Ok, here's how this goes. To me, Republicans are not merely conservative, they are regressive. They don't want to "conserve" the status quo, they want to turn the clocks back. To actually conserve, in many instances, can be a good thing. There are laws that are in place that should not be changed. But when a law has passed and has gained social acceptance, then I think its time to let that law stay. Unfortunately, Republicans don't seem to think so.

The most recent and infamous example of a Republican being regressive would have to be Trent Lott's little slip. He definately wants to regress before the civil rights movement. And there have been countless other examples of regressive behaviour among Republicans. This is not to say all "regressive" acts are bad. Horrible laws that need to be repealed should be, but those are few and far between, no matter what a Repulican might say. Conservatives, and I believe it is not synonymous with Republicans, seek to keep from bad laws taking the place of good laws that already do the job and do it well. Thus, I split up Republicans into regressive and conservative.

This also brings me to another point, the Democrats. They seem to split up into conservative and progressive. Now while I have taken the side of conservatives before, I must now state I believe progressive to be as important. Without change, and that is change that moves forwards (not backwards), our nation would collapse. Therefore, some progress must be allowed. Now I believe it is the job of the conservative to look at the progressive's agenda and decide whether it is for the better good, or that it takes away from the current state.

So, basically the conservative has the most important job of being the watchmen, while the progressive must be the visionaries, no matter how idealistic their agendas might seem.

But when a law has passed and has gained social acceptance, then I think its time to let that law stay. Unfortunately, Republicans don't seem to think so.

That is a dangerous statement - and I realize that you then went on to say that there are some bad laws that should be repealed. The problem is that there should be no laws that there is not an unbiased reason for. This is where our society has failed. There are litterally hundreds of thousands of laws which benifit some more then others. This is not right. All in all, when in doubt, a law should not be made, as EVERY LAW no matter how good it's intentions or outcomes, restricks our freedoms in some way.

Of course laws restrict our freedom. But they also allow for more freedom to a certain group or society as a whole. The fact that laws will almost always benefit some more than others is a given. Hate Crime Laws obviously benefit those who have had hate crimes commited against them, while it does not benefit those where racial or cultural hate was not an issue.

I do agree with you though that if there is a doubt over a law, it should not be passed. That was my point in saying that not all progressive agendas should be passed. Not even close to all of them.

I do agree with you though that if there is a doubt over a law, it should not be passed. That was my point in saying that not all progressive agendas should be passed. Not even close to all of them.

Agreed

My point is more along the lines of tax law.
IMO there should be a flat % tax taken out of only a persons income. As it is now, we have a tax system which charges higher % for people who make more money - I believe this to be wrong.

Hate Crime Laws obviously benefit those who have had hate crimes commited against them, while it does not benefit those where racial or cultural hate was not an issue.

Heres my problem with that. A crime is a crime, no matter the reason it is commited. There should be no difference in punishment for it's reasons. And this is my point - anywhere that there are "special" rules, there should be no rules at all. The same goes for affermative action - im sorry, I dont care what race you are, we are all Americans, and no one should be forced to hire another if they do not wish to. This sounds harsh, but the reality is that in todays world, the more qualified person more often gets the job out of compitition. I know of a friend who got fired because he was forced to hire a minority at his work and that minority ended up stealing equipment! This guy lost his job because he was not allowed to do it by some stupid AA laws.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Heres my problem with that. A crime is a crime, no matter the reason it is commited. There should be no difference in punishment for it's reasons. And this is my point - anywhere that there are "special" rules, there should be no rules at all. The same goes for affermative action - im sorry, I dont care what race you are, we are all Americans, and no one should be forced to hire another if they do not wish to. This sounds harsh, but the reality is that in todays world, the more qualified person more often gets the job out of compitition. I know of a friend who got fired because he was forced to hire a minority at his work and that minority ended up stealing equipment! This guy lost his job because he was not allowed to do it by some stupid AA laws.

Well whatever the minority may have done on the job is irrelevant. Affirmative Action might just be a bad thing in that it does take some more qualified people out of jobs. But if there wasn't affirmative action, do you expect every employer to be fair in how they choose their employees? You said it yourself, we are all Americans, but there are many people out there who will only believe that white people are the only "Americans" they want to hire. If no one had an agenda like this, and everyone looked at every application fairly, then there would be need for Affirmative Action. But the fact that people will not always look at an application and not discriminate is a cause for concern.

Not to say that Affirmative Action is the definative answer for this problem. The agenda is obviously flawed. But wishing for a perfect world where everyone is going to be fair is not accomplishing anything. We need more solutions to a problem. Letting people have the freedom to choose who they want to hire based on racial discrimation is not a freedom I want to see.

Being a middle of the road voter I have to disagree with the basic tenet. There are still some good Republicans left of the moderate type. They are becoming few and far between. I actually like some of those guys. However, it is the staunch conservative, no middle ground, no comprimising, rascist, bible thumping type that makes me sick. Unfortunately that has become 90% of the party.

I think that it is silly to think that with the polarization of the country, that the same has not happened within each party.

The republican party is being seperated into two camps. One is like Pat Robertson, dedicated to wanting the 1950's back (which is not all bad) but the way they go about it and their views of why we should go back there are flawed severly.

The other side is sick and tired of being labeled as evil racist bastards and have started to fight back even within their party to try to mitigate the damage done in the party (which is huge).

Say what?
Ever heard of Dem. Byrd? Don't give me that stuff, please. What in the world makes you think that the Republican party is the party of hate? Perhaps because the basic idea is not to give handouts, but for people to stand up on their own feet? Such assertions do nothing but make one look a bit myopic.
Bible thumping? Do you know how worn out that little phrase is? I imagine the word constitution irritates you as much as the word "Bible" does.

Please!

KrazyJethro:

You've re-iterated my point completely. The regressive and the conservative are, as I see it, the two polarized camps within the Republican party. And madmanacrossthewater, I believe that the moderate Republicans would be the "conservative" bunch and not the regressives. There are some good conservative Republicans left, but the regressive has taken over.

I find that when people are presented with something they find unsavory, they tend to lean away from it.

Case in point. There are conservatives who are against gay marriage. Now this is not nessisarily a position derived from hate. But some lean too far and begin the "I hope they never let them damn faggots get married!" additude. This is the same additude that causes them to call liberals or pro-choice advocates baby-killers (which is rude in the extreme if it isn't true).

Much the same way with the liberals and the abortion debate where anyone who is trying to repeal the abortion laws is automatically a terrible person who wants to enslave women and have them be bearfoor and pregnant in the kitchen making me a nice apple pie (which mind you my wife seems to personify, oddly, but she chooses that herself)

Anyway, the current polarization has become more and more extreme due to the lack of release.

I predict, that should the needed pressure not be released (i.e. Bush be re-elected), that it will cause a lack of hope and a fury that could tear some things in this country (if not the whole thing) apart.

Just my ideas though. Things seem to be reaching critical mass but kept at bay because Kerry might win.

Jethro, you have hit the nail on the head.

The painting of the conservative as a woman-enslaving bigot is the way some attempt to demonize those who hold dear that position.

The fact of the matter is, those who fit that description aren't "conservatives" at all. Trust me. I know some of that mentality, and I sink my teeth into them as deep if not deeper than I do liberal peers. The reason should be obvious. They are few in number, but even a few poster children for what the liberal propaganda machine tries to paint the conservative crowd as is a few too many. To the unknowledgeable, a goose might appear to be a duck.

Nice point Thomas. There are a number of rotten eggs in each party that really couldn't care how they feel about the issue. Its more about making waves with their agenda, getting attention and votes. Greed seems to be one thing that both Reps and Dems can both be addicted to, even when policy affecting millions of people is at stake. After reading the post on Jane Fonda, who I am no fan of, i feel that these senators who vote solely out of their own greed fall into the category of traitor more than she does. They are actively and knowingly harming the lives of countless numbers of US citizens, and they do not care. They are money and power hungry and politics, no matter who it affects, is just another way to eat.

The traitors are Americans. There is a good number (maybe even 40%) of people in this country are traitors.

They don't vote, care, or get involved. This has enabled the government to run almost unhindered for a while now.

To be honest, you are either part of the problem or the solution.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Say what?
Ever heard of Dem. Byrd? Don't give me that stuff, please. What in the world makes you think that the Republican party is the party of hate? Perhaps because the basic idea is not to give handouts, but for people to stand up on their own feet? Such assertions do nothing but make one look a bit myopic.
Bible thumping? Do you know how worn out that little phrase is? I imagine the word constitution irritates you as much as the word "Bible" does.

Please!

If the Republican party is the party of "stand on your own feet" why pray tell do they continue to give such large corporate welfare away? The amount of money given to corporations in the form of tax breaks, etc. makes any monies given to poor individuals pale in comparison.

No, the word constitution does not offend me at all. What does offend me is one party in particular trying to offer up amendment after amendment to change it.

The bible does not offend me either. What offends me are certain individuals skewed interpretation of it. Many now use the bible to sit in judgement of others and their lifestyle. This is in direct contrast to what God stated about judgement, and love of fellow man.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
If the Republican party is the party of "stand on your own feet" why pray tell do they continue to give such large corporate welfare away? The amount of money given to corporations in the form of tax breaks, etc. makes any monies given to poor individuals pale in comparison.

The idea is to enable large companies to flourish. They are the ones with the jobs, and to aid them is for the benifit of all who work there as well. Yes, they advocate standing on your own two feet, and to aid by allowing people to earn their own money by working is benificial to the companies, the government, and the people. Sounds much better than a handout to me.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The idea is to enable large companies to flourish. They are the ones with the jobs, and to aid them is for the benifit of all who work there as well. Yes, they advocate standing on your own two feet, and to aid by allowing people to earn their own money by working is benificial to the companies, the government, and the people. Sounds much better than a handout to me.

This sounds a lot like that saying that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he can eat for a lifetime. There is a problem with this though. What happens when the corporations begin to outsource jobs so they can lower wages? What happens when someone has just had a bad string of luck, and no one will no longer higher him or her? What if the economy gets to a point to where only those with a college degree can get a job? Not everyone can succeed in college, that is provem. There are a wealth of issues which must be looked at in correlation with your point jethro. I do agree a handout is not the answer, but giving more money to corporations who might not even create many jobs in the US isn't either.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
If the Republican party is the party of "stand on your own feet" why pray tell do they continue to give such large corporate welfare away? The amount of money given to corporations in the form of tax breaks, etc. makes any monies given to poor individuals pale in comparison.

The idea is to enable large companies to flourish. They are the ones with the jobs, and to aid them is for the benifit of all who work there as well. Yes, they advocate standing on your own two feet, and to aid by allowing people to earn their own money by working is benificial to the companies, the government, and the people. Sounds much better than a handout to me.

Yes, I understand the concept. However, many of these corporations NET billions per year. At the same time paying their employees the minimum possible with continually declining benefits. These companies that reap the profits need to learn to stand on their feet without the corporate welfare. Meanwhile, the man who is trying to support his family while working two jobs to make ends meet is dissed for having to get food stamps.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
If the Republican party is the party of "stand on your own feet" why pray tell do they continue to give such large corporate welfare away? The amount of money given to corporations in the form of tax breaks, etc. makes any monies given to poor individuals pale in comparison.

The idea is to enable large companies to flourish. They are the ones with the jobs, and to aid them is for the benifit of all who work there as well. Yes, they advocate standing on your own two feet, and to aid by allowing people to earn their own money by working is benificial to the companies, the government, and the people. Sounds much better than a handout to me.

So welfare to a Person is bad but Welfare to a big corperation is Good?

Is it not important for a corperation to earn its own money?

And how about the Tax breaks for moving your Jobs overseas? Just how is this helping the American workers earn there own money?