Per Blackfox request, what the republican's need to do.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Backtothemac, Jul 14, 2004.

  1. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #1
    Blackfox asked me what I thought the republican party needs to do, and here it is.

    First, they need to ignore the religious right. I am not saying to abandon the ideals of God, they should keep those, but, they need to seperate themselves from the faction of the republicans that do nothing but want God to dictate everything in governmnet. I am not talking about removing God from everything, but stop using God as a justification to stop abortion, etc. If you are against abortion, argue against it from a moral standpoint, not a religious one.

    Second, they need a real candidate. By that mean one that will move accross parts of society. Someone like McCain, or Arnold. Someone that will use commonsense, not the ideology of the religious right.

    Third. They need to identify reforms that need to be made, isolate them, and attack them. Government is too big, way to big. Return some of the power to the people (states). Personally, I would like to see less social programs from the fed, get them out of that business, and let states tax, and collect funds for their own social programs. Let them decide. That way the people have a real choice about where they live based on more than just the name of the state, or if there is a beach there.

    Fourth. They need to attack the politics of politics. By this, I mean attack the attacks. When something is off base, prove it. Attack the bastards head on. They need to be fair, and for the love of God, admit when you are wrong. If Bush would come out and say, "look, I got some really bad intel. But I did what I thought was best based on what I got. Here is everythig that I got, now what would you do?"

    That would be a start.
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Indeed. That sounds like an excellent agenda.
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  5. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #5
    My technical writing professor loves quoting the Bush Administration:

    "Mistakes were made".

    Why yes they were :)

    So yes, I agree. More freakin' active voice. No more speaking in passive (spin) voice. This of course will happen when pigs fly -_-.
     
  6. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #6
    this thread is going to die quickly because there's not much to say besides the fact that BTTM is right.
     
  7. Backtothemac thread starter macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #7
    WOO HOO! Nice.

    Oh, and another thing.

    They need to get off of their high horse of judging and condeming people becuase they choose an abortion, or they want to marry a gay person, etc.

    If they really believe in God, they will know they don't have the power to judge, only God does.
     
  8. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #8
    I hear that. THANK YOU!!!!

    I do wish some democrats would be more outspoken about the fact that it's not government's business to legislate the morality of a particular kind of marriage, but all I'm hearing is, "This isn't important! Let's deal with it later." I think that marginalizes an issue that probably is important to homosexuals.

    I know it'll never happen because it'll kill Dems at the polls, but whatever happened to strong-willed, passionate democrats who can speak their minds...Maybe a democratic equivalent of everyone's favorite republican, Rick Santorum, whose oratorical skills are really outstanding (though his rhetoric isn't quite).
     
  9. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9


    Lethal
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    Well, before this thread goes the way of the dinosaur...

    Thanks for answering my question BTTM, I had a feeling you would answer it well...and you did.

    Also, thanks for having the presence of mind to open up a new (although perhaps short-lived) thread to prevent the other one going off-topic.

    You are tempting me to vote across party lines in mischief's thread...<must...resist...>
     
  11. Backtothemac thread starter macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #11
    Ah, but what party is it that you are resisting? I will surround myself with those of differing opinion. Jef would be my VP, if I recieve the nomination. Why? Because he keeps me grounded. mcrain would be my tax guy, and other would be invoved as well. Point is, I am not a blind candidate swore to uphold the ideals of some party.

    I am a person that will uphold the ideals of the common sense platform.

    Kill government waste, and give the money back to the people. That is my platform.
     
  12. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #12
    You co-opted my nomination (Jef)!
    ...ohhh, you're a smart one...

    (may delete and cross-post into Pres. thread)
     
  13. kgarner macrumors 68000

    kgarner

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    #13
    You got my vote. ;) I really wish we could break this two party system in America so that more voices could be heard. Neither party is right all the time and many of us have beliefs that cross over. Someday the two-party system will fall. I just hope I am around when it does.
     
  14. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #14
    Very good ideas overall.

    I can see this working and not working. It could help "balance out" the population centers, or it could create "mega centers" or states that could hurt the rest of the nation. Can you imagine 10 to 20 million trying to live in Delaware because of their social services?
     
  15. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #15
    Not sure I can wholeheartedly endorse all of BTTM's suggestions. Personally I'm ambivalent about some issues and candidates mentioned.

    I do feel that this administration either has not been successful at (or possibly has not even attempted) to propose domestic legislation and regulations which please "most of the people most of the time". It is as if they do not recognize that they were not exactly elected with a mandate (to understate it a bit, and hopefully sidestep the whole elected/selected debate). If their policies are intended to appeal to a broad cross-section of the populace -- as opposed to special interest groups -- either they have failed to achieve it, or failed remarkably at communicating it.

    I did like the attention to space and alternative fuels (still not sold on the economics of hydrogen generation though), but I've heard nothing about these recently. Also, I understand running a deficit temporarily to get out of a recession, but I dread the perpetual black cloud of massive, looming deficits. Hopefully some new unforeseen technological leap/ economic boom will give us a chance to dig ourselves out of the hole again.

    Then again, maybe the country is too polarized to please anyone nowadays.

    My 2 cents as a (usually) Republican voter.

    PS - BTW, since the gay marriage situation was mentioned, I did like IJ's proposed solution in another thread. Don't think it's likely to happen, but it would be interesting.
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    Thanks.

    You're not likely to hear much more about the hydrogen fuel initiative IMO. The consensus at time it was announced was that it was far too small an investment in new technology to produce results. My feeling is, it wasn't designed to produce actual results, at least not scientifically. It's political blocking maneuver, to be trotted out whenever the Bush administration's energy policy is questioned. Am I being cynical? Perhaps, but I could never been one-tenth as cynical as the Bush administration. If they excel at anything, it's obfuscation.
     

Share This Page