I was thinking about the prime directives of "political parties", specifically the two major ones in the US, and I don't think I understand what the Republicans are actually about. They say they are about small government that doesn't intervene on people's personal lives, but then they are all about using laws to prohibit things or to allow things to happen that would never happen on a small scale like wildlife refuge drilling. It should be an "inclusive" party, but really it's a lot of white people or people with racial / social / economic prejudices.

Why do they claim to be an option for the average person, but really it's geared towards specific people with specific ideas?

It's all about power son!

dont forget a foreign policy which is the opposite of conservative

I believe in a lot of the governmental positions that the party of lincoln backs. unfortunately, the republicans should be the party of hardwork/small government. they became the party of jesus and corporations.

some dude who wrote some book was on NPR today talking about how the party of Lincoln pretty much accomplished everything that they initially set out to do. And now the party is sort of having an identity crisis and having a hard time keeping their core values relevant. So they went with the party of traditional american values for a bit....just kind of doesn't apply when people are poor as fuck. Only works when things are stable.

If you come at it from a liberal angle, you'll never understand.

Republicans support conservative values.

Unfortunately, some of those values can no longer be spoken aloud, so the party is neurotic.

I don't think anyone with historical knowledge believes "hardwork/small government" is a working solution; however, Democrats are the ones who have made government huge. The Iraq war is a tiny expense compared to social welfare programs initiated by Democrats.

So I think the answer is that they present themselves badly, but if you look carefully and take the time to think about it, you'll see exactly what they stand for... but none of you will.

Conservationist, you are 1/2 wrong and 1/2 right. Just talk to the biggest republican in the entire history of the world, George W Bush who is growing the federal government 5 times faster than Clinton.

and you are 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong because you are right that democrats increased the size of government, but leave out the fact that republicans are also the ones who made the government huge.

bennyhillifier

Translation: Jesus freak whackjobs.

Then why did Bush have to borrow all of that money from China?

If you come at logic from a conservative point of view, you'll never get it.

Washington was also the one who basically said that the US should not butt into the business of other countries. The man was a genius.

wwjd

its pretty bad that if a speech like that was made now, it would have to be significantly dumbed down so the American public could follow. with that aside though, we need presidents who make profound speeches like that.

A WITCH@!

translation: Political parties are bad, k? We gotta be stupid as hell to let them happen. Go slavery.

seriously, that's probably true and pretty damn sad.
WWGWD?

you would need 5 fingers for that.

alan greenspan got shit for being verbose.

And what's the deal with airline food?

Shit, I didn't know George Washington even posted here.

they're called fingers, but they don't fing.

Conservative values predated Jesus.

I would estimate that conservatives are mostly Christian, with most of those being normal Christians, and a few being the fringe -- pentacostals and fundamentalists.

Then again, I also think secular humanism behaves like a religion in the minds of people so... well, the left has its religious whackjobs too.

The left does not nominate its whackjobs for vice-president. The left does not re-elect whackjobs that have proven to be borderline retarded.

Until you take control of your party back from the whackjobs, expect to keep losing elections. Enough of America has finally woken up to keep Jesus out of Washington.

I think Barack Obama is a whackjob who promises a lot, has no plan for delivering it, and is of questionable moral character.

We'll see what happens.

I agree about taking control of the party back from the whackjobs, but I'm not sure we're defining "whackjobs" the same way.

And outside of politics, nature continues orchestrating what will happen. A party full of secular humanist whackjobs may be popular, and may destroy its host nation.

Then only history laughs, eh?

I'm actually kind of interested to see how/if the right re-builds itself...

Probably going to happen in Europe first.

How is that different from ANY politician?

And you really really don't want to bring up "moral behavior" when defending McCain.

To quote a very smart older guy I know.....
"These are not my father's Democrats and these are not my father's Republicans.'

Only registered Republicans will go to heaven and sit beside Jesus Christ and God the Holy Father! Palin / Beck in 2012!!!

in soviet russia tree hug you

blessed offal supports radical political conservatism; however, blessed offal does ask that you make yourself aware of the circumstatial antithesis that you were not previously making cognizant.

Social Darwinism and personal moral development.

I would figure the best possible outcome, other than the complete eradication of political parties, would be some kind of functional equilibrium between liberal and conservative and their respective, albeit erroneously labeled, parties. By and large, the liberal ideology states that we, collectively known as "The Government", can band together via our elected representatives and solve many of the problems that plague our society. In the event of a liberal dominated government, the right's position should be to try to be the auditing force within the government and to act as accountants for the money being spent. On the other hand, a more conservative government would benefit from liberals being the conscience economically, that comes in and notices when markets are becoming too top heavy and are not providing for the gross majority (which markets always do). This balance would provide the best active and reactive forces that could not only help provide for those who do not have enough while not sacrificing the liberty of those who have worked the hardest and have been fortunate to obtain wealth. I don't think this is impossible, it just requires us holding our elected officials accountable and being a thoughtful, knowledgeable populace.

What is wrong with conservatism, unless it is the christian kind. The Vikings were conservative! I am a strong economic conservative, my ideals are kinda like Dr. NO, ron paul that is, I think anything that isn't absolutely necessary to the upkeep of our nation directly should be ditched.

I wouldn't really call myself a republican, but that's the closest option I have to my own beliefs when I'm voting, so I suppose I should answer this. Speaking on the "all white guys" perspective, we've had multiple generations telling minorities and women if they hold any conservative beliefs, e.g. low taxes, pro-life, merit-based accomplishments, that they're not really a woman/minority. The mentality to push everyone into a group and then to make them conform to whatever stereotype is politically correct has been the norm for decades. It's no wonder that republicans/conservatives are seen as all white guys.

Pro-telling-people-what they-can-and-cannot-do-with-their-own-bodies? You lose! Good day, sir! That fiscal conservativism has to be held in conjunction with wacked out religious beliefs is the deal breaker.

They are full of shit. $$$

For you, sure. But there's nothing about the two that would exclude each other. Many republicans support drug legalization. And many more conservative women are pro-life. I think Conservationist is right on, if you look at it coming from a liberal perspective, you'll never get it. I had to explain very slowly to my sister that it's very possible to be conservative libertarian and pro-life, in that if you believe an unborn fetus is a life then it deserves the same basic constitutional protections that everyone else has.

On that note, people should really stop assuming that every republican is Pat Robertson, just like I don't assume that every democrat is Bernie Sanders.

pat, you're a reasonable fellow with political ideals not far from mine, but I would ask if you mis-typed...did you mean "pro-choice?"

The mainstream of the Republican party will declare anyone who is not 100% "pro-life" (a bullshit term to begin with) a RINO. Read the party platform on the GOP website. So if you support gun rights, low taxes, etc, etc, but you don't believe a blastocyst deserves the same rights of a living human - you're not tr00!!! Same for "preserving traditional marriage" - more religious shit.

and just to state, as most know, I'm complete pro-abortion and whole-heartedly KNOW anyone should be able to marry anyone they want.

I guess I could mean both. Many conservatives are pro-choice but many women are pro-life. I was originally trying to go into the "all white males" theory, in that women are expected by liberal men to believe certain things, lest they lose their "woman card." I'd also just like people to stop assuming that because one has beliefs in a certain field it automatically translates into other beliefs in other fields, because often times there's no logical path from A to B.

You could be for lower taxes and it has nothing to do with abortion
You could be pro-life but it has nothing to do with gay marriage
You could be for drug decriminalization/legalization and it has nothing to do national security (although you could make your case using national security, it doesn't mean you have to believe in both platforms of the party)

At this point all any of the base cares about is the size of government. Abortion took a back seat in 2009.

^^^^ This. High-five.

Like I said before, when people ask what I am I say a true republican, what is a true republican?

Think back before all the moral and christian bullshit joined with the Republicans. And if you were truly informed you would understand today there is a schism in the Republican party between Economic Republicans and Moral Republicans, aka Ron Pauls and Sarah Palins.

Libertarianism is what I would more align myself with, but it is republicanism, just not called such to get away from the notions of being aligned with the current republicans aka the jesus freaks and the pro-corporation repubs

If all you care about is abortion, marriage, and other frivolous things then you need to lose your ability to vote...those things are always used by parties to hide what they really stand for, which is usually sucking all the money out of you they can.

I am neither pro-life, or pro-abortion, because I am not a woman and don't give a fuck about it. People will always have abortions, or chose for themselves. Which is why I think the option should be there for people but only if they get raped or may die from it, aka I think maybe it should be used once and after that you should be charged ass loads of money if you dare get another...it's not a form of birth control.

I'm against any infringement upon the Constitution or basic rights, so I am fully pro-gun, as with out the ability to wield a weapon of some use, how will you protect all the other rights from the government? you think that if you didn't have a gun that the government would stop at taking away the other rights? what would you do to stop them? Protest with signs? Ha!

the marriage thing is also retarded, who cares, let gay people do what they want and they can as miserable as the rest of us, but I strongly strongly oppose making it legal that people have to perform things for gay couples, which is what the debacle is truly about...because people fear that a law would force let's say a photographer to shoot their wedding...even if said photographer was a super jesus freak. And that's the flip side of that issue, forcing compliance from the business sector involved with weddings and ceremonies.

But a true Republican is about spending, culling costs, lessening government, and keeping federalism balanced, if not being anti-federalist, which I am. I believe states should have all the power they are given but not currently allowed to use because of the fucked up interpretation of the constitution by D.C.