Who are the Republicans and what are their "Core Values"?

[Siddhartha]

Who, what groups, are the Republican and what are their core values? I would like to hear from the forum's GOP supporters and others who are positively aligned to the Republicans.

Please restrain from the typical ATP&N attacks, bashing, Righties vs lefties, Mr Obama this, etc

TIA

Siddhartha

 

[Craig234]

I won't answer, not being a Republican, but I'll make the point that I think the question needs two answers - from the people who run the party, versus the average member.

The people who put the 'support our troops' rbbons on their care and the people who push through the big pharma Medicare drug bill or the bankruptcy bill are quite different.

Do you mean the evangelicals who vote Republican, or the Bush adminstration officials who called those people insulting names behind their backs? It's not just one answer.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I won't answer, not being a Republican, but I'll make the point that I think the question needs two answers - from the people who run the party, versus the average member.

The people who put the 'support our troops' rbbons on their care and the people who push through the big pharma Medicare drug bill or the bankruptcy bill are quite different.

Do you mean the evangelicals who vote Republican, or the Bush adminstration officials who called those people insulting names behind their backs? It's not just one answer.

I changed the title of the thread to who are the republicans and what are their core values.

 

[pstylesss]

Repulican Party Platform. It is decided by people who are elected at the state level Republican Party. They are supposed to fight for the platform of the individual state platforms. The states' platform is decided by a fight by the delegates voted for at the county level whose platform is decided by votes from the individual members at the precinct level.

At least I'm pretty sure anyway.

 

[ScottMac]

Republicans or conservatives?

They're not necessarily the same.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Repulican Party Platform. It is decided by people who are elected at the state level Republican Party. They are supposed to fight for the platform of the individual state platforms. The states' platform is decided by a fight by the delegates voted for at the county level whose platform is decided by votes from the individual members at the precinct level.

At least I'm pretty sure anyway.

That has become 'CODE' talk for a return to the mentality and values of the Confederacy.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Republicans or conservatives?

They're not necessarily the same.

Yep, this is especially true of the neoconservatives that hijacked the Republican party in recent years.

If it is conservationism you are after:
President Ronald Reagan:

I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals...The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Republicans or conservatives?

They're not necessarily the same.

You are right. I cant answer for the party, but to answer the OP:

FOR:
Minimal government. Our federal government does FAR too much.

Large military budget. Both operational and R&D.

Less playing "world police". Close 1/3 of our international bases.

Somewhat isolationist.

Believe everyone should have a stake in federal taxes. What I mean by that is I dont agree with the large block of of people that pay net zero federal tax. I certainly wouldnt introduce anything large, but maybe something like .5 or 1% as a minimum fed tax.

I believe a nation cannot tax itself into prosperity. It hasnt worked before, it wont work now. Spending cuts are whats needed.

I believe save felons and those who are deemed psychologically unfit, everyone should own a gun. That opens a whole new can of worms. Who determines who is psychologically unfit? I recognize this weakness in my opinion, and that its subjective.

Unless it is medically shown to put the mother's life in danger, or rape or incest, I believe abortion should be illegal.

I dont believe in registering sex offenders. If they need to be punished further then change sentencing.

I believe we need to take more drastic steps to get illegal aliens out of the country. I think we need a two strike rule for employers who use illegals. First strike, a huge fine. Second strike, pull the business license.



Thats just a few off the top of my head.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Republicans or conservatives?

They're not necessarily the same.

You are right. I cant answer for the party, but to answer the OP:

FOR:
Minimal government. Our federal government does FAR too much.

Large military budget. Both operational and R&D.

Less playing "world police". Close 1/3 of our international bases.

Somewhat isolationist.

Believe everyone should have a stake in federal taxes. What I mean by that is I dont agree with the large block of of people that pay net zero federal tax. I certainly wouldnt introduce anything large, but maybe something like .5 or 1% as a minimum fed tax.

I believe a nation cannot tax itself into prosperity. It hasnt worked before, it wont work now. Spending cuts are whats needed.

I believe save felons and those who are deemed psychologically unfit, everyone should own a gun. That opens a whole new can of worms. Who determines who is psychologically unfit? I recognize this weakness in my opinion, and that its subjective.

Unless it is medically shown to put the mother's life in danger, or rape or incest, I believe abortion should be illegal.

I dont believe in registering sex offenders. If they need to be punished further then change sentencing.

I believe we need to take more drastic steps to get illegal aliens out of the country. I think we need a two strike rule for employers who use illegals. First strike, a huge fine. Second strike, pull the business license.



Thats just a few off the top of my head.

I like all of your fiscal and international policy items- great stuff... Your social agenda is a major step backwards though =)

/edit except on sex offenders. They should all just be killed, along with murderers. Not as a form of deterrent for hte next guy, but as a matter of waste disposal. Why house and feed some asshole for the rest of his life in a prison? Kill the bastards!

 

[retrospooty]

oops =)

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Repulican Party Platform. It is decided by people who are elected at the state level Republican Party. They are supposed to fight for the platform of the individual state platforms. The states' platform is decided by a fight by the delegates voted for at the county level whose platform is decided by votes from the individual members at the precinct level.

At least I'm pretty sure anyway.

Hm... other than the social values, alot of that sounds pretty damn good.

Too bad its not really what the reps are pushing. The platform sounds great, why they dont stick to it, I will never understand.

 

[stateofbeasley]

I used to be a Republican, when Republicans stood for less government intrusion into private lives, responsible spending, and non-interference in the affairs of other nations. I am pro-life and pro-gun. Somewhere along the line, the party was hijacked by Religious Right extremists.

I cannot stomach the current "base" of the party, because I believe it supports an agenda of hate, intrusion into personal lives, and weakening of the Constitution.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well, I believe the Republicans have grown cowardice in the face of socialist popularism and have abandoned their core principles in vain attempts to win elections. Take John McCain for example.

So what are these principles I hold dear to, which polarizes me staunchly against the Democrats? Well make no mistake for I am also polarized against today?s modern or ?moderate? Republican.

It begins with the belief of empowering people over government. Of placing the people?s interests before government?s interests. Of believing the elite ruling class is the problem and NOT the solution. In believing that we are a Union of States and whose ultimate authority belongs with your local representatives in the hopes that you can hold accountable those who control your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

If you think you, as 1 out of 300 million people can hold those elected in Washington DC accountable, ESPECIALLY given our two party incumbency, then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you and a deep and inconvertible disagreement with you.

To go along with my belief of people over government, I find the definition of Liberal defines me to the core. For example:

Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

It pains me to see the definition of freedom become so horribly deformed that our people use it to describe socialists. It should go towards those who believe in the Bill of Rights, which includes the 10th amendment for a reason. It should go towards those who DO NOT believe ?necessary and proper? is both the beginning and end of our constitution.

My beliefs should go towards those who stand up for the people and not for those who stand up to abuse them.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I won't answer, not being a Republican, but I'll make the point that I think the question needs two answers - from the people who run the party, versus the average member.

The people who put the 'support our troops' rbbons on their care and the people who push through the big pharma Medicare drug bill or the bankruptcy bill are quite different.

Do you mean the evangelicals who vote Republican, or the Bush adminstration officials who called those people insulting names behind their backs? It's not just one answer.

Newsflash!!!!!

 

[daniel49]

The rep parties values much like the Dems cover a wide spred group of people.
I can only speak for my core values and once I have identified those align myself with the party that is closest to those values.

Basically I am a social and fiscal conservative.
I see the Republicans as wandering away from those values and the Democrats as not having a clue as to thier exsistance.

 

[cubby1223]

You people are all idiots. We all believe in the same "Core Values", left, center, right, up, down, whatever.

The differences are the philosophies on how to best achieve freedom and liberty.

Conservatives believe that the best way to live free is with as little government burden as necessary, divide power as much as possible (see comment above on giving power back to the states, and the unbelievably stupid comment in reply implying that this is code for oppressing minorities :roll: ), and individual ambition and innovation are driven by personal responsibilities - shared responsibilities cause complacency.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Republicans or conservatives?

They're not the same.

Fixed.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

If it is conservationism you are after:
President Ronald Reagan:

I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals...The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

:thumbsup:
That's my version of conservatism as well. That, and balance the $%@ budget! It's immoral that current generations are leaving such public debt burdens on future generations, and neither party is addressing the issue honestly. It's just wrong to expect services at "big gov't" levels but only be willing to pay for them at "small gov't" levels. Sounds just like the housing crisis . . . voters buying more gov't than they were willing or able to pay for.

 

[dullard]

Your question is very difficult to answer. The Republicans are an amalgamation of various different groups who are only losely connected. Some of the large groups are the religious right (anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality), the conservatives (anti-tax and anti-entitlements), neoconservatives (pro-war and anti-everything non-American), and the NRA (pro-gun).

These groups really have no true binding ties. Many of them are single-issue voters. For example, if in a specific election the Republican was pro-choice and the Democrat was pro-life (both of which can and do happen), then NONE of the other issues (taxes, guns, war, etc) would matter and the religious right would vote Democrat. Same with the NRA - all that matters for their votes are gun laws (not taxes, not abortion, etc).

In order to keep all of these loosely tied groups together, the Republican party was ruled with an iron fist. For decades, in order to run as a Republican, you had to sign a paper swearing that you were for all of the items in all of the groups differing agendas. It didn't matter if you really believed in it, you had to agree to the terms. But that iron fist has been cracking since the Nixon era. There are many signs that the Bush resurgence was probably the last resurgence of the Republican party as we know it.

I personally believe the loose groups will splinter (as can be seen by the dominance of the neoconservative focus in the last few elections). True conservatives are not happy that Bush was one of the biggest spenders ever, with a complete lack of balanced budgets. The religious right are not happy that with several years of Republican congress control, Republican president control, and now a slight Republican supreme court control, there STILL was no real anti-abortion legislation. And gays gained many rights under Bush's terms. Many Democrats are pro-gun, so the NRA could easilly switch parties as well.

What I think will happen is that these groups will splinter apart and what will be left in the Republican party is basically the Contract with America. Basically that is less spending on entitlements and more spending on security. Slightly lower taxes (although it is hard to lower them more than Obama did). Smaller government (with the exception of massively larger military government). A flatter tax system. And less control over businesses.

 

[piasabird]

So do Liberals have to sign a communist manifesto?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So do Liberals have to sign a communist manifesto?

Ah yes, of course, someone has to say something derogatory about Communism and/or Socialism...

You do not seem to realize that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are both different philosophical branches of Capitolism. We are all Capitolists, lib and con.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unless it is medically shown to put the mother's life in danger, or rape or incest, I believe abortion should be illegal.

I don't get this one, should the woman be forced to carry to term? Is that your argument, that she has no right to her own body? Isn't that kind of like you being the rapist then as the same argument applies to that?

How about she says she's been raped weeks ago, will she be able to terminate her pregnancy then? Will a jury of you nutjobs sit there and judge whether she's honest enough about it or what?

I don't think you have the faintest clue about this issue but that never stopped an idiot from having an opinion before so why would it stop a retarded idiot like you from having an opinion, on something that will never concern you, in the least on it now.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I believe save felons and those who are deemed psychologically unfit, everyone should own a gun. That opens a whole new can of worms. Who determines who is psychologically unfit? I recognize this weakness in my opinion, and that its subjective.

Unless it is medically shown to put the mother's life in danger, or rape or incest, I believe abortion should be illegal.
.

Well, unless you have a vagina, you should have no say in the matter whatsoever. =)

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I believe save felons and those who are deemed psychologically unfit, everyone should own a gun. That opens a whole new can of worms. Who determines who is psychologically unfit? I recognize this weakness in my opinion, and that its subjective.

Unless it is medically shown to put the mother's life in danger, or rape or incest, I believe abortion should be illegal.
.

Well, unless you have a vagina, you should have no say in the matter whatsoever. =)

What about the father?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I believe save felons and those who are deemed psychologically unfit, everyone should own a gun. That opens a whole new can of worms. Who determines who is psychologically unfit? I recognize this weakness in my opinion, and that its subjective.

Unless it is medically shown to put the mother's life in danger, or rape or incest, I believe abortion should be illegal.
.

Well, unless you have a vagina, you should have no say in the matter whatsoever. =)

What about the father?

He has the right to carry the baby to term or abort it if it's in his body at any time.

This isn't rocket science.