How does the GOP maintain the level of support they do?

[Katganistan]

Exactly! The government's primary concern should be the well being of the people. Thus I propose we get health care and get rid of the military, intlligence agencies, boarder patrol and all that good stuff, as that's where the government doesn't belong.

The government's duty is to protect people's liberty, property and pursuit to happiness.

No, sweetie,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Socialist EU]

*Fear
*Dishonesty
*Rich supporters
*First past the post electoral system
*Innate Conservatism apathy or despair of the American people

Fixed, more people are non-voters.

[Hippostania]

The government's duty is to protect people's liberty, property and pursuit to happiness.

No, sweetie,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I know, I made that mistake about a week ago. The version I used was written by John Locke, and I think that it suits my ideals much better.

[Revolutopia]

What are you an anarchist? This stupid anarcho-capitalist argument has been debunked many times.

But if you can't come up with a better argument, well, I have America's finest protecting and I'd like to see you try.

I would say he is closer to the archaic classical liberal ideology.

I would say Fascist, saying how he has publicly admitted to admiring a number of them.

[Socialist EU]

I would say he is closer to the archaic classical liberal ideology.

I would say Fascist, saying how he has publicly admitted to admiring a number of them.

I can't say I was aware that, (he mentioned John Locke) at least I haven't seen him publicly write about his admiration on this forum.

[Katganistan]

I lol'd. The GOP gets more extremist and INsane over time. You made my day though.

I don't really agree. Blacks and gays aren't lynched like the old days. Barry Goldwater ring a bell.... They are not more extreme today.

Are you serious?
Heard of Matthew Shepard? Sakia Gunn? Manuel Mayi?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-22/just ... s=PM:CRIME

[North Calaveras]

I don't really agree. Blacks and gays aren't lynched like the old days. Barry Goldwater ring a bell.... They are not more extreme today.

Are you serious?
Heard of Matthew Shepard? Sakia Gunn? Manuel Mayi?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-22/just ... s=PM:CRIME

few cases=/= old days

[Revolutopia]

I would say Fascist, saying how he has publicly admitted to admiring a number of them.

I can't say I was aware that, (he mentioned John Locke) at least I haven't seen him publicly write about his admiration on this forum.

Ask him about his opinion about 1970s&80s Chile and remember to bring a tissue.

[Grinning Dragon]

Well? It wasn't and the last "invasion" (I don't really call Attu a "real" invasion) was 1846 by the Mexicans and 1812.

Today it's rather hard to invade and even if we were, much of the country will be devastated first......

The 2nd Amendment wasn't intended as a protection against enemies foreign and domestic?

I think Justice Story appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice would disagree with you.
He wrote a Constitutional commentary in 1833 in regards to the 2nd Amendment

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Also Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:

The people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

[Khadgar]

I don't really agree. Blacks and gays aren't lynched like the old days. Barry Goldwater ring a bell.... They are not more extreme today.

Are you serious?
Heard of Matthew Shepard? Sakia Gunn? Manuel Mayi?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-22/just ... s=PM:CRIME

Surely he meant, blacks aren't lynched like in the old days. Wait, didn't we just have a black kid shot over nothing? Huh.

Black US vet shot by police he accidentally set off his medic-alert bracelet. Sure am glad racially charged violence is a thing of that past.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

The government's duty is to protect people's liberty, property and pursuit to happiness.

No, sweetie,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The original concept, from TJ, was life, liberty, and property. So the OP of this pyramid was not that far off in the list. That being said, the idea that government has to protect these rights is a very interesting way to look at the issue. One might argue, these being negative freedoms, it is the responsibility of government to not get in the way.

[Socialist EU]

Oh, how I love strawmen. Have fun hacking them apart. I in no way support the Soviet Union, for god's sake!
And if you think that dying of starvation is the only bad effect of poverty, then I advise you to do further research.

Well it is.
Everything else is just touchy-freely liberal lies.
My character example (let's take Andrew Carnegie) rose out of decrepit poverty to riches, so everyone else obviously can too. They're just being lazy.

Er, if you paid any attention to Joseph Stiglitz plugging his book on inequality, the vast, and I mean very much vast majority of working class Americans die trying! It's a ruling class deception that propagates this masochistic type thinking, kind of like that masochistic programme, XF from Simon sadist Cowell.

[Divair]

The US, as a whole, is far more right wing than the rest of the West. That's why.

[Alternate Universe 912]

How I see it:

1. America is not Europe. A lot of people (Christian conservatives, national security conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, etc.) think President Obama wants to make us more like Europe and they don't want that.

2. In the long term, it might be better if the GOP were gone and there was some other coalition that was powerful enough to check the Democratic Party when it got out of hand. But for now the GOP is all we have to prevent the Democratic Party from getting out of hand.

3. It's an unfortunate fact that American and global politics have become so widely divided that we get very little from moderate voices in the U.S. anymore. Indeed, Obama and Romney are about as moderate as it gets.

4. It's an unfortunate fact that American and global politics have become so widely divided that it has become very difficult for each side to see the other's logic. To a liberal, it is difficult to understand how anyone who is not morally deficient, uneducated, etc. could possibly support a position to the right of, say Bill Clinton. For a conservative, liberals seem like lemmings headed for a cliff, unable to notice what they see as obvious concerns.

[SaintB]

So is free speech a privelage too?

No. Free speech is free and does not mean that you have to violate someone else's rights to use it.

Is the access to clean water a privelage too?

No, just like you don't have a right to a PS3 or a television.

If it is, then STFU. For who gave you the right to speak?

Sections 7 and 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Finland.

If you want to continue talking, then maybe you should see that healthcare, is a right. It isn't even debatable (lest free speech becomes debatable too)

Healthcare is not a right, as it would require the violation of someone else's rights. As healthcare cannot just appear out of thin air, someone has to pay for it. Just like I explained, you're not entitled to a new Ferrari. Why is healthcare any different?

The first Hospital in the United States was founded by Ben Franklin in Pennsylvania - it provided cost free care for all comers and accepted donations from patrons, it was later given funding by the federal and state governments to help cover costs. I'm not going to make an argument saying that the founding father's believed that healthcare was a right but they did enshrine a right to live as part of the law.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Well it is.
Everything else is just touchy-freely liberal lies.
My character example (let's take Andrew Carnegie) rose out of decrepit poverty to riches, so everyone else obviously can too. They're just being lazy.

Er, if you paid any attention to Joseph Stiglitz plugging his book on inequality, the vast, and I mean very much vast majority of working class Americans die trying! It's a ruling class deception that propagates this masochistic type thinking, kind of like that masochistic programme, XF from Simon sadist Cowell.

Someone didn't read my sig...
I was trying to preemp the traditional conservative response to the original query. I am well aware of the data, and the current theories on the poverty cycle. But how was my (facetious) comment masochistic?

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

HATRED OF GOVERNMENT: it is a long standing tradition in this country to hate the government and be suspicious of its motives. it has been so in many areas since the founding of the republic. since FDR the democrats have been the official party of big government. since LBJ turned the democrats into the party of civil rights, since ronald reagan made "liberal" a dirty word and proclaimed that "government is the problem", since grover norquist declared that republicans want to make government so small that you can drown it in the bathtub, it hasnt mattered WHAT the 2 parties stand for. if you are suspicious of the government and its motives you are a republican.

thats a big chunk of this country who are pandered to with anti-government talking points. it doesnt matter if they are on social security and medicare and their children and grandchildren will only ever have insurance through the efforts of the democrats in congress, they dont like the government and wont vote democratic.

Personally, I distrust government to a high degree, yet in no way do I support the Republican party.

[Socialist EU]

Er, if you paid any attention to Joseph Stiglitz plugging his book on inequality, the vast, and I mean very much vast majority of working class Americans die trying! It's a ruling class deception that propagates this masochistic type thinking, kind of like that masochistic programme, XF from Simon sadist Cowell.

I was trying to preemp the traditional conservative response to the original query.?

To what purpose?

I am well aware of the data, and the current theories on the poverty cycle. But how was my (facetious) comment masochistic

How is struggling to become rich and "successful", then not making striking it rich and "successful" not masochistic?

[Monlyth]

I want a war saying bush hid costs and that Obama's not to blame for doubling the debt, Bush's accounting is.

something tells me you are a republican...

Just noticed, eh?

[Katganistan]

No, sweetie,

I know, I made that mistake about a week ago. The version I used was written by John Locke, and I think that it suits my ideals much better.

It may suit your ideals better, but it's not the founding document as you now know.

[Katganistan]

Are you serious?
Heard of Matthew Shepard? Sakia Gunn? Manuel Mayi?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-22/just ... s=PM:CRIME

few cases=/= old days

It's not "a few cases". It's what I could think of in twenty seconds. There are a hell of a lot of racial bias and gender bias crimes.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

I was trying to preemp the traditional conservative response to the original query.?

To what purpose?

I am well aware of the data, and the current theories on the poverty cycle. But how was my (facetious) comment masochistic

How is struggling to become rich and "successful", then not making striking it rich and "successful" not masochistic?

1. Because it inspires debate. And satire is just plain fun.
2. I suppose masochism is an okay working definition, but most people prefer "ambition" or "hope".

[Katganistan]

No, sweetie,

The original concept, from TJ, was life, liberty, and property. So the OP of this pyramid was not that far off in the list. That being said, the idea that government has to protect these rights is a very interesting way to look at the issue. One might argue, these being negative freedoms, it is the responsibility of government to not get in the way.

I think you will find it was John Locke, not Thomas Jefferson, and it doesn't mean a thing because it is NOT in the founding document.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

The original concept, from TJ, was life, liberty, and property. So the OP of this pyramid was not that far off in the list. That being said, the idea that government has to protect these rights is a very interesting way to look at the issue. One might argue, these being negative freedoms, it is the responsibility of government to not get in the way.

I think you will find it was John Locke, not Thomas Jefferson, and it doesn't mean a thing because it is NOT in the founding document.

Obviously Locke introduced the idea initially, but it was Jefferson who invoked it in the ideologies applied for the founding of America.

[North Calaveras]

HATRED OF GOVERNMENT: it is a long standing tradition in this country to hate the government and be suspicious of its motives. it has been so in many areas since the founding of the republic. since FDR the democrats have been the official party of big government. since LBJ turned the democrats into the party of civil rights, since ronald reagan made "liberal" a dirty word and proclaimed that "government is the problem", since grover norquist declared that republicans want to make government so small that you can drown it in the bathtub, it hasnt mattered WHAT the 2 parties stand for. if you are suspicious of the government and its motives you are a republican.

thats a big chunk of this country who are pandered to with anti-government talking points. it doesnt matter if they are on social security and medicare and their children and grandchildren will only ever have insurance through the efforts of the democrats in congress, they dont like the government and wont vote democratic.

Personally, I distrust government to a high degree, yet in no way do I support the Republican party.

agreed, the government in my eyes should only handle infrastrcuture, military, law and order and possibly healthcare and only to a certain extent on some of those. I'm a republican but only in name