Ask a Republican!

Anything goes forum. Discuss Politics, school, family, whatever you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
gutterhippo
VIP Member
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Contact:

Ask a Republican!

Post by gutterhippo » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:26 pm

I work under the assumption that people are generally good, rational actors. That assumption is challenged every time I watch Fox News. But I maintain, some of the smartest people I know also happen to suffer from staunch conservatism. I have always wanted to kidnap one of them, tie em to a chair, and make them explain to me some of the face-palmiest things about the Republican party. In lieu of that, I turn to my WV faithful, many of whom I know are conservative, and all of whom I respect. I am looking for a few brave men and women who would be willing to answer my questions, as well as the questions of any other bleeding heart liberal on the boards...

*Do Republicans realize that not everybody is Christian?

*Do Republicans realize that not everybody is heterosexual?

*How can Republicans be against taxes for the extremely wealthy, and be for cutting tax breaks for lower-income families?

*Along with the last question, do lower-income Republican voters realize that their own party completely fvcks them over? Or do they actually believe in trickle-down economics? Do they actually fall for the 'Have's and Soon-to-Have's' rhetoric? What's the matter with Kansas?

*Do Republicans realize that the economy is getting better under the Obama administration?

*Do Republicans realize that the last time our economy was good was under a democratic president as well?

*Are Republicans really not aware of how little Obama has to do with the price of gasoline?

*How can Republicans call for small government, and then push policies that ask for more governmental power over its citizens?

*How can Republicans criticize the Obama administration for spending, and then ask that more money be spent on the military?

*Do conservatives realize that Fox News is about as "fair and balanced" as the Daily Show?

*Speaking of the Daily Show, do Republicans realize that their decisions provide a consistent stream of comedic material for the show?

See you in the history books... and hopefully not the DTOTYN forum...
Image

User avatar
NightWatchman
Mid Carder
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:19 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by NightWatchman » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:16 pm

I'm going to preface this with I'm not a republican, but I come from a very conservative part of the country and have had these questions answered for me. The responses might be politically incorrect.

*Do Republicans realize that not everybody is Christian?

They think it's their responsibility to convert everyone to christianity.

*Do Republicans realize that not everybody is heterosexual?

The ones who do realize it often apologize for the ones who don't. The ones who don't, think that sexuality is a choice.

*How can Republicans be against taxes for the extremely wealthy, and be for cutting tax breaks for lower-income families?

They represent the wealthy. Democrats represent the lower-income families.

*Along with the last question, do lower-income Republican voters realize that their own party completely fvcks them over? Or do they actually believe in trickle-down economics? Do they actually fall for the 'Have's and Soon-to-Have's' rhetoric? What's the matter with Kansas?

It's often not the economic aspects of the republican party that appeal to lower-income Republicans, typically it's the socio-cultural mainstays in the Republican party's policies. The Republican party represents tradional values vs. the progressive nature of Democratic policies. Kansas is very conservative by nature.

*Do Republicans realize that the economy is getting better under the Obama administration?

If they do, they'll never admit to it. Mostly they'll claim it's because of the concessions that Obama made to the Republicans.

*Do Republicans realize that the last time our economy was good was under a democratic president as well?

They'll say that it was better under Reagan and Bush Senior

*Are Republicans really not aware of how little Obama has to do with the price of gasoline?

They'd blame him for a hurricane, if one hit the coast and caused damage. The same way some democrats said that Bush caused Katrina.

*How can Republicans call for small government, and then push policies that ask for more governmental power over its citizens?

The don't want big government when it's run by Democrats. They want more power for the states less for the federal, so states can determine things like "same-sex marriage" and "marijuana legislation.

*How can Republicans criticize the Obama administration for spending, and then ask that more money be spent on the military?

They'll criticize any decision he makes, regardless of how it performs in reality. The same as the Democrats criticizing any decision that a Republican president makes, regardless of performance. It's kind of hypocritical to think that it's only a republican trait.

*Do conservatives realize that Fox News is about as "fair and balanced" as the Daily Show?

I'm going to throw this back in your face. Do liberals realize how "fair and balanced" other news sites are. Currently, Fox is the only news company that panders to republicans. The rest pander to the left.

*Speaking of the Daily Show, do Republicans realize that their decisions provide a consistent stream of comedic material for the show?

For the most part, they don't appreciate the Daily Show as a comedy. Watching a republican watch the Daily Show is like watching a metalhead being forced to listen to Miley Cyrus or Ke$ha.

Like I said. I'm not a republican, I'm actually a libertarian, but these questions have definitely come up when I've talked to more conservative friends.
Image
"The times they are a-changing"

User avatar
endless
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 5042
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by endless » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:54 pm

One question that I always wanted to ask the Republican party leaders is why not let the Rockerfeller Republicans(Moderates) dictate the direction of the party instead of the extreme right wing? It's pretty obvious that the current crop of ultra conservatives that are the face of the GOP scare the shit out of most democrats, independents, and most other countries. You really can't win if you don't convince at least some independents and democrats to vote for you.

When you look at the republican party's history they've been at their best when they led the moderates run the ship: Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, etc. Believe it or not a party that believes in family, and respects other people's rights(even those who are different) is actually a very appealing party. It just seems like The GOP would be better off going back to it's pre-Regan roots rather than taking the George W. Bush era and turning it up to 11. Hopefully they learn that lesson after getting crushed in the next general election.
Image

User avatar
Legend_Killer
Mid Carder
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:34 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by Legend_Killer » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:49 am

I have to say, as an outsider who lives on the other side of the world and only really watches the Daily Show so I am most likely extremely biased, that seeing what some of the Republican nominees scares the shit out of me sometimes, and I am startled that religion plays such a huge role in American Politics.

Your domestic policies don't bother me but I just think after Bush any Republican scares the shit out of the rest of the world and small countries like mine have to sacrifice lives so we don't get screwed over trade wise.
Image

User avatar
Jama7301
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 13654
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:35 pm
Twitter: Jama7301
Location: Minnesota

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by Jama7301 » Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:36 pm

I want to know from other Rep. is this...

How is Santorum doing so well for someone who is so... crazy extreme. Like, I don't even understand how he's so popular.
Image

User avatar
gutterhippo
VIP Member
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Contact:

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by gutterhippo » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:42 pm

Here's another one I've wondered for quite some time, can anyone explain to me, in terms a hippo could understand, what the logic behind No Child Left Behind is? Having worked in the schools, it seems to be the general consensus among teachers and administrators that the act only serves to take away money from the schools that need it most.
Image

User avatar
towney007
Site Admin
Posts: 6599
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:16 am
Location: Springfield, MA
Contact:

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by towney007 » Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:15 am

Here's another one I've wondered for quite some time, can anyone explain to me, in terms a hippo could understand, what the logic behind No Child Left Behind is? Having worked in the schools, it seems to be the general consensus among teachers and administrators that the act only serves to take away money from the schools that need it most.
Ted Kennedy would be a good person to ask, seeing as he was the chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate, but yeah. He's dead.


The reasoning and logic behind it is pretty sound, but it's a classic idea (I feel at least) that 'looks good on paper, but doesn't work in practice'. To me, it basically uses a child's performance to dictate the performance of a school through standardized testing which to me - is backwards. Kids shouldn't be the ones being tested. Teachers should be.

The problem right now - period - in the US education system is 1.) The mind blowing amount of money wasted in the administrative end and 2.) Poor teachers who are relentlessly protected by teachers unions.

Teaching is the only job in the US where there are virtually zero standards for job performance. I was lucky in the sense that I think I had one bad teacher in my time in the public education system, but he was pretty costly to me personally. He basically spent our entire 8th grade year throwing on Mathnet and Connect 4 and just signing off on C's and B's. Totally blew me apart in Geometry the next year and it was a struggle to get me back to even average standards (I used to get straight A's and a D in Math all through high school). I aced the written portion of my SAT's but score like - a 490 on my Math section. My issues with the subject went back to that guy. That effected my SAT scores, my GPA, where I went to College... which effected the jobs I got out of school, etc. And that was one guy. My teachers after him tutored me - taking them away from everyone else to deal with my completely confused ass - before and after school, my parents hired tutors, I did extended study halls - the whole nine yards. Not only did effect me economically, but the school system itself takes a hit when they have a kid like me - who was mostly a really, really good student - bumbling around like an idiot on one subject and sucking down resources. Again - the root of the problem being a guy who just couldn't be bothered to do shit. I wasn't the only person in the class who struggled, too.

Why people like that are protected, I have no idea.

What's even worse is that it caps the income level of GOOD teachers. I mean to me - I'm a supply and demand guy. There are lots of good teachers, but there are few GREAT teachers. Same with Doctors, Lawyers, Plumbers, etc. To me, a good teacher is as valuable a commodity as there is in the economy and they should be compensated as such. If there was a peer review board or some way to measure a teachers' performance, there'd be opportunity to quantitiatively and qualitatively make a more than convincing case for higher teachers wages - which is good for everyone. To me, Education is an investment - but I want to pay for what I'm paying for. No one wants a lousy Xbox. No one wants a lousy house. We want the best for what our money can buy and if I'm playing premium property taxes to foot the bill for the educational system, I want the best teachers. I'll pay out the asshole - taxes or otherwise - if the services work. I think that's really what guys like Chris Christie and company have been saying all along, but of course the union bullshit immediately starts throwing around stuff like 'teacher killer', so there's little in the way of adult dialogue to be had with it.

Teachers could make more and do more if we could figure out whether they were good at what they do or not. Part of the reason folks like baseball players get paid a lot of money is because it's very easy to measure their performance. There are a variety of metrics that can be used to tell you difinitively that Roy Halladay is a better pitcher than Sidney Ponson. Because we can measure their 'worth' in terms of performance and value to their organization so precicely, we can value them more accurately. I think if they could do that with teachers, you'd see a big improvement.

What do those measurements look like? Well - that's the challenge. Christie was pushing a peer review board for a while in New Jersey that would be made up of two teachers, two members of the PTA, and the principal. Every five years the teacher's contract would be up - they'd have to pass the entrance exam again and once that was done, they'd go to the board and they'd evaluate their performance on a variety of criteria - from their students' classroom performance, to their improvements, to their interaction with staff, to their contribution to the school community at large, etc. For example, a mediocre teacher who is a sensational basketball coach holds a lot of value. He can teach well, but he contributes to the greater community in a way that many other teachers can't and thus should be compensated based on his strength.

What's even more wild is that the Scott Walker stuff was utterly overblown to spectacular levels to the point where Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut (all HEAVILY Democratic states) all did the same thing (and Mass took it further and froze out the transportation union) and you didn't hear a peep. The Teacher's Unions turning negotiations into hostage taking is problematic and Republicans (and the many Democrats who do, too) who fight it should be commended, not chided.
Image

User avatar
towney007
Site Admin
Posts: 6599
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:16 am
Location: Springfield, MA
Contact:

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by towney007 » Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:42 am

*Do Republicans realize that not everybody is Christian?
Do Democrats realize that some people are? And that they're not heathen neaderthals?
*Do Republicans realize that not everybody is heterosexual?
This I agree with. I'm pro-gay marriage. I think they should be more respectful of the fact that 'marriage' is a religious institution and that perhaps it should be called a 'civil union'. Legally, there's not really any kind of coherent argument against it.

Compelling state interest has SOME traction (LIke for example, it's in a government's interests to encourage male-female marriages because it's the BEST incubator for the perpetuation of society (not required, but certainly gives you the best odds of a healthy, positive contributor to society) whereas gays just cannot physically have babies. They can raise them. They can be aritifically inceminated. But they can't physically make them. I know - so what - but there is a distinction. There's other areas where compelling state interest falls apart. I'm just throwing it out there for food for though.
*How can Republicans be against taxes for the extremely wealthy, and be for cutting tax breaks for lower-income families?

We've got threats abroad, an economy in the shitter and a party with no leadership. The gays can be gay.
*Along with the last question, do lower-income Republican voters realize that their own party completely fvcks them over? Or do they actually believe in trickle-down economics? Do they actually fall for the 'Have's and Soon-to-Have's' rhetoric? What's the matter with Kansas?
A lot of the lower-income strata of the party is the evangelical. Over 80% of entrepreneurs and business owners are Republicans. Most were lower income at some point and became not lower income. Innovation, entreprenuership and getting the fvck out of productive people's way to pay tribute so we can all collectively carry each other's burdens shouldn't be their responsibility. That's just my feeling.

And i love the characterization of entrepreneurs and business owners ALL being FATCOTS~! like we sit in an office and torch 100's all day while we hire someone to beat Juan and and random black person to death in front of us for our amusement while we fire random snow plow drivers all day for the fuck of it. I own and help run two businesses. I'm hardly a 1%er.

"Do your fair share" is a dangerous thing. If we don't know what that limitation is, it can get out of control.
*Do Republicans realize that the economy is getting better under the Obama administration?
I'm tired of parties taking credit for and accusing the other of the recover/lack thereof/recession. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were plundering the shit out of Fannie and Freddie for years. Much of the shoddy mortgage lending began under the Clinton administration, was inflated under the Bush adminstration and with the help of guys like *ahem* Rick Santorum, Frank and Dodd - drove it right into the fucking clunker. The fact that liberals have the audacity to disassociate their contributions to the cluster fuck is appalling. The Republicans admitted their mistakes and it's a big part of the reason their apology tour rhetoric got them the House back in 2010.

The bailouts bothered me. The stimulus didn't. When the private sector isn't spending, the public sector must spend. Thankfully enough Republicans realized this. The problem is - raising the debt ceiling, multiple sitmulus is just an excuse to borrow more money we just don't have. If it's bad that Republicans relentlessly overspend on defense, then it should be offensive to people that Democrats just keep dolling out pork projects as 'stimulus'. We have a RECOVERY ACT~! project here in town that broke ground four years ago and is still a fucking hole in the ground. Money shit down the drain.

*Do Republicans realize that the last time our economy was good was under a democratic president as well?
I hate these arguments. I hate the idea that politicians think they've got such a hand in how the economy plays out. Bubbles expand. They burst. Politicians are usually 10-12 months behind the marketplace in almost every single way.
*Are Republicans really not aware of how little Obama has to do with the price of gasoline?
Says the party that blames George Bush for like - everything that's ever happened?
*How can Republicans call for small government, and then push policies that ask for more governmental power over its citizens?
I know I hear these funnies too.

How can Democrats be anti-death penalty for convicted murderers and fellons but deny innocent babies the fundamental right to exist?

How can Democrats tell us to get out of their bed room and leave us alone with our religion but steal our money and give it to someone else?

Why do Republicans spend on this and not that?

Why does Don Draper like this and not that?

I hate this stuff. I've become more libertarian in my years - more 'just please leave me the fuck alone'. I'm getting tired of the party politics. It's dysfunctional.
*How can Republicans criticize the Obama administration for spending, and then ask that more money be spent on the military?
Why should we not spend on the military and public safety but spend like crazy on everything else?
*Do conservatives realize that Fox News is about as "fair and balanced" as the Daily Show?
They've gotta work hard for the liberal slant on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, NBC, Hollywood-run media, etc.
*Speaking of the Daily Show, do Republicans realize that their decisions provide a consistent stream of comedic material for the show?
Republicans make me laugh. Democrats make me shake my head.




Just as a disclaimer: Rick Santorum is as cool as fanny packs. Which is not very cool.
Image

User avatar
NightWatchman
Mid Carder
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:19 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by NightWatchman » Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:58 am

towney007 wrote: The reasoning and logic behind it is pretty sound, but it's a classic idea (I feel at least) that 'looks good on paper, but doesn't work in practice'. To me, it basically uses a child's performance to dictate the performance of a school through standardized testing which to me - is backwards. Kids shouldn't be the ones being tested. Teachers should be.
I'm going to say this. Testing is a sign of beaucracy getting hold of the school system. They want to be able to say that kids are doing this well or this bad and have statistics to back it up, however, when they say kids are doing this well or bad what they're really saying is that teachers are doing this well or bad. The problem with that is that teachers are like everyone else, some are structure oriented and others are results oriented. The structure oriented ones are the ocd ones that teach class exactly the same and hope that the students learn (they're the teachers that made you watch an hour of powerpoints and then assigned 50 pages of reading).

[quote="towney007]The problem right now - period - in the US education system is 1.) The mind blowing amount of money wasted in the administrative end and 2.) Poor teachers who are relentlessly protected by teachers unions.[/quote]

Again, teaching is like every other business, the teachers who are good at teaching will teach their entire lives, the ones who aren't will either retire as soon as they can or become administors. It's the Peter Principle at work. People rise to their expectations, shit floats to the top and the ones they don't know what to do with are assumed to be the best.

A guy who doesn't know how to teach will get taken out of the classroom and be made principal. He's not good at that so he's made super-intendent. Yes, it's fucking retarded, but it's how things happen, just like your boss is typically dumber than you because he wasn't good at what you're doing, now, however, the guy above him realized that and thought it was because he was "bored and intellegent."

Just like kids who act up in school are always considered "gifted" because they're bored. Ever think maybe those kids just act up because they're little retarded assholes and that it actually has nothing to do with being smart.
Image
"The times they are a-changing"

User avatar
Big slim
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20970
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:56 pm
Twitter: Jamel727
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by Big slim » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:43 am

I really don't see myself as a Republican or a Democrats. I think it is funny that whenever gas gets to high, no matter what party is in office, the president always gets blamed for it. Hell I bet people were doing this back in the 80s with Carter and Regan, in the 90s with Bush the 1st and Clinton, and in the last decade with Bush the 2nd and Obama. I also hate the dumb shit that both sides say about each other, I swear every time I flip through and see Fox News theres some new shit about Obama and I see on MSNBC them bitching about what the House Republicans are doing. It is really insane.
Image


Jamel Watson (Big slim) - Executive Vice President of Talent Relations

Check out my new blog, Macho Mars at www.machomars.blog!

User avatar
towney007
Site Admin
Posts: 6599
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:16 am
Location: Springfield, MA
Contact:

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by towney007 » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:30 pm

I don't think bad teachers should become anything other than something OTHER than ex-teachers. People get fired in marketing all the time for not being good at their job. Police who can't handle it get the axe. Fire fighters are measured almost annually. 95% of government jobs are measured on a constant basis.

There's really no reason teachers shouldn't be held to a standard.



I've begun to notice a lot of issues these days really have just become pissing contests. Immigration would be exhibit #1. Why can't we have both sides of the issue?

I agree with Democrats that our country was based on immigration (some illegal) and we should be embracing and actively pursuing the best and brightest from around the world. To me, as a Republican, I'd be in support of a federal program designed to recruit gifted foreigners to come here, give htem money and help them start businesses. The way I see it, if Mexico wants to crap all over it's people, let them. We'll take them, put them to work or let them put other people to work.

One of my best friends' wife was from the Ukraine. She was the equivalent of the D.A. in her province and it took TWO YEARS and nearly $15k in fees to get her here. And she was a publicly elected flipping official who had the humility to come here, marry the man she loved and then of all things, worked at the 99 Restaurant to pay her OWN way through College, got her degree and is starting another freaking career. Those are the kinds of people we should WELCOME here and embrace. It should be easier for them to get here.

On the other hand, I agree with Republicans that there's no accountability for htis. The border patrol is strapped, illegal immigrants are stealing from the system, draining our resources, cheaply putting less-skilled American laborers out of work, etc. It's a flat out crime and the punishments and deportation should be severe.

So why not make it more affordable and easier to become a LEGAL citizen here while at the same time dramatically INCREASING the severity of the punishments for violating said laws? How about Grandfathering in people who are here and from here on out, throwing the book with a grenade taped to it at people who violate the new laws? Is this really even something worth freaking fighting over?

That's probably the biggest offender, but there are other issues too...
Image

User avatar
gutterhippo
VIP Member
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Contact:

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by gutterhippo » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:28 am

First of all, a genuine thanks to towney for taking me up on my invitation..

As for the teacher unions, my knowledge of the subject consists of one viewing of "Waiting for Superman," so I'm clearly biased and ill-informed. That said, on the surface at least, the teacher unions appear to be a complete crock of shit, an organization to protect mediocrity or worse. But, being a supply and demand kind of guy, towney, you should see that the demand is high and inelastic, and there's no real surge of supply here. People aren't falling over themselves trying to become teachers in this country. So, even if the teacher unions would allow it, you start turning bad teachers into ex-teachers and all that will equate to is unfilled positions and overcrowded classrooms as other teachers have to pick up the slack. So what we're left with is teachers who are "good enough," teachers that don't teach, but at least they're not actively hurting the students... I do like the idea of performance-based pay, but with something as subjective as good teaching, that's just asking for lawsuits.

towney007 wrote:
*Do Republicans realize that not everybody is Christian?
Do Democrats realize that some people are? And that they're not heathen neaderthals?
Yes, how do they not? Here's the difference, as I see it: Democrats are fine with Person A being Christian, and Person B being any other religion. Republicans assume that Person A and Person B can be appealed to using the same Christian logic. Christians think that Person A should convert Person B.

Compelling state interest has SOME traction (LIke for example, it's in a government's interests to encourage male-female marriages because it's the BEST incubator for the perpetuation of society (not required, but certainly gives you the best odds of a healthy, positive contributor to society) whereas gays just cannot physically have babies. They can raise them. They can be aritifically inceminated. But they can't physically make them. I know - so what - but there is a distinction. There's other areas where compelling state interest falls apart. I'm just throwing it out there for food for though.
If I understand correctly, you're saying that for a society to grow, it needs to encourage male-female marriages. I've heard this same argument applied to why Christianity is against homosexuality in the first place, as well as birth control for that matter, because both equal less Christians. But, from a state interest point of view, how does making gay marriage legal do anything to decrease the number of heterosexual couples? It's not like gays will decide to just fall-in with the crowd and procreate because they're not allowed to marry. This rests on the assumption that sexual orientation is a choice, which I would like to think has been thoroughly debunked by this point.

*Along with the last question, do lower-income Republican voters realize that their own party completely fvcks them over? Or do they actually believe in trickle-down economics? Do they actually fall for the 'Have's and Soon-to-Have's' rhetoric? What's the matter with Kansas?
A lot of the lower-income strata of the party is the evangelical. Over 80% of entrepreneurs and business owners are Republicans. Most were lower income at some point and became not lower income. Innovation, entreprenuership and getting the fvck out of productive people's way to pay tribute so we can all collectively carry each other's burdens shouldn't be their responsibility. That's just my feeling.
It's a nice idea, that everybody can have if they just work hard enough, but the reality is that there is very low economic mobility in this country. There is little reality to the 'cream rises to the top' argument. People are born into different starting points in life, and have different access to resources. Along with the discussion on bad teachers, lower-income schools are filled with these lemons. And, back to the ridiculousness that is No Child Left Behind in practice, those schools get progressively less funding.

There's also little evidence to support the idea that cutting taxes to the wealthy will create jobs for the poor. How is it not blatantly obvious at this point that the idea of "trickle-down economics" is a complete scam? But, at the end of the day, in the words of Jon Stewart, "Poor people have shitty lobbyists."

So how do Republicans push through such a blatant scam? They package it with hot-button issues like gay marriage and immigration that distract more religious voters. And that, in my estimation, is how Republicans get lower-income voters to fuck themselves over and over again. I'd just like for a Republican to admit to it is all.

Just as a disclaimer: Rick Santorum is as cool as fanny packs. Which is not very cool.
The Republican primaries have made me very hopeful for Obama's second term. We have an angry asshole, an old hippie, a sleazy billionaire, and Rick Santorum, who could have a chance with Christian voters if he would just keep his dumb mouth shut about his waayyyy too conservative opinions.

So why not make it more affordable and easier to become a LEGAL citizen here while at the same time dramatically INCREASING the severity of the punishments for violating said laws? How about Grandfathering in people who are here and from here on out, throwing the book with a grenade taped to it at people who violate the new laws? Is this really even something worth freaking fighting over?
Amen. Democrats views on this are a classic example of abandoning logic and appealing to constituents for cheap votes.
Image

User avatar
towney007
Site Admin
Posts: 6599
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:16 am
Location: Springfield, MA
Contact:

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by towney007 » Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:43 pm

As for the teacher unions, my knowledge of the subject consists of one viewing of "Waiting for Superman," so I'm clearly biased and ill-informed. That said, on the surface at least, the teacher unions appear to be a complete crock of shit, an organization to protect mediocrity or worse. But, being a supply and demand kind of guy, towney, you should see that the demand is high and inelastic, and there's no real surge of supply here. People aren't falling over themselves trying to become teachers in this country. So, even if the teacher unions would allow it, you start turning bad teachers into ex-teachers and all that will equate to is unfilled positions and overcrowded classrooms as other teachers have to pick up the slack. So what we're left with is teachers who are "good enough," teachers that don't teach, but at least they're not actively hurting the students... I do like the idea of performance-based pay, but with something as subjective as good teaching, that's just asking for lawsuits.
That's the Union line, but I call B.S.

If teachers were paid more, more people would want to do it. The biggest reason they're not paid more is because of having to foot the bill for bad teachers. Again, to me - I'm all for mandatory increases in teachers' salaries PROVIDED they pass some sort of review board every five year. Basically if you start them at $40k/year, you're looking at about 15 years in - for them to be making almost double that - around $80k. Between the salary, the time off, the pension and benefits, they'd be beating people back. I'm not even joking when I say I'd consider.

If you look at the higher paying jobs - they're the jobs that are the most measurable. Because you can use metrics to define who is what, it makes it easier not only to valuate them - but for them to JUSTIFY their value. People question the worth of baseball players for example, but hey - you can measure what they do down to the minutia. Very few people can do what they do, it's measurable, people want to come and watch them do their jobs to boot - so that justifies a high salary.

Cops and Firefighters make good wages. Most state workers do, in fact. Why? Because they're measured up against a standard. It makes it easier to determine their real worth and it makes it easier to JUSTIFY those numbers. People aren't afraid of spending in this country. They're afraid of wasting money. Make the case, they'll pay. That's the way I see it.
Yes, how do they not? Here's the difference, as I see it: Democrats are fine with Person A being Christian, and Person B being any other religion. Republicans assume that Person A and Person B can be appealed to using the same Christian logic. Christians think that Person A should convert Person B
Sure there are religious nut jobs, but they exist in every religion. I'm a Christian. I don't see it as my life's work to convert people and I don't see other people as assclowns for not loving Jesus. I'm a Republican go figure. I think the Christian stereotyping has really been over the top in the past few years. You've got Episcopals legalizing female ministers, appointing gay bishops and lots of other institutions under the Christian umbrella following suit. Save for the always archaic Catholics and some of your fire and brimstone evangelical denominations, most Christians are pretty progressive.
If I understand correctly, you're saying that for a society to grow, it needs to encourage male-female marriages. I've heard this same argument applied to why Christianity is against homosexuality in the first place, as well as birth control for that matter, because both equal less Christians. But, from a state interest point of view, how does making gay marriage legal do anything to decrease the number of heterosexual couples? It's not like gays will decide to just fall-in with the crowd and procreate because they're not allowed to marry. This rests on the assumption that sexual orientation is a choice, which I would like to think has been thoroughly debunked by this point.
That's not what I'm saying I don't think...

I'm saying there's a SOMEWHAT compelling case with compelling state interest in the fact that if the Government is hedging it's bets, that the male-female marriage is the bet to hedge it on. It's the most likely arrangement to result in the perpetuation of society. It isn't the ONLY way it can happen. It's not NECESSARY for it to happen. But it's MOST LIKELY to happen. That I inherintly don't disagree with.

Is it BEST for the child? I don't know. I think that's be presumptive. Do I think there'll be less Christians because of gay marriage? Seems to actually be MORE (who come out of the wood work in opposition to it) these days. All that aside though - the state being involved with heterosexual marriages is strictly on a 'lets hedge our money on this being the best bet' sort of deal. There's really no interest in homosexual couples being together UNLESS you make the argument that more marriages = stable relationships. Stable relationships = good for society.

Like I made clear in my disclaimer - I don't agree with the compelling interest argument, either. But I think there is actually some meat on the bone there as opposed to others which are just outright bigotry and homophobia.
It's a nice idea, that everybody can have if they just work hard enough, but the reality is that there is very low economic mobility in this country.
That's just nonsense. 3/4 of the vaunted '1%' are actually people who are north of the age of 60. That being people who've lived a long time. When you live long, you accumulate a lot of stuff. Money included if you're smart. It's the same silliness with health insurance. The overwhelming majority on uninsured are students and people in their 20s who are inbetween jobs, fresh out of school or just off their parents coverage. Of course because so many people cycle through that, it holds mostly consistent at a given time. Average person goes uninsured for a month. Just more AHA~! stuff that really never holds much weight. Still people take these numbers and try to paint with a broad brush the GAP~! between the RICH AND THE POOR~! Sure there's a gap. Doesn't mean there isn't a lot of traffic in that space.

There's a lot of economic mobility in this country, it's just that people have a skewed idea of what that's supposed to mean. We create more 'rich people' in this country in a week than most developed countries do in a year. We have a more fluid workforce, a wide range of professions that are friendly to a lot of various entry points into the job market, and the flexibility for Businesses to actually restructure themselves and not be evicerated by debt. IN France, you can't fire people. Great.... and forget debt forgiveness in case (of course) - you're the government.

We've seen collapsed economies in the Eastern European region due to excessive wealth redistribution, little to no growth in Europe over the past however many years and even less in decidedly more left-leaning countries in South America. America on the whole - is a wealthier nation with an abundance of resources, friendly business climate, etc. It's a big part of the reason we're one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

Property taxes in my town are pushing into the $7k range now... that's $583/month. For a working class family, that's almost MORE than the principal and interest on their mortgage. Over the course of 30 years, that's $210k in property taxes going to almost nothing WITHOUT adjusting for inflation, overrides and other hikes. The true number is a lot more likely to be at $300k. That's $300k that can't be used to send my kid to college. $300k I can't invest in stocks and bonds to grow my wealth. $300k I can't use to put into my business so I can hire more people and create wealth for them. $300k I can't use to purchase other real estate or buy mine outright. That's $300k I can't use to cover the cost of health insurance, gas - or even the opportunity to send my kids to private school to better their chances. $300k I can't donate to charity.

IMagine what could happen for a low-middle class person with $300k extra in their 30 year working outlay to work with. Or even only getting a 1/3 of that back..

But it's Republicans and a LACK of taxes that's the problem in wealth creation? C'mon.

The Republican primaries have made me very hopeful for Obama's second term. We have an angry asshole, an old hippie, a sleazy billionaire, and Rick Santorum, who could have a chance with Christian voters if he would just keep his dumb mouth shut about his waayyyy too conservative opinions.
It's a horrible field. I look at PResidential elections from more of a match-up standpoint (my past life as a political consultant gets me every time) - and Santorum will be lucky to get 100 Electoral votes. Romney might be able to pull a state or two back - but I think Obama wins fairly handily. I think Mitt's Venture Capital stuff has been blown hugely out of proportion (most people don't even know what Venture Capitalists DO, but that's another conversation in and of itself).. I think Mitt's a nice guy, he'd make an OK President. He's just way too plastic and artificial a candidate to win nationally. He won't be a layup, but he matches up horribly with Obama from a campaign ability standpoint.

For one, Romney is going to be running behind, so he's going to have to attack. He's insanely awkward on the attack. Embarrassing almost. He's dreadfully uncomfortable on the offensive. His only shot is if Obama does something dumb - which you never know - it could happen - but I see it as unlikely. Romney's one of the best defensive campaigners i've ever seen and the GOP primary should prove that... but he's gotta get in front in order to play "D". I don't think he'll be able to do that.

The only Republican who I think would really give Obama a lot of trouble is Chris Christie. I think Christie'd run him over. Again - matchup (not ideaology here). Christie's the one guy who's quicker, more idrect and more comfortable on his feet than Obama. He's engaging. He communicates complicated issues in a way everyone can identify with. He's searing on the attack and even better on the defensive. Christie's a REALLY tough guy to beat in a campaign, IMO. He's right wing and silver tongued enough to galvanize the base, while accessible, straight-forward and engaging enough for independent voters to take to. If I was Obama, I'd be breathing a sigh of relief he's not running. He's the only guy I see as a bad match up for Obama. Again - issues/ideaology aside - i'm talking matchups here.
Image

User avatar
isrs4life
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 17838
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:41 pm
Location: Freddy Beach

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by isrs4life » Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:25 pm

towney007 wrote:....
I'd vote for Towney007

Image

User avatar
endless
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 5042
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by endless » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:33 pm

And this is the point where the Republican primary is over. Up to now Rick Santorum has a bit of an outside shot to win, but I can't imagine how any sane person could vote for him now:
Image

YewIce8963
Curtain Jerker
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:20 pm

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by YewIce8963 » Mon May 07, 2012 8:28 pm

I agree with the OP entirely, but I do have one question -- why is your avatar of a certifiably insane Republican?

YewIce8963
Curtain Jerker
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:20 pm

Re: Ask a Republican!

Post by YewIce8963 » Mon May 07, 2012 8:32 pm

what wrestlers are outspoken liberals/progressives?
all I can think of are Mick Foley and CM Punk

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest