Moderator: Dux
Thanks for posting. These are pretty ridiculous.BucketHead wrote:I pulled it verbatim from the GOP official platform that I linked earlier
Maybe you're right. I've never noticed it to be SO entrenched into the main GOP platform, though. It sounds like Sean Hannity wrote it.kreator wrote:Thanks for posting. These are pretty ridiculous.BucketHead wrote:I pulled it verbatim from the GOP official platform that I linked earlier
Question though: are any of these new? Hasn't this been the party platform since the Religious Right took over the Republican party, several decades ago? I guess I'm just confused why people are all of a sudden realizing this.
Hilarious. If folks from the right would accept the pay cut they would suffer to become professors, this would be a non-issue.BucketHead wrote:- We call on State officials to ensure that our public colleges and universities be places of learning and the exchange of ideas, not zones of intellectual intolerance favoring the Left.
Nonetheless.johno wrote:Of course you don't care about "God-given rights." You're an atheist. But >90% of Americans do believe in God, so enjoy the concept as a useful myth.Blaidd Drwg wrote: Our Rights are thankfully not god given, they're written down. It's more reliable that way.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/ameri ... e-god.aspx
I guess we can chuck the Declaration of Independence as inimical to freedom. No free country could ever result from such a document.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Nonetheless.johno wrote:Of course you don't care about "God-given rights." You're an atheist. But >90% of Americans do believe in God, so enjoy the concept as a useful myth.Blaidd Drwg wrote: Our Rights are thankfully not god given, they're written down. It's more reliable that way.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/ameri ... e-god.aspx
It's inimical to the entire concept of a free country. I don't give a flying fuck what your god authorizes, my rights are protected in the Documents and the case law.
Reagan with the Cult of Hope, ironical.Today we declare ourselves the Party of Hope - not for some but for all.
That was 1000% more tameFRKCTL wrote: Reagan with the Cult of Hope, ironical.
there are links to the 1984 repub platform in its entirety, but here are some excerpts. http://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/22/us/co ... wanted=all
Except that the country wouldn't have gotten started in the first place if it wasn't for that faith. People are so freaking clueless.Blaidd Drwg wrote:That document is not one that protects rights of the individual, it's a declaration of War. Such things are prone to nonsensical and hyperbole.
Nonetheless....to be an American is to accept that your rights are not a matter of faith, they are a matter of 200 years of jurisprudence`ergo...the GOP can ram its mythological Christ in whichever orifice is most handy.
More to the point, that platform is unsupportable on so many levels it besmirches you to offer this pallid defense.
I don't get this.BucketHead wrote:- In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given...
- The Republican Party, born in opposition to the denial of liberty, stands for the rights of individuals, families, faith communities...
- That assurance has never been more needed than it is today, as liberal elites try to drive religious beliefs – and religious believers – out of the public square. The Founders of the American Republic universally agree that democracy presupposes a moral people and that, in the words of George Washington’s Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
- We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage
- We assert every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices.
- We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights.
- We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense.
- We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
- We condemn decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, including “Under God,” in public schools and encourage States to promote the pledge.
- We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet
- Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced
- We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior.
- We call on State officials to ensure that our public colleges and universities be places of learning and the exchange of ideas, not zones of intellectual intolerance favoring the Left.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
Chessman wrote:Except that the country wouldn't have gotten started in the first place if it wasn't for that faith.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
This.protobuilder wrote:I think the biggest story this election cycle will be how few people show up to vote.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
Yup. I've considered myself Republican in the past but reading through that, it's a huge problem for me. I've got a LOT of people telling me to vote for Romney b/c Obama sucks, and that I'm throwing away my vote blah blah blah by not voting for him or by not voting at all. But looking over that list, I can't vote in good faith for anyone running under that platform.Terry B. wrote:Outside of the insane religious right, I don't see how anybody could support a single item on the list in any form.
Why alienate people who are looking for anybody to vote for other than Obama? Is this some Illuminati plot to put another Bush in the White House in 2016? Does the GOP get so much cash by talking such garbage that it is good enough for them?
Post moral majority 80s things really had shifted. In 1992 with Bush struggling for relevance on the stump, Pat Buchanan delivered this little stemwinder at the convention:BucketHead wrote:That was 1000% more tameFRKCTL wrote: Reagan with the Cult of Hope, ironical.
there are links to the 1984 repub platform in its entirety, but here are some excerpts. http://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/22/us/co ... wanted=all
Friends -- Friends, this -- This, my friends -- This is radical feminism. The agenda that Clinton & Clinton would impose on America: abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units. That's change, all right. But that's not the kind of change America needs. It's not the kind of change America wants. And it's not the kind of change we can abide in a nation we still call "God's country."
... Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for the freedom to choose religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women. We stand with President Bush -- We stand with President Bush for right-to-life and for voluntary prayer in the public schools. And we stand against putting our wives and daughters and sisters into combat units of the United States Army. And we stand, my -- my friends -- We also stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that so terribly pollutes our popular culture. We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law as written, and against would-be Supreme Court justices like Mario Cuomo who think they have a mandate to rewrite the Constitution.
Keep that attitude up. It makes my vote matter that much more.Terry B. wrote:This.protobuilder wrote:I think the biggest story this election cycle will be how few people show up to vote.
Obama should win in a landslide but how many people who came out in droves for him four years ago are even going to show up? Liberal bloggers are furious at Dirty Harry but I have to think that a certain segment of the population loved what they saw - and that segment votes.
However, this talk of "who I'm going to vote for" is an egocentric waste of time in many ways. People discuss swing states but I imagine that the Roves and Axelrods have this down to a dozen or so counties that really, really, really matter.
In large part, the philosophical basis for the Constitution springs from a Christian world view. Each individual has innate value; and governments exist serve the individual (a revolutionary concept), not vice versa. This leads to a government of "Laws, not Men." This is where your precious documents & case law originate.Blaidd Drwg wrote: Nonetheless....to be an American is to accept that your rights are not a matter of faith, they are a matter of 200 years of jurisprudence`ergo...
nope. british common law, which predates the christianization of the british isles by a couple of hundred years, is the fundamental model for our form of jurisprudence.johno wrote:In large part, the philosophical basis for the Constitution springs from a Christian world view. Each individual has innate value; and governments exist serve the individual (a revolutionary concept), not vice versa. This leads to a government of "Laws, not Men." This is where your precious documents & case law originate.Blaidd Drwg wrote: Nonetheless....to be an American is to accept that your rights are not a matter of faith, they are a matter of 200 years of jurisprudence`ergo...
Nope-- binding oaths, essential to contracts of all sorts, were felt to require some sort of absolute accountability.FRKCTL wrote:nope. british common law, which predates the christianization of the british isles by a couple of hundred years, is the fundamental model for our form of jurisprudence.johno wrote:In large part, the philosophical basis for the Constitution springs from a Christian world view. Each individual has innate value; and governments exist serve the individual (a revolutionary concept), not vice versa. This leads to a government of "Laws, not Men." This is where your precious documents & case law originate.Blaidd Drwg wrote: Nonetheless....to be an American is to accept that your rights are not a matter of faith, they are a matter of 200 years of jurisprudence`ergo...
Yep. All Men are Equal before God -> All Men are Equal before the Law.FRKCTL wrote: nope. british common law, which predates the christianization of the british isles by a couple of hundred years, is the fundamental model for our form of jurisprudence.
Anti-intellectualism is what has kept this country great, and kept us from jumping on the bandwagon of silly and dangerous fads.Blaidd Drwg wrote:The fact major parties is still publicly fellating anti-intellectualism under the guise of piety is reason numero uno they currently suck shit. It's a shame.
