posted November 10, 2004 09:00 PM              

This is not sarcasm or a way to trap you in some sort of web of words and philosophy, I am truly curious.

posted November 11, 2004 12:14 AM            

Perhaps you've forgotten that when Republicans "sin," they resign their positions, knowing they have broken the trust with both their constituents and other Republicans and have no future with Republican party.

Rather, you should ask your questions to Democrats who, knowing John Kerry is a fraud, a liar, a political opportunist and a proven traitor to the United States, voted for him anyway.

Perhaps you should have directed your questions to Democrats who, knowing Bill Clinton was the most corrupt President in American history, continued to support and still support Clinton to this day.

Let me tell you silverbells, no Republican would survive within the Republican party with that kind of history.

Perhaps you're confusing allegations with proven facts. Republican don't react to allegations, we react to facts.

posted November 12, 2004 05:02 PM              

I was asking the question of the "lay" Republicans because I see how staunchly they defend and how many facts are produced to defend the Republican party so I wanted to know what the R's had to say about different situations. So would you vote for the R of those different situations or not? Would those situations warrant a change of vote?

P.S. Bill Clinton 4 - EVER!!! < (Don't respond to that I just had to get it out of my system)

posted November 13, 2004 01:58 PM            

I can only speak for this Republican, but I vote for whomever makes sense to me, and whomever I believe stands closest to the things that mean the most to me. I, nor does any Repub I know, identify with ALL the beliefs espoused by their political party. I am pro-choice, but against 3rd trimester abortions except in rare cases where the mother's life is at risk. I am pro-business but anti-corporations, I am pro environment, but have a decidedly R approach to achieving conservation. I am pro-legalization of marijuana. I am against welfare, but would be for say, universal tertiary education, which is essentially a form of welfare. Most people I know have views that run the gamut, regardless of their party registration.

I think the view that it would take a conviction of murder or something as extreme to get a R to vote outside their party is just as narrow minded as saying that Dems have no morals. I believe the extremists and politicians of both parties have polarized the rest of us unnecessarily. I believe that far right are just as dangerous as the far left. And I don't know anyone who votes for whomever and whatever their party tells them to.

I guess what I'm saying SB is that I think the premise of your question is wrong, in that it assumes that it would take something catastrophic to get a registered R to vote outside the party. I think the Dems in here would find it to be the same way if I were to start a thread that said, "what, does the world have to explode before you guys would vote outside your party".

posted November 13, 2004 02:13 PM            

It is a false belief of the dem party that R's always vote R. Personally I am pro-life, but I understand a woman's right to chose- but like Isis I am against late term abortions.

I am against welfare, but I believe we need to offer a "stop-gap" to help people that are on hard times - without the crappy abuse of the system.

I believe we need to protect our environment, but burning down buildings, stopping the proper use of the land and ending the raising of livestock is just plain stupid.

posted November 14, 2004 09:23 PM              

The above is not to say that I do not have Republican as well as Democratic inclinations as pidaua mentioned. I'm quite torn actually. It only seems as though so many people are so decidedly one or the other and get so worked up about party affiliation in itself and the Repubs. won't budge and inch even when it logically comes to human versus money and it seems like a bunch of fat cats willing to sacrifice everone else's interests for personal gain [what ever the gain of the moment might be(personal satisfaction, moral satisfaction, money, whatever). Although there is something to be said about a certain amount of self - interest.

Perhaps, just perhaps what I perceive as bull - headedness is only perseverance or certainty or some such thing.

posted November 15, 2004 12:17 PM              

quote:

---

Radacalism was good back in the 60's and 70's to wake people up. Now we need a more calm practical approach.

---

If ever there was a time to wake people up!

IT'S NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Tho actually, I think they are awake.....

It's just that they are prevented from acting on what they know is happening, due to this "invisible force field" which has gradually been built up to render them, virtually paralyzed!.....eeeeeeeeee

Love,
Rainbow

posted November 15, 2004 12:22 PM              

I have voted for Republicans in the past but I don't like the new Republican party at all. The Republican party began to change gradually under Reagan and Bush Sr.'s administration. They became more war-like. George W. Bush has within the past four years completely re-defined the Republican Party. They call them neo-conservatives now or neo-cons.

The past four years having to live with the effects of the neo-conservative agenda and not liking these new Republicans at all and what they represent for our country and the world I will probably vote Democratic from this point on. Maybe even Independent. I would like to see reform in the whole system though.

Bush is radical. He is in fact the most radical president this country ever had. Wake up! Pre-emptive war is radical people! Combining church and state is radical. These are not "practical" moves at all. Nothing Bush has done the past four years could be labeled practical. So why did you vote for Bush if practicality is what you seek?

Presidents have always had the power for pre-emptive strike. Bush is the first President to ever use that power. Hello! That's a radical move. Mostly the power of pre-emptive strike was only if the U.S. was in imminent danger. We were not in imminent danger from an attack by Iraq. If this sounds at all practical to you guys I have to wonder what you actually consider radical.

I was young in the 60's and 70's and I don't see that era as "radical" at all unless you consider civil rights for blacks and minorities radical. Unless you see equality for women in our society radical. You are enjoying the benefits of what you consider radical are you not? So what are you saying? Now that I have the benefits and enjoy them to hell with the rest of world and mankind? To hell with continuing the mission of making the world and this country a better place? Are you saying you just want to be "practical" and enjoy the benefits of what others fought to achieve for you but you don't want to fight to achieve more and better benefits that your kids and future grand kids can enjoy?

posted November 15, 2004 01:51 PM            

Hint:

Ways to shut people's minds off to what you're saying through finger wagging:

"Wake up!"
"Hello!"
"What legacy are you passing on for your kids to enjoy? Practicality?"
"So what are you saying? Now that I have the benefits and enjoy them to hell with the rest of world and mankind?"
"Are you saying you just want to be "practical" and enjoy the benefits of what others fought to achieve for you but you don't want to fight to achieve more and better benefits that your kids and future grand kids can enjoy?"
"Our generation got it that close at least but it might have been total equality by now if the generation that followed hadn't been sitting on the side-lines being practical and waiting for someone else to do it for them."

Ranting Mirandee is not going to foster communication.

I have to wonder if you even read the title of the thread, the initial post from SB, or did you just hone into the words "less radicalism and more practicalism", which I might add was specifically referring to environmentalism, and decide a berating tirade was in order?

I suppose ultimately should not have come back here. Nothing's changed, except Jwhop's just backed off. Do you want to be understood Mirandee, have discourse on issues, or do you just come here to berate those that don't agree with you? I've heard such accusations bantered about with regards to Jwhop, but you know, pointing a finger at him leaves those other three pointing back at yourself.

posted November 15, 2004 02:57 PM            

People, specifically the rabid left, CANNOT accept that Republicans ARE empathetic, that we do care about the environment and how our kids will grow up in this great country. They WANT...no..they NEED to believe in the myth perpetuated by the Terry Maculiffes in this world that if one is a Pubbie that automatically makes them a racist, anti-environmental..oh..and my favorite..if all else fails "STUPID".

They cannot accept that as Republicans we can CHOOSE what we stand for and go against our party if necessary and still be considered a Republican. It is stressed in that party to think out of the box, to question everything, not just be a knee jerk and go along with the mantra. Well, with the exception of the small minority of extreme righties....

It reminds me of being in one of my peer review meetings where we look at what project we are researching. Some of the scientists got so angry when we questioned what they were working on. A part of science is to do just that - tear apart your theory, research..look at it from all angles. The basic premise is "If you cannot tolerate what we do in a peer review, how can you stand up for your theories in the outside world?"

The same holds true for politics, with the exception that I see the Conservatives on here justifying why we are conservative AGAIN AND AGAIN..then we are called evil, racists, anti-environment..but hey, if we turn that scrutiny on the libbies..oh all hell breaks loose and we are just mean and vile..and hurting poor innocent people...

posted November 16, 2004 12:45 AM              

I apologize, Im very often misunderstood because Im not very good at explaining myself.
The type of oppression in the USA was much different than the things we are experiencing now. Radicalism worked for those issues. I dont think they are working for the current issues. Radicals today tend to try to tell people what to do and what they should do, people dont take well to being told what to do, nor should they. There is a middle PRACTICAL solution for everything if people would just try to meet in the middle.

posted November 16, 2004 01:04 AM              

There is no truth in this Administration.

A gentle practicality? Wanting to create a Constitutional Amendment that discriminates? Is it "practical" to engage in this war? To slaughter women and children? To perpetuate a health care system that only treats the wealthy?

(yes, here we go, I can hear it already... 9-11!! 9-11!!! so, the murder of innocents begets MORE murder? spare me the sanctimonious martyrdom. its not RIGHT just because WE do it.)

You are republican? great. i dont care. Just stop trying to control MY life. We ALL live here.. not just you. Not just corporations. Not just Republicans. If this administration could do ONE thing that benefits a MAJORITY of Americans, not just white upper class males, then maybe I would stop b!tching.