Senate The Future of the Republican Party

He also recently resigned from Congress (hence why we have the Sanford/Colbert - Bucsh race right now - it's the fill DeMint's seat) to head up a lobbying firm, so while he's an idiotic mess, he really doesn't count as a member of congress for the moment.

 

Up next we have a GOP Senator James Inhoef, from where you might say, Oklahoma!!!!!!! another one of Americas great states....

The Mr. Inhoef has said amazing things such as:

“With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?”
“It [environmentalist movement] kind of reminds… I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie… You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that’s their [the environmentalists'] strategy.”

Some how James is comparing scientists warning about global warming to the third Reich.. I don't know about you but I can most certainly se the connection...

I don't even think I need to post more on this man, that quote sums him up perfectly.. Oh who am I kidding heres another..

Is Jim against gay marriage?? of course he is, hes from Oklahoma... hes quoted as saying "I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship."

 

I know but with quotes like that how can I leave this man out...

 

Okay, I missed this. As asinine as all of these quotes are (sources please?) I really feel the need to address number 4.

Men, on the internet or anywhere else, have absolutely no business discussing abortion AT ALL if you're discussing it outside of a medical circle of any kind. Until you possess a uterus you can mind your own damn business.

I know I stated earlier that I didn't want this to turn into an abortion debate and I stand by that, but seriously? Who better to discuss womens' issues than women? People like this guy, if he really said that, need to be removed from office....and the gene pool.

Edit: Didn't know he left. Sorry for the rant.

 

if you think im gonna cite every quote you must be nuts...

just have faith that im not wasting my time over here doing all this work as a joke.. Google it yourself dude...

 

I am nuts, but I'm also lazy. I'll take your word for it.

 

I go out of town for a bit and get to come back to this....

There is a very real distinction to be made between discussing the future of the Republican Party (which carries with it some needed discussion of the party presently) and potshots and insults without any critical discussion. While that may be a nuanced line, the presumption had been that people would be able to figure that out, but we'll give this a nudge back on track, to one of the recent on topic comments that also actually is part of a discussion and not just a stream of abuse aimed at Republicans, in general or in particular.

 

Republicans deserve nothing but contempt, Mike.

The things that the GOP is doing (sometimes with Democratic assent, but usually just on their own) to damage this country just to marginally improve their fortunes is criminal, and should be noticed by far more people than is the case right now.

 

What exactly is the Tea Party now??

When they first stated, they were supposed to be the libertarians. (Rand Paul is still called both a libertarian and a Tea Partier... but then Ted Cruz is considered Tea Party too, and so is Marco Rubio.... despite all 3 being very different from each other)



But anyways, even vast majority of "libertarian" oppose things like gay marriage and birth control. In other words, they're libertarian EXCEPT on the issues that actually matter.

Of course it's an amendment to the Constitution. To require the budget be balanced. How exactly it would be enforced, who knows.

 

Thank you, but in all seriousness, how are gay marriage and birth control "issues that matter?" They don't.

 

They matter to gay people, and friends/family of gay people, and people who care about equality and freedom.

They matter to people who want more control on whether they can get pregnant or not.



When people say they're libertarian, it usually means they want to get government out of their personal lives. What is more personal than who you marry, or family planning?

These social issues are the defining aspect of libertarianism. People who say they're libertarian, except for gay marriage and birth control, are like people who say they're pacifists except they supported the wars in Iraq and Vietnam.

 

Maybe I'm way off when it comes to my understanding of what a libertarian is. Also, if the basis of one's sociopolitical philosophy is "keep government out of my personal life" then...again...marriage and birth control are not things the government should, ideally, have any involvement in, hence there should be no legislation dictating who can or can't get married, am I right?

 

The true libertarian position on both of those is that it's none of the government's business, either way. For example, a libertarian doesn't want the government prohibiting birth control, but they also don't think that the government should be paying for it either. It's simply not something the government should either endorse or prohibit, in any way.

However, if someone comes out and says "the government shouldn't be paying for birth control", they are treated as though they are trying to ban birth control altogether, instead of simply getting the government out of the way.

Personally, I don't care whether you are sleeping with a boy, a girl, or one (or more) of each. I don't care whether you are taking a pill, using an IUD, condoms, NFP, or anything else. I only really care when what you are doing affects me and mine, such as by insisting that I pay for it, or by insisting that I otherwise provide support for it. Beyond that, if you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, and I'll insist that others leave us both alone.

Part of the problem is that there are very few purists of any political philosophy. Someone might be libertarian on social issues (wanting the government to stay out of the bedroom, for example), and yet very liberal on fiscal issues (demanding a redistributive taxation system). A person can be conservative on one subject, liberal on another, and libertarian on yet another.

The Tea Party tends to be very libertarian on fiscal issues, and very conservative on social issues. That's not a contradiction, any more than a Democrat can be socially liberal and yet fiscally conservative.

 

Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults.

Getting married is essentially a shortcut to a bundle of a legal rights in the hundreds/thousands.

Without it, you'd have to hire a lawyer negotiate a contract yourself... or don't do anything, then get screwed on taxes, when your spouse gets sick or dies, if you were to split up who gets what, etc.

It's a huge legal convenience, and government should absolutely preserve it, since so many couples want those legal rights.
(Now, I also happen to believe marriage should also be more than a contract, but that's personal, you make of it what you want, but at the very least it needs to be a legal contract)




EDIT:

But they don't claim to be libertarian, or specify that they're social libertarian.

 

I absolutely disagree. It is entirely possible for someone to have a reasoned opinion on the ethics of abortion and whether it should be legal even if they do not possess the necessary body parts to allow them to have an abortion. Your position is simply sexist.

 

There are many people who claim to be "conservative", but aren't socially conservative. I've known people who claim to be a "liberal", but had some "conservative" positions.

The problem you are encountering is that those labels are really just general shortcuts. They don't actually define the full range of anyone's positions, because there are virtually no "pure" liberals, conservatives, libertarians, or any other ideology. You will always see variation between individuals.

Just because someone says that are a "libertarian" doesn't mean that they agree 100% with libertarian positions. At best, it means that they agree more with libertarian positions than with other viewpoints.

 

The true libertarian position on both of those is that it's none of the government's business, either way. For example, a libertarian doesn't want the government prohibiting birth control, but they also don't think that the government should be paying for it either. It's simply not something the government should either endorse or prohibit, in any way.[/quote]

Where is the government "paying" for birth control though? I'm not an expert on birth control issues (primarily because I think it should be a non-issue) so I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Typically, I hear conservatives complain when it's subsidized or treated the same as other medical care (as it is a form of preventative care). So, in that sense, yes, the government is helping to pay for it. However, if this is the case, I would think that excluding it from other forms of preventative care simply because one finds it morally wrong is a form of "big government" that is a complete contradiction of libertarianism. To say that the government is allowed to subsidize preventative care except for ones that someone deems morally wrong is forcing one's beliefs into the private life of another...

 

Granted, this was from my west coast experience, but it's not terribly uncommon to find people that put themselves in the libertarian category, or Ron Paul supporters, etc, who simultaneously oppose same-sex marriage while also saying that they would like to get rid of marriage from the government entirely. The issue does get more muddied with abortion as I've heard that more often framed as a states rights issue, rather than as a libertarian issue, at least with the Ron Paul supporters I've talked to most. In other words, they hold to the idea that the federal government shouldn't be dealing with it at all, but that state governments should. Which has always bothered me as they cloak that in libertarianism, when they're advocating not for less government, but just a redistributed one. What will be odd is that during the 2008 election, a LOT of Ron Paul supporters got into the Republican machinery, and it will be interesting to see if they are actually able and/or willing to try to exert some change with that. There was certainly a long term strategy in how that election ran so they could get access to how the party runs, rather than just access to the ticket.

That said, I do think Kimball's also right that people are rarely pure. For example, it is the problem with at least my sorts of views in that I tend to have issues with Democrats that are for a more intrusive government when it comes to some matters, while Republicans are more intrusive on others. Even though both parties will say that they're for letting people make their own choices when it suits them, even though on very different issues. It is something that, I think, has been building for a while (but may be more of an ebb and flow), and if that reaches a significant enough point, there will be a sizable number of voters that are valuable to try to cater to. If or when we'll reach that point is trickier. It does seem, though, that on the whole social conservatism is on the decline and so people that support things like smaller government, while also supporting same-sex marriage, drug legalization, and legal abortion seems to be on the increase. If that continues to hold up, tied to how independents are on the rise as well, it's going to mean that the current two parties, with their platforms won't hold up. Of the two parties, the Republicans are the ones in the weaker spot, and it seems like the pressure will be to them to either a. change platforms to adapt or b. be marginalized.

 

Lowbacca_1977 - while the push for SSM and in some corners a push for at least Marijuana to be legalized fully (see Pat Roberton on that one) does indeed seem to have rapidly gaining momentum, in a lot of states it seems like the push to outlaw abortion is on the rise. Especially with recent bills/regulations that all seem to be designed to stifle a woman's access to legal abortion. (one abortion clinic in southside Va closed permanently this week due to stricter regs on such clincs being recently put into place)

Further comment is probably best left to the abortion thread, but I just wanted to air out what I thought re: your comments about legal abortion being on the increase.

 

I would like to post more idiots from the GOP only if the crowd wants to see more of it...

 

This is more of a discussion thread.


What are the 5 most important things the GOP would have to do for you to vote for them, seriously?



For me,

1. Accept Science

2. Respect privacy, and tolerate others' beliefs and personal decisions (accept the Separation of Church and State, and therefore Gay Marriage)....stop being the morality police and trying to protect people from themselves when they're not harming others (like with marijuana, the drinking age, gambling, etc.), and just overall respect people's privacy (don't butt into personal property/ information /communications without a warrant).

3. Be Pragmatic, do what works best, and if it's broken then just fix it... understand the government can play a role in helping people and the economy (like by supporting Education, Infrastructure/Energy, a Free Internet, Healthcare, Social Security, Childcare, Homeless Shelters, Food Stamps, Environmental Management/Protection, Labor Regulations, Consumer Safety Regulations, Financial Regulations, Gun Background Checks, Research)... and to offer persuasive, comprehensive Proof if they ever say the private sector would be better for a particular responsibility than government (see #1: accept science)... and likewise, when government shouldn't be involved in something, then get it out, and when government should be involved but it isn't working (like immigration, bureaucracy, tax loopholes/subsidies for the rich and big businesses that don't need it, entitlement costs, military costs) well then reform government to make it work better!

4. Believe in diplomacy, having/gaining allies, human rights, short wars with a purpose and only when necessary(but no blind devotion to any in particular, like Israel, and not afraid to demand basic cooperation from "allies" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia)... wars should only be made when necessary and never committed without a clear sense on how to end it as soon as possible... no torture, even for terrorists... due process, even for terrorists

5. Stop the hyper-partisanship... you can oppose the Democrats without trying to game the system through filibusters, redistricting, gerrymandering the electoral college, making it difficult to vote, opposing your own ideas just because a Democrat decides to support it, etc.




Because right now, when I think of the Republican Party, I think of a bunch of people who don't accept scientific facts or process, don't respect privacy, don't respect personal decisions that don't harm others, don't respect human rights, don't respect the international community, definitely aren't pragmatic, would go to war before it's a last resort, and viciously oppose Obama and the Democrats over everything and to the point that they're actually trying to undermine our democratic system.