greed, violence and intolerance).
Examples of Republicans wanting LESS government control:
They’re against corporate responsibility for producing dangerous products (want to eliminate class action suits). Because this interfere’s with the ability to make money unethically.
They’re against government control of hand-gun and semi-automatic weapons purchase, even for potential criminals or terrorists. Because this is consistent with their philosophy that violence is the first choice to solve problems.
They’re against government protection of the environment. Because this interfere’s with the ability to make money unethically.
Examples of Republicans wanting MORE government control:
They’re in favor of forcing schools to accept their guest list because some schools may not otherwise invite military recruiters (read "salesmen" in civilian terminology) forced upon them on the government’s schedule.
They’re in favor of laws that limit a church’s freedom to establish their own sacraments when it involves gay/lesbian marriage. Because they’re intolerant of different religious views.
They’re in favor of laws that eliminate a women’s right to make her own medical and religious decision on perhaps the toughest decision some women ever face, whether to have an abortion. Because they’re intolerant of different religious views.
They’re in favor of forcing schools to teach biblical creationism. Because they’re intolerant of different religious views.
When is anyone going to stand up again for the real American values we were founded on? Who’s speaking in favor of true religious freedom? Who thinks responsibility applies to corporations and government, not just unwed mothers and single parents?
People on both sides of these issues just want to use government to advance their side. Who’s side are you on?
After reading your arguments, I understand why you posted anonymously.
If you are going to argue against a stance, it is best if you try and understand why it is someone might accept it. For example, abortion. Those who are against abortion do not hold that position because they want to infringe on the rights of a mother, but because they think it is killing a baby. Similarly, those who are pro-choice do not hold that position because they think killing babies should be legal, but because they think the baby isn’t a person yet.
The other issues you brought up are similar, so I won’t get into the details of each. But, looking at your overall point, I’m not sure I see a problem with wanting more government in some situations and less in others. Republicans (for the most part) think the government’s purpose is to protect what they deem as innocent (unborn children), defend interests and investments (military recruiting), not support what they deem as destructive (gay marriage, frivolous lawsuits, "too much" environmental regulation), and maintain individual rights (bearing arms). Their decisions as to where there should be more or less government control reflect this.
I’m not saying I agree with such actions, but I don’t see the things you listed as being inconsistent – only an indication of what Republicans think is the purpose of the government.
I was gonna fisk this post, but I’m holding out for jmarkdavison, romanizzo, or PowePointSamurai to demolish this post- ‘cause it’ll be so much funnier.
I just cannot believe this wasn’t scored as a troll, because that’s all it is, nothing more. I hope you aren’t suggesting there are any politicians out there of any party that are different from what you suggest Republicans are like, because if you are, you are delusional.
I just want to address one of your otherwise inane points hereâ€”the one about recruiters. Maybe you didn’t realize that the military is here no matter which party holds the Presidency and that no matter which party is in charge, the military is an important instrument of the President and the defense of this nation. The military and recruiting the very best people for the military are not the province of one party or the other. By the way, the people who join the military do so of their own volition. Do you really think we want the kind of people who are easily cowed into something? Do you really suppose those poor, dumb Yale law students are going to be tricked into joining the Army by those sly, wily recruiters? A recruiter’s job is not to be a salesman. You cannot convince someone to join the Army, you can only present information for them to make their decision. The vast majority of a recruiter’s time is spent ensuring the people they find are qualified morally, medically, and mentally.
I could go on with your other points, but they are not worth commenting on anyway. For example, I could bring forth an exhaustive list of good and bad things people from either party have done for and against the environment (e.g. the EPA was created during the Nixon administration).
In the end, your post flatly does not meet the standards we strive for here. Whether I am inclined to agree or disagree with your point of view on this is not the point, it was just poorly argued (intentionally I think), vacuous, and inflammatory. Look around here and you will see that we can and do hold civilized debate with people from many different viewpoints, but we have certain standards on how we conduct ourselves here while we do it. Either improve on this or go haunt some other site.
The three posters above me said it very well. This is not even worth a counter-argument because it does not conform to the rules of logical argument. As .ppt Samurai says, back your claims up with facts or take your emotions to another forum.
Libertarians are the ones who are against government intrusion, BTW.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.