PDA

View Full Version : Describe Your Party


ClayBarham
11-21-2007, 07:12 PM
How do you describe your political party? Are shared core values and beliefs of the members of your party describing it best? Is it the issues which most agree? If its core values were lasting, issues remaining the same, a Party would probably hang together and be predictable for generations. If just issues define the party, and they change as do feelings from year to year, it would cause realignment of supporters. Personalities, feelings and assumptions about them are what keep members in line, however. In the last 100 years, the feelings and beliefs of Democrats has always been the poor against the rich. That assumption, though unreasonable, says Republicans are rich and Democrats are poor. Promoting that feeling holds a niche of loyal supporters.

From recent campaigning, it is clear that issues do not describe Democrats as much as the base feelings party faithful express. Democrat feelings reflect a desire to impress upon America a change in governing methods, based upon rule of a few wise and caring elite over the many. Issues are decided on how they apply to those feelings. Those unifying feelings reflect how Democrats see issues and candidates. Democrats are more cohesive, in lockstep with adoration for their candidates. They are more candidate than issue driven. They are the wealthiest and poorest people’s views of how America should look. Wealthy Democrats want to manage all of us and play upon voter’s shallow interests. They see envy, anger, greed and depression of the poorest as major motivators. They play to the unreasoning altruism of those better off to rally unity of support. They attract the uneducated who know little of the values of America, as well as immigrants who do not want to assimilate into the American mainstream.

Republicans, in the meantime, have forgotten their core values. They often separate more on single issues. Some Republicans are altruistically sympathetic to the Democrat core feelings. They agree with Democrats and support a caring elite who claim to know how best to handle critical issues. The idea that things could go unmanaged by professionals and still work best shocks those who know little of how America has prospered so far. Prosperity only comes from freedom, and many have lost sight of this. People who are free to pursue their own interests with passion, use their talents and build their skills while chasing their aspirations generate prosperity, for themselves, their families and their communities. Free people made America great, not their government, and certainly not their politicians. Democrats, and altruistic Republicans, want to cancel individual freedom in favor of communal interests and equal outcome. This is why attractive personalities on one side and critical issues on the other divide each party. Democrats are attracted to a personality whom they believe best reflects their feelings. Many Republicans are more attracted to issues and patriotism than a candidate’s image.

Image-makers bring in other attractive personalities, whose popularity can rub off on the candidate. A candidate who seeks voter adoration stays clear of issues, so as not to tarnish the image. They have a better chance of winning if the voter thinks the candidate is with them, even if positions might be different from the voter’s own feelings. In the people’s mind, the king is there to bob and weave and be perceived as in their corner, even if not. Aside from the Democrat Party’s belief of community interests being superior to individual interests, voters do not easily define them. That is obvious from the erroneous belief that they are the party of the poor and the little guy.

Republicans lose when focusing on the issues. They run on issues as keeping government small in relation to people. They stand for individual freedom, freedom to pursue liberty and prosperity as well as the sanctity of life. They support God’s laws as basic. They support a free and unmanaged market; something most ordinary people rarely understand. They support living under laws, not men. They support our founding principles, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutions, separation of powers and the efficacy of local and state governments. In addition, they support a strong nation able to defend its interests in the world. All of this fails to touch people’s personal interests and passions. Patriotism has declined as feelings of inequality of outcome rise.

The Republicans are losing because they lack the glamour of the idol that attracts, regardless of his or her internal qualities. Democrats have learned from Hollywood that glamour trumps substance every time, and that has risen to the winning requirement in modern American political contests.

Scorpion
11-21-2007, 10:05 PM
Bottom line Clay is:

Democrats pretty good.

Republicans very bad.

Your asessment is, overall, a load of Democratic mulesh*t. Very entertaining but no substantive information. Typical Blameocratic nonsense.

ticbeast
11-22-2007, 12:20 AM
Republicans lose when focusing on the issues. They run on issues as keeping government small in relation to people. They stand for individual freedom, freedom to pursue liberty and prosperity as well as the sanctity of life. They support God’s laws as basic. They support a free and unmanaged market; something most ordinary people rarely understand. They support living under laws, not men. They support our founding principles, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutions, separation of powers and the efficacy of local and state governments. In addition, they support a strong nation able to defend its interests in the world. All of this fails to touch people’s personal interests and passions. Patriotism has declined as feelings of inequality of outcome rise.

Which is why republicans are for individual freedoms such as abortion and gay marriage :D

If they really supported the ideologies of our founding fathers, then whatever happened to sep. of church and state?

The Republicans are losing because they lack the glamour of the idol that attracts, regardless of his or her internal qualities. Democrats have learned from Hollywood that glamour trumps substance every time, and that has risen to the winning requirement in modern American political contests.
Two words: Schwarzenegger and Reagan :D

ClayBarham
11-23-2007, 05:42 PM
Ticbeast, I hope that, when you recite the separation of church and state thing, you realize this appears no where in foundation law. The First Amendment, and the first part of the four parts, says Congress shall make no law which would establish a church. This was one of the prime motivators for the separation from Britain, because Parliament was going to insist that the Anglican Church was to be the only official, recognized church in the colonies, excluding all others, and mainly the Calvinists who were a challenge to the authority of the church of England. The other three parts of that Amendment deal with speech, press and assembly, which easily tells the reader that we have the freedom, as individuals, to meet, speak, write and publish, as well as belong to our own church and not one formed by government. It does not prohibit Christians from exhibiting their Christianity, or Jews from theirs, or Muslims from theirs, just that there is to be no official church everyone must belong.

Anti-Racism
11-23-2007, 05:52 PM
How do you describe your political party?


http://www.corrupt.org/

Anything else is a cop-out.

ticbeast
11-23-2007, 06:12 PM
The First Amendment of The United State Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yes, the desire to split from the Anglican church was a helping factor in starting the revolution, I don't see the word church anywhere in there.
I however do see:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
So I guess it is all how you interpret "no law respecting." Why must the founding fathers be so vague? :D

One could try to argue that the nation was founded upon Christian, thus religious principles, but Article 11 of the treaty of tripoli (which was ratified by the senate and signed by President John Adams)

ARTICLE 11 Of the Treaty of Tripoli

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

ClayBarham
11-23-2007, 06:46 PM
I know of no one who said the government of the United States was established on Christian fundamentals or anything more than perhaps the principles of Christianity, as reflected in the laws of behavior set out in the Old and New testaments, though you won't find those words in our Constitution. You will, however, find our "Creator" mentioned in the Declaration, and if that offends people, we should petition to have the document destroyed so no atheist has ever to read it because they have greater rights than non-atheists. The states have had more of the religious influences in their government foundations, so many of them may be offensive to that small percent of folks who just hate God so much they get steamed up. Maybe we should put that our rights were given to us by Satan, that's for the conservatives who do not want government giving them, and taking them back when it's time. When a city allows a Kresch on its grounds, or the Ten Commandments to hang in a county courtroom, I do not see any evidence that Congress has written a law to allow it, so I do not see it as a violation of the First Amendment. So, if I understand your concern, it should be that Congress should write a law prohibiting Christian symbols appearing anywhere where a disbeliever could see it and be offended by it, perhaps even sickened by it.