View Full Version : The GOP is headed straight to the left...
Belmont31R
02-03-13, 15:02
For those of us who want to elect more right leaning candidates, believe in small/limited government, respect of our rights, balanced budget, and overall belief in the Constitution I want to ask how people feel about this, and I really think the GOP is headed to a dark place.
Just in the last year, and I am simply going to post the 1st article link in the google results....
Search term: GOP changes rules at convention
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/29/rules-change-sparks-grassroots-boos-at-gop-convention.html
Search term: Boehner purges Tea Party Congress House
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/06/us-usa-congress-purge-idUSBRE8B501W20121206
Search term: New GOP candidate vetting donors
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?_r=0
Seems like the GOP is trying to weed out, and deny conservatives and liberty oriented candidates from office, removing them from leadership positions, and has changed the GOP primary rules so if they don't like who wins the primary can simply reassign delegate votes to nominate whoever they want. This seems to be an intentional effort to 'purge' the GOP of right leaning candidates, and for those of us who support a more libertarian approach doesn't bode well. If the GOP wishes to 'get rid of us' I hope in the next election I do not get the accusations and 'not voting for the GOP is a vote for [Obama]' stuff I did last time, and I want to go a bit on the offense to say voting for the next GOP candidate, who is almost guarenteed to be another RINO, will continue to see the poll numbers lower and lower for the GOP as they have done in the last 3 elections. The 2004 election of Bush got more GOP votes than McCain, and Romney got less than McCain.
This was my fear after Obama got reelected, and was that the GOP would simply go further left. I said I hoped the GOP would go back to it's principles, and instead the current leadership is going left as fast as they can. Rubio, who I thought would be someone to watch, has embraced this strategy and he will fail. He has been on a media blitz to promote his shamnesty support with the usual suspects of McCain and Grahamnesty. These hacks who 'represent the GOP' haven't figured out why they lost twice in a row, lost the House once, and haven't gotten back the senate are still in charge, and now turning on the GOP base.
As a libertarian I say 'good luck GOP' :no:, and farewell.
GeorgiaBoy
02-03-13, 15:31
The GOP is nothing but a "lesser of two evils" type of party. I have no reason to vote Republican except that they are the pro-gun party.
They have done nothing to significantly cut spending and help the deficit. They have controlled the House for 2 years and have caused nothing but a gridlock in congress. "Tea Partiers" splitting the party doesn't help anything either.
If the GOP would just be the small government, low taxes, pro-liberty party and get rid of their "traditional values" beliefs opposing same-sex marriage, diversity, and drug legalization then they would have a chance. Oh wait, thats the Libertarian Party.
I quit the GOP as a whole years ago. I do my best to look for the candidate that best represents my views of his this country should operate and vote for them. If more people did that instead of falling for the faulty logic of voting for someone who can win; as judged by a leftist propaganda machine known as the media we would be better off as a society.
In all honesty I am however considering a change in tactics and voting as far left as I can everywhere and playing the whole rip the bad aid off quickly instead of slowly pulling it off thing.
Raven Armament
02-03-13, 15:41
As a libertarian I say 'good luck GOP' :no:, and farewell.
I wouldn't get too cocky when your party didn't even get 1% of the popular vote in the last election.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php
The GOP is nothing but a "lesser of two evils" type of party. I have no reason to vote Republican except that they are the pro-gun party.
They have done nothing to significantly cut spending and help the deficit. They have controlled the House for 2 years and have caused nothing but a gridlock in congress. "Tea Partiers" splitting the party doesn't help anything either.
If the GOP would just be the small government, low taxes, pro-liberty party and get rid of their "traditional values" beliefs opposing same-sex marriage, diversity, and drug legalization then they would have a chance. Oh wait, thats the Libertarian Party.
I agree with both of you guys, EXCEPT where the hell are the Republican party leaders in the gun rights fight? If gun rights is the last vestige of conservatism in the (R) party, then Belmont is correct, they have totally checked out and gone dark. I dearly would like to know how any Republican is going to run on the platform of gun rights protector in their next campaign when they are so silent now.
I think we have to accept the Republicans are spineless twits who will not stand up for fiscal sanity, for gun rights or anything else. Their deafening silence does not go unnoticed nor will it be forgotten come election time. I am beginning to think the entire govt has finally determined they have enough power and no longer need voters to stay in power. Whether consciously or subconsciously I think the majority of politicians have chosen the side of tyranny, of govt against the people. They believe their best bet to stay in office is no longer through public support but by cooperation with the powers in place.
If so, there will be alot of chaos as rule of law unravels and the powers that be try to tighten their grip.
Belmont31R
02-03-13, 16:08
I wouldn't get too cocky when your party didn't even get 1% of the popular vote in the last election.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php
Exact opposite. I know my views are not popular, and neither of the big 2 support it. However, given the article topics of my OP, I cannot support a party which actively is engaging in purging people like me out. I view that as seeing when I'm not welcome anymore, and making an exit.
Exact opposite. I know my views are not popular, and neither of the big 2 support it. However, given the article topics of my OP, I cannot support a party which actively is engaging in purging people like me out. I view that as seeing when I'm not welcome anymore, and making an exit.
While the Libertarian party only got 1% or less of the vote there are a LOT of libertarian leaning voters. I think the way the Repub leaders treated them at the convention pretty much destroyed any hopes for momentum for Romney. Just when he needed a boost he played the heavy hand.
And the Libertarian Party is not necessarily a good representative of libertarian thinking either. And a good many libertarian friendly voters held their noses and voted (R) just to get O out of office. But I think a good many did not vote at all, as possibly evidenced by the low turn out. Repubs dreamt that "if only we had more turn out we could have won." Well, guess why you had such low turnout when there was a Marxist-fascist on the other ticket?
It is just that type of number crunching thinking that has lead the (R) party astray. Rather than being principled they calculate how much of their base they can afford to piss off in order to placate more on the left. Even though this formula has NEVER worked for them they keep going back to the "move left" strategy. People who like socialism, fascism, communism are going to vote Democrat or Green, they will NEVER, EVER, EVER vote (R). Candidates like Dole, McCain, and Romney don't have a chance in hell to get elected. They undermine their conservative base and don't win over noticeable numbers of lefties.
Raven Armament
02-03-13, 16:34
Exact opposite. I know my views are not popular, and neither of the big 2 support it. However, given the article topics of my OP, I cannot support a party which actively is engaging in purging people like me out. I view that as seeing when I'm not welcome anymore, and making an exit.
I hear ya, just taking a friendly jab. Seems the emoticon didn't post.
I've gone back and forth between Libertarian and Republican over the last few years. I have made the choice to vote Republican because that's the more electable party. Libertarians, with a few exceptions, are what the Republicans used to be. Conservatives were divided and then were conquered.
threeheadeddog
02-03-13, 16:54
They have controlled the House for 2 years and have caused nothing but a gridlock in congress.
While many of the objections here are very valid and good reason to be frustrated with the GOP I must say that GRIDLOCK IS GOOD. I am much more frustrated by the times that they actually got together and did something.
I truely believe that at this point basically every law that doesnt remove a previous law is BAD. Even the balanced budget amendment that so many are supporters of(I know I am) is not a step forward at this point since we have a de facto balanced budget amendment in place RIGHT NOW that the GOP continually votes to postpone and allow for more spending(the debt ceiling).
The GOP is nothing but a "lesser of two evils" type of party. I have no reason to vote Republican except that they are the pro-gun party.
They have done nothing to significantly cut spending and help the deficit. They have controlled the House for 2 years and have caused nothing but a gridlock in congress. "Tea Partiers" splitting the party doesn't help anything either.
If the GOP would just be the small government, low taxes, pro-liberty party and get rid of their "traditional values" beliefs opposing same-sex marriage, diversity, and drug legalization then they would have a chance. Oh wait, thats the Libertarian Party.
And this is the kind of amoral tripe that would keep me from joining you in anything.
MountainRaven
02-03-13, 18:00
And this is the kind of amoral tripe that would keep me from joining you in anything.
Then the current, authoritarian GOP should suit you nicely.
Littlelebowski
02-03-13, 18:03
The GOP hasn't been conservative for over a decade. Agree with Georgia Boy. The formula for true conservatism is right there and it would be a winning formula.
GeorgiaBoy
02-03-13, 18:09
And this is the kind of amoral tripe that would keep me from joining you in anything.
Do you value liberty and freedom, or morals?
Should your morals decide what other individuals decide to do, even if their actions don't affect or cause harm to you? What gives you the authority to take away their liberty and freedom of choice?
GeorgiaBoy
02-03-13, 18:13
I agree with both of you guys, EXCEPT where the hell are the Republican party leaders in the gun rights fight? If gun rights is the last vestige of conservatism in the (R) party, then Belmont is correct, they have totally checked out and gone dark. I dearly would like to know how any Republican is going to run on the platform of gun rights protector in their next campaign when they are so silent now.
I think their "fight" is that they know that they, collectively, will not allow anti-gun legislation through the House. (at least we hope)
What's ironic is that Harry Reid and his fellow Democrat "pro"-gun senators are keeping the Senate from passing any anti-gun legislation.
Alaskapopo
02-03-13, 18:14
For those of us who want to elect more right leaning candidates, believe in small/limited government, respect of our rights, balanced budget, and overall belief in the Constitution I want to ask how people feel about this, and I really think the GOP is headed to a dark place.
Just in the last year, and I am simply going to post the 1st article link in the google results....
Search term: GOP changes rules at convention
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/29/rules-change-sparks-grassroots-boos-at-gop-convention.html
Search term: Boehner purges Tea Party Congress House
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/06/us-usa-congress-purge-idUSBRE8B501W20121206
Search term: New GOP candidate vetting donors
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?_r=0
Seems like the GOP is trying to weed out, and deny conservatives and liberty oriented candidates from office, removing them from leadership positions, and has changed the GOP primary rules so if they don't like who wins the primary can simply reassign delegate votes to nominate whoever they want. This seems to be an intentional effort to 'purge' the GOP of right leaning candidates, and for those of us who support a more libertarian approach doesn't bode well. If the GOP wishes to 'get rid of us' I hope in the next election I do not get the accusations and 'not voting for the GOP is a vote for [Obama]' stuff I did last time, and I want to go a bit on the offense to say voting for the next GOP candidate, who is almost guarenteed to be another RINO, will continue to see the poll numbers lower and lower for the GOP as they have done in the last 3 elections. The 2004 election of Bush got more GOP votes than McCain, and Romney got less than McCain.
This was my fear after Obama got reelected, and was that the GOP would simply go further left. I said I hoped the GOP would go back to it's principles, and instead the current leadership is going left as fast as they can. Rubio, who I thought would be someone to watch, has embraced this strategy and he will fail. He has been on a media blitz to promote his shamnesty support with the usual suspects of McCain and Grahamnesty. These hacks who 'represent the GOP' haven't figured out why they lost twice in a row, lost the House once, and haven't gotten back the senate are still in charge, and now turning on the GOP base.
As a libertarian I say 'good luck GOP' :no:, and farewell.
I have seen the opposite. It seemed that the GOP was actively trying to remove moderate candidates in the primary's. That happened up here when the big Tea Party money went for Joe Miller (later found out to be a big liar) over Lisa Murkowski. Lisa lost the primary but came back to win in the general election as a write in canidate. The reason she lost the primary was the big push from the right. Anyway regardless of where you stand it seem the opposite is happening.
Pat
Then the current, authoritarian GOP should suit you nicely.
I'm not affiliated with any existing political party whatsoever. Stop assuming things.
MountainRaven
02-03-13, 18:23
I'm not affiliated with any existing political party whatsoever. Stop assuming things.
What does that have to do with anything?
I said it should suit you nicely. I never said you were a member.
And assuming is what people do. If we didn't assume, we wouldn't make it through the day. As soon tell the sun to stay up and winter to stay away, for all the good it will do you.
Do you value liberty and freedom, or morals?
Should your morals decide what other individuals decide to do, even if their actions don't affect or cause harm to you? What gives you the authority to take away their liberty and freedom of choice?
We have completely different definitions of freedom and liberty to begin with. And I think it's been plain enough from my other posts on what basis I justify legitimate civil authority and it's duty. I would also point out that your assumption regarding the non-harm of the activities described is dubious at best.
So back to the OP. Do we really need a Republican party that would essentially be a fiscally responsible version of a demented and immoral Democratic party?
GeorgiaBoy
02-03-13, 18:36
We have completely different definitions of freedom and liberty to begin with. And I think it's been plain enough from my other posts on what basis I justify legitimate civil authority and it's duty. I would also point out that your assumption regarding the non-harm of the activities described is dubious at best.
I haven't read enough of your posts to make any sort of coherent judgement of your beliefs.
Merriam-Webster defines Freedom as "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action", and liberty defined as "the quality or state of being free; the power to do as one pleases".
What are your definitions of freedom and liberty?
What does that have to do with anything?
I said it should suit you nicely. I never said you were a member.
And assuming is what people do. If we didn't assume, we wouldn't make it through the day. As soon tell the sun to stay up and winter to stay away, for all the good it will do you.
Affiliation is not the same as membership. Your assumption that an authoritarian Republican party would be to my liking is assuming a false thing about me. Because I happen to agree with someone on a particular thing doesn't mean I agree with someone about most or all things.
I didn't say all assuming is bad, just your assuming I would be suited to "authoritarian Republicanism".
By the way, both parties are authoritarian.
I haven't read enough of your posts to make any sort of coherent judgement of your beliefs.
Merriam-Webster defines Freedom as "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action", and liberty defined as "the quality or state of being free; the power to do as one pleases".
What are your definitions of freedom and liberty?
Forgive me for assuming you knew about any other posts I participated in, my self importance got the best of me.
Mine is a Biblical definition. Liberty and freedom are doing God's revealed will........keeping His commandments. everything else is a form of slavery.
GeorgiaBoy
02-03-13, 22:41
Mine is a Biblical definition. Liberty and freedom are doing God's revealed will........keeping His commandments. everything else is a form of slavery.
That definition of liberty and freedom is entirely subjective and incoherent.
You are deciding that your particular morals, as determined by your religion, should be what all others follow, even if they don't share your beliefs. I'd assume (correct me if I am wrong) you believe that one of the government's roles is to influence and enforce those morals. I'm sorry, but that's a theocracy.
Any legitimate free state should have laws that only prohibit things that harm others, and/or have the potential to harm others, or to keep peace and tranquility. It should not be the government's role to push a certain religious beliefs or moral codes onto the rest of the citizenry, or prevent free citizens from doing what they wish because it violates a more established by that particular religion.
For those of us who want to elect more right leaning candidates, believe in small/limited government, respect of our rights, balanced budget, and overall belief in the Constitution I want to ask how people feel about this, and I really think the GOP is headed to a dark place.
Just in the last year, and I am simply going to post the 1st article link in the google results....
Search term: GOP changes rules at convention
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/29/rules-change-sparks-grassroots-boos-at-gop-convention.html
Search term: Boehner purges Tea Party Congress House
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/06/us-usa-congress-purge-idUSBRE8B501W20121206
Search term: New GOP candidate vetting donors
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?_r=0
Seems like the GOP is trying to weed out, and deny conservatives and liberty oriented candidates from office, removing them from leadership positions, and has changed the GOP primary rules so if they don't like who wins the primary can simply reassign delegate votes to nominate whoever they want. This seems to be an intentional effort to 'purge' the GOP of right leaning candidates, and for those of us who support a more libertarian approach doesn't bode well. If the GOP wishes to 'get rid of us' I hope in the next election I do not get the accusations and 'not voting for the GOP is a vote for [Obama]' stuff I did last time, and I want to go a bit on the offense to say voting for the next GOP candidate, who is almost guarenteed to be another RINO, will continue to see the poll numbers lower and lower for the GOP as they have done in the last 3 elections. The 2004 election of Bush got more GOP votes than McCain, and Romney got less than McCain.
This was my fear after Obama got reelected, and was that the GOP would simply go further left. I said I hoped the GOP would go back to it's principles, and instead the current leadership is going left as fast as they can. Rubio, who I thought would be someone to watch, has embraced this strategy and he will fail. He has been on a media blitz to promote his shamnesty support with the usual suspects of McCain and Grahamnesty. These hacks who 'represent the GOP' haven't figured out why they lost twice in a row, lost the House once, and haven't gotten back the senate are still in charge, and now turning on the GOP base.
As a libertarian I say 'good luck GOP' :no:, and farewell.
It saddens me that you seem to be correct.
This must be what it was like for those who grew up during the 50s and then had to endure the late 60s and 70s.
I wouldn't get too cocky when your party didn't even get 1% of the popular vote in the last election.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php
There's the best and then there's the rest. Just because the best are few at this point in history, doesn't change what's best and what's the rest.
I think their "fight" is that they know that they, collectively, will not allow anti-gun legislation through the House. (at least we hope)
What's ironic is that Harry Reid and his fellow Democrat "pro"-gun senators are keeping the Senate from passing any anti-gun legislation.
Exactly. We HOPE this to be the case. If would be nice if a couple of the pro-gun leaders, one R and one D would at least come out an declare unequivocally they will fight for our rights. Their silence at this juncture is NOT comforting. When it comes time for them to campaign again they may find a long period of silence and it will be there turn to HOPE for supporters to turn out at the last minute.
Raven Armament
02-03-13, 23:29
There's the best and then there's the rest. Just because the best are few at this point in history, doesn't change what's best and what's the rest.
Libertarians branched off from Republicans.
been saying it for a while the regular folks are screwed
its for sure the gov controlling the little folks and they love the power !
both sides are against us big time !!!
both sides are evil for the most part and those in power will stay in power by abusing that power and not allow any outside such as libertarians to ever have any power IMHO anyway
they will allow a couple in congress in the senate just enough to think we might have a chance !
its like Hollywood you are now born into families of politics and those will be the ones on top and stay on top it has become a oligarchy
Kennedy Clinton Bush etc.. the ruling families decide
Meanwhile, the feds appear to be stockpiling the arms to provide the have-nots the means to take from the haves when the handouts run out.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-government-stockpiling-guns-ammo/
Littlelebowski
02-04-13, 07:28
Forgive me for assuming you knew about any other posts I participated in, my self importance got the best of me.
Mine is a Biblical definition. Liberty and freedom are doing God's revealed will........keeping His commandments. everything else is a form of slavery.
Theocrat.
montanadave
02-04-13, 07:48
Theocrat.
Actually, we're probably pretty safe, albeit damned. If the zealots were able to coerce conformity to their beliefs, they would no longer be the chosen and select. If you can't be holier than thou, what's the point? Granted, they generally enjoy the shit out of purging the unbelievers. :)
Littlelebowski
02-04-13, 07:53
Actually, we're probably pretty safe, albeit damned. If the zealots were able to coerce conformity to their beliefs, they would no longer be the chosen and select. If you can't be holier than thou, what's the point? Granted, they generally enjoy the shit out of purging the unbelievers. :)
Well said :D
This (http://www.theonion.com/articles/gallup-poll-rural-whites-prefer-ahmadinejad-to-oba,29677/) was my first reaction......
Magic_Salad0892
02-04-13, 07:54
I'd consider any form of Authoratarianism treason, and a smack in the face of any American.
Theocracy or Leftism isn't any different.
It's just a different reason to tell people they can't do something.
Littlelebowski
02-04-13, 09:15
I'm out, have fun with the cut and paste theocrats, folks.
Raven Armament
02-04-13, 09:34
So religion isn't proven at all, it's just fairy tales for adults. People should really look into the history of Christianity and the bible. It's not what you think it is. Saddens me to find out the "smartest" men in their time founded this country based on irrational thought, ie faith, of this nonsense then have the guts to opine that others that don't buy into their same BS isn't really what the country was meant for. "All men are created equal" unless you're a slave, non-Christian, not White.
I wouldn't get too cocky when your party didn't even get 1% of the popular vote in the last election.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php
I envy that <1%. They are voting for people that represent them. I've, for some reason, been voting for clowns that don't even remotely represent me. Politics these days looks like the WWE if you ask me. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and Boehner share their wives.
Forgive me for assuming you knew about any other posts I participated in, my self importance got the best of me.
Mine is a Biblical definition. Liberty and freedom are doing God's revealed will........keeping His commandments. everything else is a form of slavery.
If these words were uttered by a muslim...
In this society, we must separate religion and politics or we'll eventually have "cleansing" in our own backyard. If you want to know why the GOP is beginning it's decline into political irrelevance this is why. Secular government, religious church. The comma SEPARATES the two.
Theocrat.
Jeepers Littelebowski you hurt my feelings. When you say Theocrat do you say it with a snear?
brickboy240
02-04-13, 10:59
After 2012...I think it is time to put the GOP/RNC out to pasture.
Seriously....they have no intentions of leading or reforming a damn thing and are too hung up on abortion and homos to make logical decisions and beat the left.
I am done with them...
Third party?....I'd settle for a second.
-brickboy240
The reason why the GOP is "declining" is because like the Founders, they are (well, to a certain degree anyway) attempting to adhere to the principles and beliefs enumerated by the Founders and great political thinkers in the quotes posted above, while society itself, especially among the young, and even many gun owners, ever increasingly hold their ideas of moral principles religious belief, and their connection to freedom and liberty, out of gross ignorance and sheer stupidity, in utter contempt.
LOL, now that is funny. To actually compare the stance of the current Republican Party to the founding fathers is a LOOOOOOOONG stretch. Neither party represents a semblance of what he founding fathers stood, sacrificed and died for. IMO if they were alive today they'd be grabbing their muskets again ready to repel boarders.
Both parties stand for the same thing: Big government meddling in your life and stealing your wealth. Each does it differently though and each encroaches on our freedoms every chance they get. The only reason the Republicans are loosing ground is because they don't have the propaganda machine anymore. It has little to do with them being moral compasses. Maybe broken compasses, but definitely NOT functional ones.
As for the whole morality thing. Government has nothing to do with it and it can be legislated about as effectively as legislating good health. Want a moral compass for you and your loved ones: become it; don't ask the government to legislate it cause the side effects of their actions are always worse than their cure.
If these words were uttered by a muslim...
In this society, we must separate religion and politics or we'll eventually have "cleansing" in our own backyard. If you want to know why the GOP is beginning it's decline into political irrelevance this is why. Secular government, religious church. The comma SEPARATES the two.
I hate to break it to you but left thinking people have been cleansing Christianity from the public square for a long time. Do you actually think "Secular" is neutral?
LOL, now that is funny. To actually compare the stance of the current Republican Party to the founding fathers is a LOOOOOOOONG stretch. Neither party represents a semblance of what he founding fathers stood, sacrificed and died for. IMO if they were alive today they'd be grabbing their muskets again ready to repel boarders.
Both parties stand for the same thing: Big government meddling in your life and stealing your wealth. Each does it differently though and each encroaches on our freedoms every chance they get. The only reason the Republicans are loosing ground is because they don't have the propaganda machine anymore. It has little to do with them being moral compasses. Maybe broken compasses, but definitely NOT functional ones.
As for the whole morality thing. Government has nothing to do with it and it can be legislated about as effectively as legislating good health. Want a moral compass for you and your loved ones: become it; don't ask the government to legislate it cause the side effects of their actions are always worse than their cure.
I do agree that the Republican party, like the Democratic party, has fallen from the ideals of the founding. The Republicans less so. That's why I have come to agree with another fellow that the Republican party is just the right side of the Marxist left.
As for your last statement, it's blatantly untrue. Every time the gov't
passes a law it is stating emphatically what is right and what is wrong. The very essence of law is morality. Of course the gov't can not make people moral (whatever moral means to you), but that isn't the gov't job. Their job is to state what ought to be the case in the civil realm. You ought not steal from neighbor, you ought not murder your neighbor.
Here's a question for all the folks that want the Republican party to become more libertarian. Would you want laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 repealed? Is this the kind of law that would encroach on liberty involving personal, business, and political interaction? Have laws like this gone too far?
Here's a question for all the folks that want the Republican party to become more libertarian. Would you want laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 repealed? Is this the kind of law that would encroach on liberty involving personal, business, and political interaction? Have laws like this gone too far?
As it creates a "protected class" resulting in inequality YES.
Equal means equal, same standard for all.
Race doesn't even exist. At the genetic level there is an exception to every racial classification. Classifying people by race makes as much sense as classifying by hair color or height and creating specific laws for one of the groupings.
GeorgiaBoy
02-04-13, 13:28
"Liberty . . . is not a licentiousness of doing what is pleasing to every one against the command of God; but an exemption from all human laws, to which they have not given their assent."
Algernon Sidney 1622-1683
"Discourses Concerning Government" (Third Edition, A. Millar, London, 1751).
Theocracy.
We are not bound as a nation by a particular religion's beliefs.
One cannot be free if he is under the rule of another's religion. God may command you, because you follow His laws, but he does not command everyone. And you have no right to determine the course of others lives and what they choose to do because what they do conflicts with your beliefs.
That is slavery, not freedom.
The Founders laid the framework for a nation of freedom and liberty. Their actual religious beliefs mean little in that ultimate goal. We have been striving for more liberty and more freedom for everyone since 1789, against many religious complaints.
Belmont31R
02-04-13, 14:12
Here's a question for all the folks that want the Republican party to become more libertarian. Would you want laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 repealed? Is this the kind of law that would encroach on liberty involving personal, business, and political interaction? Have laws like this gone too far?
Not under Federal authority as the Constitution was written. I would have no problem for a state to pass that law as it's within their sovereign authority to do so.
Kinda like the Feds have no business in education and a number of other things that should be up to the states.
GeorgiaBoy
02-04-13, 14:46
So what you are saying then is that the Founders were actually completely opposed to their own principles. Sure. :rolleyes:
The Founders were victims of their time when it came to religion/faith. They had particular views on where "liberty" and "freedom" came from. That doesn't mean we have to adhere to those views forever. The ultimate goal of this nation is to be free and have liberty for all. Not to restrict freedom and liberty to those who we feel are either immoral or do immoral things because it contradicts with a certain religious viewpoint.
GeorgiaBoy
02-04-13, 14:55
And that is not what "theocracy means. Thus congrats on pulling a page from the gun-grabbing lunatic left's playbook and simply assigning whatever meaning to a term you like and believe advances your personal ideology.
Yeah, I'll just ignore that bold part... :rolleyes:
Romans 13 NIV: "3 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."
Do you believe in this verse? Do you agree with it?
You seem to think that this nation should be ruled and governed with a certain moral code of ethics derived by a particular religion [Christianity]. You cite certain Founders quotes' to advance this argument. The very same founders that rebelled against their government [Britain] in order to form this nation. If they were truly the religious men that followed the Bible so closely, why would they violate this verse?
Further, why should an entire nation be held to the Founders religious beliefs? They knew a lot, but they were victims of their times. Their beliefs on where liberty and freedom come from does not make it correct, nor should we be held captive by those beliefs forever. We try to advance the pursuit of happiness through giving more and more freedom and liberty to all, not just some that a certain religion finds trustworthy.
GeorgiaBoy
02-04-13, 15:16
No. You are simply projecting. The Founder's beliefs were grounded in and founded upon transcendental truths. However you being a 'victim of your time' i.e. abandoning reason for rationalism, means the harm you have inflicted upon your ability to reason through post-modern deconstructionism prevents you from understanding this.
Essentially what you are saying is that because I don't share your religious viewpoints that I am not capable of reasoning and not capable of understanding anything so complicated as liberty and freedom.
Which is word for word what the lunatic socialist left have been saying regarding the 2nd Amendment. So once again you announce you are in full agreement with their policy of rationalisation. Thus again claiming that those who actually wrote the 2nd had were completely wrong, and the social policy for America as first envisioned by such people as a Nazi fascist sympathising racist, and now championed by the likes of Obama, Feinstein, Schumer and Cuomo, is the correct path to secure freedom and liberty. :rolleyes:
Where do you come up with this stuff? :blink:
We aren't even having a discussion about the second amendment. And you keep carrying on about socialism, lunatics, and Feinstein. I thought this was about were the founders thought liberty and freedom came from? Make up your mind.
Hell, I'm not even sure what I am even debating about anymore. It started off with letting people live their life as they please without government meddling, and its twisted down to socialism and Feinstein. Too weird for me.
As a reality check I have look at their voting records for many many years anf the majority of the republican critters vots similar to the demos. Since the late 1960 I have used the John Birch Society to stay informed about the government and how it is taking our rights away. If you want one of the best sources of news and information..... http://www.jbs.org/voting-index/voting-index
GeorgiaBoy
02-04-13, 15:38
If you cannot even begin to imagine the philosophical intrinsic and organic connections, then you are indeed in rather dire intellectual straits.
Oh I can imagine quite well actually; I'm not an idiot. I never took any major philosophy courses so I can't compare to your level on the matter in that regard. But this isn't the place to have this particular discussion, and is completely off topic.
I understand completely where you are coming from in the entire argument. But I don't agree. I don't agree that the government has the authority to regulate or advance moral code from a particular religion to be forced onto all.
Has anyone heard ANYTHING from Republican leadership yet (trying to stay on topic :) ) about standing up to protect gun ownership rights? Are they still lurking in the dark corners of the Capitol or have any made public statements in support of us gun owners yet?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.