What does the Republican party do?

[Ping]

All Republicans have to do is stop appealing to the Christian Right and become more moderate. People in general are more likely to vote for a moderate rather than an evangelical politician.

[Q]

Tell that to my parents.

[Tommycat]

I have an idea about how to do it, give financial incentives to the companies that open businesses here in the US. For every dollar spent on payroll they get a dollar off their tax liabilty on profits, also lower the business tax rate to 18% instead of the 25% it is currently to give the true small businesses an incentive to claim the money as profits instead of as personal income. Also every dollar spent on new equipment made here comes off their tax liability instead of being treated as profits because those dollars are not profit they are a re-investment in their business and their workers. Thas is my opinions feel free to point out any flaws in my thinking.

 

And then you hear "TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHIEST 1%!!!!111eleventy!!1"

[mimartin]

I haven’t posted in Kavar’s in a non-moderator way in almost a year, but this is one topic that semi-interests me. However, I am not here to debate or discuss, you have your opinions and I am not here to convince you that you are right or wrong. I also care less about equal time or if my example of something shows bias...In other words I don’t care what you think about me, you do not know me.

 

These first few mainly go to both parties let’s face it neither party has a juggernaut hold on the electorate. Obama got 61,300,988 votes to Romney’s 58,228,478the country is divided. It swings back and forth with every election. This election I was really proud about the turn out, but when you look at the reasons for the turnout then the elation I feel for the turn out goes away quickly. I don’t pretend to know everyone’s motivation, but it is clear that some voted just to get rid of President Obama and would have voted for anyone to get the President out of office. It was also clear that some that were not overly happy with the President, still voted and contributed money to him just because of the extent some went to make his term a failure. We went through a downgrade in our credit for no other reason than to make the President a failure. Leadership in Congress implies that the President does not respect their equal power, yet wants to blame the President for their own failures. Americans are not that stupid.

 

1. Both sides need to quit the blame game and focus on their plans to make thing better. Quit saying stupid thing. No, Bush is not to blame for everything wrong with the economy now, but without the financial meltdown we wouldn’t have to dig ourselves out of the biggest hole since the Great Depression. The President isn’t total to blame either, had Congress done their job we would not have had our credit status downgraded which caused a further slow down to our economy.

 

2. Compromise is not a dirty word. Politicians are not there to line their own pockets or to let their petty power hungry pride cloud their duty. They are there to do the people’s business. Just because Speaker Boehner or President Obama are for something does not mean the other side has to be automatically against it. There is a middle ground and that is where national elections are won and lost. Even in a state like Texas where anyone with an R next to their name will win a statewide election Obama sill got 41.4% of the vote. This isn’t the Red and Blue states of America; this is the United States of America, so both sides need to act like it.

 

3. Quit making your only augment that anyone that disagrees with you is stupid, lazy, racist, communist, redneck, socialist, fascist, or on welfare… Quit saying anyone on the opposite side does not love their county. People can passionately love their county and want what they think is best for it, but have completely different ideas what that is.

 

Quit turning blind eyes to your sides’ extremist and quit making huge generalizations to support your side. Not all Republican are racist (some are and some democrats are too), Not all liberals hate their country (some do, but so do some conservatives do too). When someone from your party says something inheritably stupid and offensive, don’t defend them if you disagree, speak out how that is untrue. Don’t wait three days for the polls to tell you the people are unhappy with what he/she said to distance yourself and your party from the stupidity. It makes it look like you did agree with the statement and only moving now because the polls say you have to.

 

4. This is not a sporting event…Just because you win does not mean the American people win, sometime you are winning and the only losers are the American people.

 

5. When negotiating, negotiate honestly. This country is in deep and this is because of both parties. Everything must be on the table. When the liberals come in saying that Medicare is off the table, or the Republican come in saying defense is off the table they are both just being stupid. The only 2 things that should be off the table is Social Security because that isn’t the government’s money, but the people that paid into its money and veteran/soldiers benefits. These people kept their promise to us, we must keep our promises to them. Other defense spending should be on the table as should all entitlements.

 

Sure I could come up with more, like quit being hypocrites. Both parties do it and I am thinking of where they state something is a core belief, but then turn around and their biggest platform issue states just the opposite. Tommycat even used the Republican example in his list.

 

Enough...maybe I can wait another year before I post again.

[Tommycat]

Both parties do it and I am thinking of where they state something is a core belief, but then turn around and their biggest platform issue states just the opposite. Tommycat even used the Republican example in his list.

 

Just for clarification, are you talking about how Republicans say they are for smaller government, and less government involvement in people's lives but are for restricting what a woman can do with her body, and telling people who they can or cannot marry? or pretty much my whole point about the war on Drugs where they are for fiscal responsibility and smaller government but waste billions on stopping people from doing what they want with their own bodies?

 

Other than that, I couldn't agree more. We are a nation of many views. More centrist. If anything, socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

[mur'phon]

Our exports already have huge tariffs on them going to countries that we have free trade agreements with, why do you think Jeep is moving their production for the Chinese market to China? Most of the free trade agreements that this country has only work 1 way, what we need are fair trade agreements then products coming into this country from others will have tariffs just like our products going elsewhere.

 

Hardly, most free trade agreements concern industrial goods true, but that's because it is in the interest of the industrial countries (it's what we export). Thing is, almost all free trade agreements the US participate in are tilted towards it simply because getting an agreement is more important for (insert country) than the US. Sure, China has several mercantilistic policies in place, like just about every other country who was in a process of industrialization (with some semi exceptions). However even those are being curbed by its WTO membership.

Thing is, said shift in industrial production would A: have happened eventually (just like China is now loosing its clothing industry to cheaper countries) and B: benefits the US by making those industrial goods far cheaper for consumers. The US simply can't compete with the Chinese when it comes to producing many goods (and vice versa) trying to get those noncompetitive jobs back would be very costly just ask the (insert European country with massive subsidies for industry here).

 

That is huge. A good reason to bring alot of domestic production back to the states is this: What if China all of a sudden decides it doesn't need to deal with us anymore and calls in the $1.4 trillion in debt it owns of ours and shuts us off on goods being imported by us?

 

And why on earth would China do that? They buy bonds, which means they can't demand you pay it all back tomorrow. They can of course stop buying more debt, but that would make the debt they already own loose most of its value (and the US would probably just default, leaving China with nothing).

Yes they can stop exporting to you, but again motive? It would hurt them as much as it would hurt you, and even if they did, China doesn't have a monopoly on terribly many essentials, so buy from someone else.

 

This is a national security issue as well. If we ever end up in a world war again we are totaly screwed most of the factories that would be needed for us to build everything we would need no longer exist, we are not the powerhouse in manufacturing we once were.

 

If you end up in a world war again, nukes kinda makes that a non-issue.

 

 

I actually agree that income inequality is a bad thing (being a socialist Scandinavian and all). I just fail to see what it has to do with subsidizing jobs in noncompetitive industries.

 

 

 

I have an idea about how to do it, give financial incentives to the companies that open businesses here in the US. For every dollar spent on payroll they get a dollar off their tax liabilty on profits, also lower the business tax rate to 18% instead of the 25% it is currently to give the true small businesses an incentive to claim the money as profits instead of as personal income.

 

Depends on what you want to achieve, if you want to stimulate the service sector then fine, if you want to bring industry back, eh, less fine. Also, lowering the tax rate by such a massive amount on all businesses will have to be paid for somehow, and given the deficit...

[mimartin]

Just for clarification.

Yes... Was mainly thinking about telling women what to do.

 

However I will site a more personal one that applies to both parties which is also more personal to me as strongly support the freedom of speech. I also do not believe the flag should be burned in protest. I would never do it no matter what the government is. To me the flag does not represent the government of the United States, it represent all its people and it especially represents those that have fought, struggled and died to help this country preserver. However I have seen these some democrats and republicans that tout freedom of speech making this country great, propose supporting an amendment to outlaw flag burning. So as much as I respect the flag and everything it stands for including our freedom of speech, I would fight and die to defend those idiots that want to burn the flag while exercising their freedom of speech. The flag is merely a symbol of our freedom, the burning the flag as sickening as that is to me, is actually showing more respect to those that have fought, struggled and died to give them that freedom.

 

The thing about freedom is when you give people freedom they may choice to use that freedom in different ways. However, if they do not have that choice, then they really don't have the freedom.

[Tommycat]

Couldn't agree more on the flag burning. My forefathers fought to defend the rights of those jerks to burn the flag that represents that freedom. And as much as it pains me to see it done, it's still their right.

 

It's why I oppose the "Hate Speech" laws as well. I detest it, but step back from outlawing it.

[kyrie]

mimartin: Medicare should be off the table too seeing as it is taken out of our pay in payroll taxes same as social security, other than that I agree with what you are saying.

[mimartin]

mimartin: Medicare should be off the table too seeing as it is taken out of our pay in payroll taxes same as social security, other than that I agree with what you are saying.

nope medicare is a insurance and insurance has to change with the times. I am not saying get rid of it, but I am saying charging those that can afford it more, making it start later or cutting certain benefits is appropriate. Just think of this way, when Medicare started in 1965, the life expectancy was females 73.80, males 66.70. 2012 it is Females 81.73 and Males 75.94. In 1965 the average male only live 1.70 years after they qualified, now we are living almost 10 years into it.

[Totenkopf]

Frankly, NOTHING should be off the table b/c of the severity of the crisis. No point sparing anyone from getting haircuts in their funding b/c we wanna play the scared cow game. The question isn't if, but by how much. People would be a lot more willing, even if grudgingly so, to pay a higher tax bill if they knew the money was only going to pay down the debt and not for special interest pet projects or misguided Keynesian boondoggles.

 

As to the Republicans, they need to better convey to people how bad the alternative is (at least from their POV) and stop taking a knife to a gunfight. Politics is dirty business and, unfortunately, that MO works (hell, Jefferson once claimed that Adams was a mentally unbalanced hermaphrodite and that was around 200 years ago). I've heard different dems push the demographic line, but that doesn't explain it as almost 12-15 million people fewer voted this time around than in 2008 (http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html). This was Romney's to lose......and he did. Also, confirms Robert's gambit to defeat obamacare at the ballot box a bad decision.

 

....Obama got 6,173,859 votes to Romney’s 5,8171,551...

wow, voter disinterest really must have been high this cycle. Not even sure if that second number is real. Must be mathematics...Biden style.

 

Also, regarding mim's point above, the same is true of Social Security.

[mimartin]

wow, voter disinterest really must have been high this cycle. Not even sure if that second number is real. Must be mathematics...Biden style.

yeah I went to the George W Bush school of mathematics....sorry.

 

Also, regarding mim's point above, the same is true of Social Security.

Yeah, but neither side is going to touch it. It is political suicide, it is also different in the amount of money that the employee and the employer puts into it.

[The Doctor]

Granted I haven't read the entirety of this thread yet, but I'm deeply grateful to see that there are actually still reasonable, rational Republicans and/or conservatives out there. You don't see many such individuals actively participating in North-American politics anymore.

 

From what I've seen north of the border in the last three elections I've been old enough to follow, the issues that are most bitterly disputed and used by both American parties to vilify the other are the major social issues - specifically things like abortion, marriage equality, etc. Matters that one would think should be easily resolved by a basic examination of America's foundation are dragged out, overblown, and used to paint the other guy as hating their country and/or its people.

 

So, in my mind, the single biggest thing modern right-wing American (and even to a somewhat lesser extent, other western) politicians need to do to become feasible and electable again is join the 21st century on the big social matters. There reaches a point where you're no longer the nation's social conscience, you're an impediment to much needed progress and advancement. And the only way to really avoid becoming such is (ironically) look backwards, and accept and promote the separation of Church and state as outlined by their own Constitution.

 

The United States were founded on the basis of morals and ethics that happen to be shared by Christianity. That's purely because Christianity was the predominant religion of the generation of European colonists who founded the nation. The same ethical guidelines are also shared by countless other religions throughout history. But the Union was not founded as a Christian state, and thus should not be governed by Christian law. The separation of Church and state is a massive part of what enables the very freedom of religion and expression that's been a staple element of American culture from day one, yet the same right-wing groups that cling so tightly to the "founding elements of [their] great nation" do all they can to impose their own religious beliefs on the government and thus the rest of the nation. I've never understood how one can cling to two such conflicting ideologies simultaneously.

 

Consider for a moment the matter of abortion. There has yet to be a sensible, non-religious argument for outright banning abortion. And these arguments and beliefs are perfectly fine, so long as you can freely admit that you oppose it because of your religious beliefs. But when you try to force the government into legislating and "validating" (for lack of a better term) your religious belief by outlawing the practice in line with your beliefs, you're intruding on the religious and expressive freedom of those who do not share your opinion. But by permitting and legislating the practice, no one's rights or freedoms are being compromised - those opposed to abortion are not going to be forced to get one. And the very same applies to the topic of marriage equality, as well - permitting open and equal marriage opportunities intrudes on no one's rights, but introducing legislation against it does.

 

Once the Republican party comes to terms with this basic fact - or, alternatively, those that do understand this toss out the crazies that refuse to come to terms with it - then the matters that really matter, such as the country's massive debt crisis, can be properly discussed and resolved by both parties, and an action plan that both parties have made compromises for will be able to pass the desk of any President, regardless of his party.

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, but neither side is going to touch it. It is political suicide, it is also different in the amount of money that the employee and the employer puts into it.

Yeah, but it's still just as true nonetheless. Social Security wasn't designed as a retirement plan and there are fewer and fewer people now shouldering the burden of supporting the baby boomers. Damn shame any of that money was ever mixed in w/the general fund. O'course I guess Tim and Benny could keep the presses running so the old folks don't run out of their promised SS $$......(though given the size of that unfunded liability, hyperinflation would likely result).

 

yeah I went to the George W Bush school of mathematics....sorry.

I think Obama graduated from that alma mater a bit ahead of you.

[kyrie]

Granted I haven't read the entirety of this thread yet, but I'm deeply grateful to see that there are actually still reasonable, rational Republicans and/or conservatives out there. You don't see many such individuals actively participating in North-American politics anymore.

 

From what I've seen north of the border in the last three elections I've been old enough to follow, the issues that are most bitterly disputed and used by both American parties to vilify the other are the major social issues - specifically things like abortion, marriage equality, etc. Matters that one would think should be easily resolved by a basic examination of America's foundation are dragged out, overblown, and used to paint the other guy as hating their country and/or its people.

 

So, in my mind, the single biggest thing modern right-wing American (and even to a somewhat lesser extent, other western) politicians need to do to become feasible and electable again is join the 21st century on the big social matters. There reaches a point where you're no longer the nation's social conscience, you're an impediment to much needed progress and advancement. And the only way to really avoid becoming such is (ironically) look backwards, and accept and promote the separation of Church and state as outlined by their own Constitution.

 

The United States were founded on the basis of morals and ethics that happen to be shared by Christianity. That's purely because Christianity was the predominant religion of the generation of European colonists who founded the nation. The same ethical guidelines are also shared by countless other religions throughout history. But the Union was not founded as a Christian state, and thus should not be governed by Christian law. The separation of Church and state is a massive part of what enables the very freedom of religion and expression that's been a staple element of American culture from day one, yet the same right-wing groups that cling so tightly to the "founding elements of [their] great nation" do all they can to impose their own religious beliefs on the government and thus the rest of the nation. I've never understood how one can cling to two such conflicting ideologies simultaneously.

 

Consider for a moment the matter of abortion. There has yet to be a sensible, non-religious argument for outright banning abortion. And these arguments and beliefs are perfectly fine, so long as you can freely admit that you oppose it because of your religious beliefs. But when you try to force the government into legislating and "validating" (for lack of a better term) your religious belief by outlawing the practice in line with your beliefs, you're intruding on the religious and expressive freedom of those who do not share your opinion. But by permitting and legislating the practice, no one's rights or freedoms are being compromised - those opposed to abortion are not going to be forced to get one. And the very same applies to the topic of marriage equality, as well - permitting open and equal marriage opportunities intrudes on no one's rights, but introducing legislation against it does.

 

Once the Republican party comes to terms with this basic fact - or, alternatively, those that do understand this toss out the crazies that refuse to come to terms with it - then the matters that really matter, such as the country's massive debt crisis, can be properly discussed and resolved by both parties, and an action plan that both parties have made compromises for will be able to pass the desk of any President, regardless of his party.

 

I applaud you good sir, I couldn't agree more.

[Totenkopf]

http://amarillo.com/opinion/opinion-columnist/weekly-opinion-columnist/2012-11-09/krauthammer-republicans-can-still-be

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Wearing magic underwear won't help their cause, methinks.

 

I have been away a long time, but I am pretty sure I played ME3MP with TOTENK0PF last night (?) and saw his post here, so I had to contribute a mindless add-on.

 

@OP: I would consider changing my voting allegiance were the GOP to implement your points. My Dad's head would also exploded that day, so it would be bittersweet.

[Tommycat]

http://amarillo.com/opinion/opinion-columnist/weekly-opinion-columnist/2012-11-09/krauthammer-republicans-can-still-be

 

No offense to him(or you), but he's wrong. There comes a point when certain arguments are no longer in favor with the general public. For instance he says most women are against abortion, but the truth is that while someone may be against something it doesn't mean they are for the banning of it.

 

He talks about how the majority of the public feels the government does interfere too much... Well getting involved in people's sex lives goes even further. Bothering people about what they want to do with their own body goes too far(drugs for instance).

 

I was talking with my girlfriend today, and she's further to the right than I am, and even she agrees that we need to drop the war on drugs. Granted that was when I pointed out that it was capitalism in itself. While I don't do any drugs(I'm actually allergic to weed), I understand that much like cigarettes and alcohol, people will want to pay for their drugs. We should provide education and ways to get clean, but by no means force one type of business to underground.

 

We can still follow our core platform of smaller government. I think it's pretty important. We just need to expand what we mean by smaller government. People don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies, or who they can or cannot marry.

 

Oh and The Doctor:

There has yet to be a sensible, non-religious argument for outright banning abortion.

I disagree. You may not have heard it, but I believe there have been a few. Not the least of which is that it is simply the expansion of the laws against murder, since the DNA is that of a human, distinctly divergent from the parent. The product of conception between sperm and egg of two humans is a new human that should have the same equal treatment as that of a full term human. Much as we do not(or at least should not) discriminate between a person of a different ethnic background we should not discriminate based on age.

 

But again, my reason for support of legal abortion comes from a purely compassionate source. I would not want a person to be forced to carry a child to term who was raped. In some cases forcing that woman to carry the child(or rather girl as in the cases of children who are raped) can in fact lead to the death of the woman(girl). That in my estimation is unconscionable. But again, purely emotional. Logically, it would still amount to murder of an innocent. But I am willing to take that hit for the sanity of the other victim.

[Totenkopf]

I have been away a long time, but I am pretty sure I played ME3MP with TOTENK0PF last night (?) and saw his post here, so I had to contribute a mindless add-on.

 

Actually, don't do MP anything. Haven't even gotten TOR b/c of that (though w/F2P I might reconsider it in near future).

 

@TC--Well, as regards the war on drugs, it seems the Libretarians are the only ones I've seen seriously call for an end to that (maybe members of both of the other parties, but not so much the parties themselves). Re abortion, it seemed to me that Krauthammer was mostly allowing for rape/incest (hence the moron comment), but not abortion on demand (statistically 95%+ of all cases). In cases where it comes do to the health of the mother (ie only one party can be saved), it should be up to her. Some mothers have made that sacrifice. As to gay marriage, it should not be decided by judges, but rather by referendum (at the very least it'd likely be legal in the "blue" states in the not too distant future) as has been the case most recently.

 

War on drugs, though, is kind of tricky. Lots of money interests involved (govt, cartels, prisons, etc..). Don't think much of marijuana use personally, but the jails really shouldn't be full of small time users, there are better ways to handle that. However, should we go the route of legalization for all types of drugs, I say we throw he book at them like we do drunk drivers when they fall afoul of the law and not let their usage be an excuse.

[Q]

^You should read this.

 

The war on drugs is complete bull****, as is the "defense of marriage" act.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, Buckley was one of the people I'd had in mind.

[Q]

And the wisest Republican in Congress is retiring.

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

There isn't a single point that he makes in this speech that I disagree with. He gets it, which is why there was no chance of his being elected president.

[Sylthar]

Following this election I have heard numerous people claim that "Republicans need to do something to woo more Latinos and African Americans to their side."

 

Yes, because adding a few "insignificant votes" will sway those who do the true voting. Ideally, mass vote determines the Electoral College's vote, but in reality it doesn't. I'm not saying mass vote doesn't have some play in it, but if we went by mass vote, Romney probably would be in office right now.

 

But HOW? African Americans vote Democrat by a VAST majority. Generally above 90%. This in spite of the fact that we DO have quite a few prominent African Americans in the party. Personally I loved Herman Cain for the primary, then the blah blah woof woof about his sexual conduct. Here in AZ we have Vernon Parker, an African American. But he isn't drawing the black vote. No matter what we do, we get called the racist party. I think that's pretty well a lost cause.

 

I don't quite think it's our younger generation of Republicans (i.e. me and half the other students... or younger workers...) that feel this way. I think it's just that African Americans always play the "Black" card when they're arrested or whatever... it kind of makes our older crowd (which is the majority currently) slightly prejudiced. African Americans see our elders and assume that everyone in our party is like that... it's human nature to lump everyone that claims one set of beliefs to say we're all like that.

 

I honestly think that we really need to take a step back and review our priorities instead. Many people actually agreed with Mitt on fiscal matters, but I think it's the social matters that really turned the tides. Here are the things that I think need to be changed by the Republican Party:

 

Aye. I will admit that though I didn't like Romney to begin with, I did agree with him on a few issues. Then on almost all of his social issues I said a big hell no. Another thing is Romney was truly a big question mark to me. He did say a bunch of things that contradicted his earlier statements. I realize Obama's did too, but I've seen him in office for the past 4 years, so I know more about him than I truly did about Romney. (Yea, I voted for Obama as a Republican... shocker. )

 

1) DROP THE OVERLY RELIGIOUS! Seriously! Yes, we were founded on Christian Ideals. BUT we are not just a Christian nation. We are especially not a hard core evangelical nation.

 

I agree and yet I disagree with you on this statement. If the Republicans dropped their religious stance, then that puts them so much closer to being Democratic. That is one of the big things that distinguishes us from our... competitors, I guess you would call them. Does that mean that we have to base our social issues on Christianity? Of course not. We do have other members of other religions. Romney himself is proof of that... though Mormonism is incredibly similar to Christianity to a degree... but I know a bunch of Athiest and Buddist Republicans... in essence, I don't think they should go about saying "Oh Christianity is the best, everyone should be one of us..." and crap, but I do think that religion (any religion) as a whole makes Republicans what we are.

 

That being said, Democrats aren't exactly religious, but they do have their religions too and some of their beliefs go with the majority of their religion too...

 

2) Support ending the war on drugs! It's a huge financial drain that produces very little if any results. It jails many people who otherwise would be upstanding citizens. It also adds to the unemployed and those who are on the government dole, as a conviction for a drug related offense now has his job options severely limited. It's like Prohibition. All it did was create a new criminal organization.

 

I have no comment on this.

 

3) ABORTION IS LEGAL, GET OVER IT! Really... this is a losing proposition for Republicans. Support only ensuring that they are safe for the mother. I don't think it should be free, but it should be available.

 

I'm about as left handed a Republican as you'll find, but I do not agree with this. I believe under certain circumstances if there's a chance that at least one of them will survive, then abortion might be okay, but for the majority I believe that Abortion should be illegal. It is taking an innocent life. From the moment the sperm fertalizes that egg, it stops being an egg, it becomes a human, even if it has not fully formed yet. I see abortion as being equal to murdering a random innocent bystander. Self defense/self preservation of course should factor in, like if the mother will die if she gives birth, ect, I believe she should have that choice... but if someone gets pregnant and has the abortion just because... well she could have at least given birth (to that which she had a part in making, because she was a willing subject) and passed it up for adoption.

 

4) Stop opposing safe sex education. For heaven's sake... You cannot just teach abstinence only. It does not work for everyone. Inform kids that yes, abstinence is the best way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but by no means is it the only way. You don't want abortions, but oppose safe sex education? SERIOUSLY???! Education is the best defense. Yes, ideally it should be the parents, but they are not doing their job, so let the schools do it.

 

All I have to say about this is... AMEN. xD

 

5) Along those lines... Stay out of people's bedrooms. If Adam and Steve want to get married. SO BLOODY WHAT! Let them. I don't want the federal or local governments in my bedroom. Neither do same sex couples.

 

Hmm. I always hated that biblical analogy. Because, to be honest, God didn't even make Adam and Eve... he made Adam to be a stand alone person... then when he saw that Adam was lonely he created another person from his ribs. He didn't create Adam and Eve equally... he didn't make them at the same time. So really, if you go Bible wise, God made man to be asexual. (And just so we're clear, I'm a Christian... if you find this offensive, you honestly shouldn't... I wasn't attacking Christianity. )

 

However, I agree. I much liked it when the Military had the don't ask, don't tell policy (however they revoked that and as far as I know, homosexual men and women are no longer allowed to serve, though I could be wrong on that... I haven't really kept up with the military lately)... it would be better for everyone if the entire country was like that.

[Tommycat]

Religion: I'm not saying drop religion altogether. Just don't base the majority of policy on religion. Don't place it on some stylite as if we must obey Christianity.

 

War on Drugs: At a minimum stop opposing Medical Marijuana, and even recreational.

 

Abortion: The problem is not abortion per se, it's the liberal application of it. IF it were really Safe and rare, as it is often touted, many of us wouldn't have a problem with it. But sometimes it's important to have it legal for reasons other than just rape, or the life of the mother. I mean my ex had 4 abortions because her prior boyfriend used pregnancy as a chain to keep her in the house. Besides, I don't want to have women forced to claim rape when the boyfriend breaks up with her after he finds out she's pregnant.

 

Safe Sex: We agree... nothing to add.

 

Adam and Eve/Steve: Technically, both Adam and Eve were created together.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

Though Genesis 2 kind of contradicts that, as it then talks of making woman of man blah blah... Either way, I'm from a Christian background, but not Christian. Kind of like the nation. I have (mostly) Christian morals, but not tied to the Christian religion.

 

DADT: the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was coupled with the military no longer caring about the answer to the question. If you're gay and admit it, there is no retribution from the military.

[Sylthar]

War on Drugs: Aye, my great aunt had cancer an she smoke medical majiuana and it made the pain disappear according to my grandma. I agree for medicinal reasons it should be allowed...

 

Aye, I was basing it off of Genesis 2. But that's the Bible for you. Just like everything else, it contradicts itself. Honestly though, I'm not a 100% Bible devout follower. It was written by man for man. I realize they were Prophets, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone wrote what the did because of God. I mean for one there are a bunch of people who wrote more books of the Bible, but man dictated what went in the Bible.

 

Ah I was unaware of that regarding DADT. I'm glad that's the fact.