What Republicans think of Romney

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by Magibeg

I didn't say that republicans want those things. I was merely listing the policies that republicans push for

So let me get this strait... "Wanting" something is in no way, shape or form like "Pushing" for something?

Like PUSHING this shit away? Then Im all for Push!
Gay messages built into school maths lessons for children as young as FOUR http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...community.html

I think I might know a chick you should hook up with!

[Magibeg]

Originally Posted by SK-1

So let me get this strait... "Wanting" something is in no way, shape or form like "Pushing" for something?

Like PUSHING this shit away? Then Im all for Push!
Gay messages built into school maths lessons for children as young as FOUR http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...community.html

I think I might know a chick you should hook up with!

Wait, so you're trying to tell me that wanting something and taking steps towards getting the things you want isn't the same as pushing something?

Fact of the matter is that if republican viewpoints were fully engaged those would be the resulting policies put into place. You can try to bend this anyway you want but fact of the matter is that those are the republican view points.

[Brandenburg]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

One word: Money. DNC and GOP have enough money to make sure another party never can challenge them.

Kinda unamerican.. wouldnt you say...sorta like a plutocracy

a small number of extremely wealthy individuals were controlling the country and holding them in ransom.

id say that fits

[FordGT90Concept]

It does indeed. The Citizens United ruling now further complicates it by allowing corporations to buy off entire parties.

Originally Posted by Magibeg

I didn't say that republicans want those things. I was merely listing the policies that republicans push for and their basic view points. But yes those would be the outcomes

It's the "party platform." Those issues are decided at local level, voted on at the state level, then voted on at the national level during the convention.


I believe it is the function of government to remain neutral in all things possible. If government puts itself in a position where it must choose between, for example, pro-life and pro-choice, it should stand back, and say "I'm not going to touch that." If it is in a situation where it needs to choose between corporation A, and corporation B, it should choose "it is not my place to decide." Matters like this should be decided by people and only as far as they can unanimously agree on it. For example, my community would choose pro-life which means zero abortion clinics, no contraception in stores, etc. and, very few people would care because they agreed to it. Likewise, a city like San Francisco might elect to go full pro-choice, have abortion clinics on every block, condoms in every store, and sex education every year in public school. These issues will not be agreed to unaimously at state level (every state was constructed to be as balanced as possible) so they shouldn't become law at state level. In fact, here in Iowa, the judges that ruled in favor of same sex marriages got outsted by voters. The state government did something the east side supported that the west side did not and the retaliation was immediate.

In short, all the problems would go away if all levels of government chooose neutrality if a concensus (at least 75%) was not reached. I applaud nations like Japan that do have a 75% voting threshold before action is taken.

[jmcslob]

Ford...Just saying
It's not up to you or your state judges to decided on such things as "Gay Marriage" as it's none of you or states fuckin business...You and your state shouldn't get to decide such things as you say should simply say "I'm not touching that" and leave it up to the people involved....Same with most Social issue the Repubs are against...they are nothing to you or them and it should remain that way.

[FordGT90Concept]

If the people demand the state make it is business, there's nothing on the books that says it can't. Kind of like gambling. Some states have become a haven for gambling and others are largely clean of it. States can better represent their constituents than countries. Likewise, local governments can represent their constituents better than state governments.

The federal government was only supposed to deal with issues of interstate commerce/affairs and international commerce/affairs.

Some things, like abortion, need a decision made because it involves ending a life. I thiink local Roe v Wade should have ruled that the federal government can't rule on it. That would allow cities to make their own decisions and, if there was support for it, states could too.

All states have laws in regards to marriage licenses. It's in the states' rights to decide if that includes same-sex or not. The federal government has no right to impose its beliefs on the entire nation on such matters unless the vote is unanimous in the House and Senate.