Republicans - Deep Down, They Hate Our Freedom, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 5-9-2004 @ 01:40 PM by koji_K
I just read the following op-ed:

www.iht.com...

and the author makes an interesting point. Deep down, many Republicans must hate America. They must hate our freedoms.

Otherwise why would they want to ban abortion with no regard for the life of the mother? To ban gay marriage? Something about our free American way of life bothers them very much, and they want to change it.

Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry).

The promised economic boom hasn't materialized, Iraq is a bloody quagmire, and Osama bin Laden has gone from "dead or alive" to he-who-must-not-be-named.

Another reason, I'm sure, is a guilty conscience. At some level the people at that convention know that their designated hero is a man who never in his life took a risk or made a sacrifice for his country, and that they are impugning the patriotism of men who have.

That's why Band-Aids with Purple Hearts on them, mocking Kerry's war wounds and medals, have been such a hit with conventioneers, and why senior politicians are attracted to wild conspiracy theories about Soros. It's also why Hastert, who knows how little the Bush administration has done to protect New York and help rebuild it, has accused the city of an "unseemly scramble" for cash after Sept. 11. Nothing makes you hate people as much as knowing in your heart that you are in the wrong and they are in the right.

But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at that convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe the nation's freedom, diversity and complexity.

The convention opened with an invocation by Sheri Dew, a Mormon publisher and activist. Early rumors were that the invocation would be given by Jerry Falwell, who suggested just after Sept. 11 that the attack was God's punishment for the activities of the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, among others. But Dew is no more moderate: Earlier this year she likened opposition to gay marriage to opposition to Hitler.


-koji K.

[edit on 5-9-2004 by koji_K]


reply posted on 5-9-2004 @ 06:04 PM by RANT
A thread of authoritarianism does indeed run through all major parties but the Libertarians. Anti-authoritarianism is their driving ideolgy, equally against the Dem kind, the Republican kind, the Constitutionalists kind, the Green kind, etc.

The biggest difference happening between the Dems and Republicans are the Democrat authoritarian measures are typically either trying to keep people safe or make corporations better citizens. Restricting the freedom to be stupid or hurt others. All secular initiatives but value judgements nonetheless, though they adamantly oppose moral authoritarianism. When people say they want a Philospher King, this is what it would be like. Green is even moreso, and Nader would would be off the chart. He thinks he knows everything.

Whereas the Republican kind is moving more and more toward moral authoritarianism. Making laws based on moral judgements. Restricing the right to be "immoral" in their value judgement, though they adamantly oppose secular authoritarianism (or used to). Hard to say anymore with some of their laws and crackdowns. The Constitution Party would be moreso. It's as close to a Theocracy in America as you'll get outside of Texas.

I'm personally very libertarian minded (small "l") except when it comes to corporations. Here, in my mind, the Libertarians brand of ideology would just empower them to run roughshod over all of us. The Republicans are no better on this issue. Though they lose my vote just on the basis on forced morality alone, they are in bed with evil when it comes to corporations. That's the only reason I can see why corporate polluters aren't financing the sympathetic LP. Why bother? They have the Republicans in their pocket already.

So in that regard I acknowledge a healthy amount of Democratic authoritarianism (the least objectionable alternative of all to me) and embrace it...because I like the idea of a Philosopher King in a way.

Because people are basically stupid. The Libertarian arguement that they aren't and should be allowed to run their own lives would be alot more impactful if people didn't overwhemingly disagree with LP on this point.

A vote for the Dems says people are stupid and corporations are evil. Protect me from them.

Whereas, a vote for the Republicans says people are evil. Protect my corporation from them.

The overwhelming majority of Americans want to tell someone else what to do one way or another. That's pretty much America in a nutshell isn't it?

What good are we if we don't boss someone around?


reply posted on 5-9-2004 @ 06:29 PM by Amuk
www.lp.org...

Here is a good place to start.

We basicaly do not believe in corporate welfare either or protecting business from the results of their greed.

In other words if you make cars that explode you will get sued out the ass.
If you make medicine that kills people you will get sued out the ass.

ETC

We believe in a Level playing field for EVERYONE


reply posted on 5-9-2004 @ 06:54 PM by RANT
Originally posted by Amuk
www.lp.org...

Here is a good place to start.

We basicaly do not believe in corporate welfare either or protecting business from the results of their greed.

In other words if you make cars that explode you will get sued out the ass.
If you make medicine that kills people you will get sued out the ass.

ETC

We believe in a Level playing field for EVERYONE


See I like the idea and principle (especially if you don't want to limit consumer recourse like the lawyer bashing Republicans) but for me it just goes too far.

The Principle: In order to achieve a free economy, in which government victimizes no one for the benefit of any other, we oppose all government subsidies to business, labor, education, agriculture, science, broadcasting, the arts, sports, or any other special interest.


I like funding science, art, education and ad free broadcasting. There's that Philospher King in me again. It may be hypocritical of me, as the LP is much more logical and consistent than any other party

...but I just can't accept all the consequences. Not yet anyway. Keep plugging away though. I do hope we get where this becomes the obvious solution.



reply posted on 5-9-2004 @ 07:47 PM by koji_K
Originally posted by Jazzerman
Is it so much the fault of the "Republicans" though? Or the fault of a small bunch of Fascist-like Neo-Republican's and a party of disillusioned Democrats? I just want to ask this question because generally speaking, I don't see many Republicans as freedom haters and evil, but many of the one's that are controlled by big business and money are just that. Same with the Democrats as well, of course!

Many Republicans seem more like they are o.k. with the current situation because maybe they are fearful of the repercussions from the smaller, however more powerful group.

I personally do not see any resemblance between the modern "big money" Republican and the traditional Republican. I think the definition of what it means to be a Republican has expanded to the point where small government and a more Libertarian philosophy has now grown into a party of money, greed, and capitalism. Nevertheless, the same thing could be said of many Democrats as well.

Also, maybe its not so much a point of "Republicans" being bad, per say, but a few individuals who want to cause the party harm and disrupt the Democratic process. Many Republicans are open-minded in their political philosophy, but have found a way (to use an old cliche') "jump on the bandwagon" of a small minority that has grown since 9/11.

Maybe I'm wrong, if so correct me. Any thoughts?

[edit on 5-9-2004 by Jazzerman]


I certainly agree with you. The Republican party, while never espousing the ideals that would lead me to vote for them, wasn't always like it is now. It's been hijacked by the necons from PNAC and AEI. Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.

However, I tar them with the same brush because the Republican leadership has accepted this. It was part of their strategy to embrace the far-right, something the left didn't do following the rise of the New Left under Clinton, and is why they "lost" the last election. Unfortunatly, they went too far, and our country, particularly our foreign policy, has been allowed to be determined by the neocons. The State Department is practically a vestigal organ of the Bush administration these days.

The Republicans are in the best position to stop what's happened to them, but they won't, because most of their supporters don't seem to realize what's going on, or don't care.

And yes, the Democrats have a role to play in this too, as many of them voted to grant Bush his "war powers".

-koji K.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland
  Posted 19 days ago with 8 member flags
Russian cops mistake nationalist rally for gay pride parade
  Posted 17 days ago with 4 member flags
Republicans in Arizona plan to nearly wipe out public unions
  Posted 9 days ago with 4 member flags
Tennessee threatens suit against man building boat with his son.
  Posted 0 days ago with 4 member flags
The CULT of Ron Paul
  Posted 13 days ago with 1 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 6 hours ago, 57 replies
Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 15 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 11 hours ago, 52 replies