What have Republicans done for us lately?

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | December 9, 2003 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

No the reason for the quotes is to emphasize what you are implying.

Yes of course. There's no reason to look at the explicit meaning of the words in an article. The really smart people look for the hidden stuff -- like the messages from the devil you get when playing rock & roll songs backwards.

[ex-snook]

"The Republicans have adopted so much of the Democrats domestic agenda, that I'm not sure many people care. "

Make that foreign policy agenda too, including trade and Iraq which is just a continuation of Clinton. Bush has just extended it by making China a favored trade nation and sending troops to Iraq.

If jobs don't increase, troop deaths continue in Iraq and the alert flag is still raised here, people could jump to Dean (or?) as the lesser of two evils. Since choosing the lesser is the only game in town.

[RogerFGay]

Great. Let's reinvent the wheel. Let's add a Third Party to mix so that they can do exactly what the major parties are doing, and further confuse the voters in the process. Why didn't we all think of that?

The U.S. Constitution does not define a two party system. It does not define a partisan system at all. It's not what the founders had in mind. Certainly, a two party system is almost as far as possible from what the founders had in mind.

Confuse the voters? Don't exclude voters with IQs over 25. And the rest probably don't vote anyway.

[Consort]

The U.S. Constitution does not define a two party system. It does not define a partisan system at all.

The two party system, privacy, etc were not defined and much was left to interpretation. It may very well be devoured by definitions and interpratations.

It's not what the founders had in mind.

Again, the Constitution, to a large degree, is whatever at least five Justices (a majority) interpret it to be at any given time, based on their ideology, and regardless of what the Founders intended or what the citizens expect.

[Cultural Jihad]

What have Republicans done for us lately?

Are you still living in Sweden? What is President Bush supposed to do for people in Sweden?

[squidly]

A lot of conservatives said "screw you" to the GOP in '92 and stayed home on election day or voted for Perot or other Third Party. Now the GOP is appealing to the center for votes and the conservatives are wondering why.

Amazing. Somebody gets it.

[RogerFGay]

I understand -- the Constitution doesn't really exist except in our imaginations. I always suspected we were really living in a Matrix. Change my program, man.

[RogerFGay]

Well -- you drew me off subject so I might as well go with it. Al Gore was at the Nobel Prize party last night and was seated next to the Swedish foreign minister. She later reported that Al apologized for not getting elected president. Late in the dinner speeches by the prize recipients (which were limited to less than 3 min. each), the camera panned in on Al Gore. There he was; eyes closed, head back, mouth gaping. Apparently he'd bored himself to sleep.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

There are those who would rather starve dreaming of steak rather than eat hamburger and work for steak the next day. Some call that principle, I call that childish.

[Consort]

...the Constitution doesn't really exist except in our imaginations.

I suppose you could look at it that way. It is no longer what it was and will change over time. People in power can not resist the urge to change it, for better or worse.

I always suspected we were really living in a Matrix.

Yes, a matrix or simulacron...or a simulated matrix or simulacron.

[RogerFGay]

There are those who would rather starve dreaming of steak rather than eat hamburger and work for steak the next day. Some call that principle, I call that childish.

Are you just having difficulty finding the proper thread to post your words of wisdom? Don't know what your comment has to do with the article.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

This is not the appropriate time for honest people who are sincerely interested in family policy to join the partisan game. To do so leaves us with nothing but an illusion that we have supported the lesser of two evils. It is time to ask, what have the parties done for me lately? Evil is not what we want and we should not give our support without concrete change.

Disassociation from politics is your solution. It is the solution of all who would rather have philisophical purity rather than results. If you work, and fight, and struggle and at the end of the day have 1/10th of a loaf of bread, you would still have more of the loaf than those who remain on the sidelines scoffing at those who struggle and remain hungry in their self-righteousness.

No one who is serious, sane, and adult would assume that they can get everything they want even over decades of work in our system. That is precisely why our system works. If you want overnight change, examine the Italian political system. They have one group or another proclaiming victory every several years only to be handed crushing defeat in the next few cycles. All they work for is then destroyed and they must start all over.

Incrementalism is the hallmark of American politics and why, if conservatives will adapt a long term vision that supercedes short term expectation, we will ultimately triumph with a set of policies that cannot be torn down by the next Bill Clinton. FDR did this and even Reagan was able to do little more than dent his structure of Socialism. It will take many Reagans and Bushes to tear it down.

Or, alternately, one internet pundit who will refuse to run because it might taint his philisophic purity.

[RogerFGay]

Disassociation from politics is your solution.

No it isn't. It appears that you think partisanism and politics are synonymous. I don't agree.

No one who is serious, sane, and adult would assume that they can get everything they want even over decades of work in our system. ... Incrementalism is the hallmark of American politics

The dramatic revolution in family law brought about by federal government reforms took place very quickly and should have been declared unconstitutional very quickly. But they weren't. The idea that we should now wait many generations to overcome corruption and deal with problems we didn't have just a few years ago is ridiculous.

[familyop]

"The dramatic revolution in family law brought about by federal government reforms took place very quickly and should have been declared unconstitutional very quickly."

Actually, I think no-fault divorce laws, a relatively recent part of that "revolution" began to happen in the states. Organizations of lawyers, feminists and all, had television news outlets all over our nation broadcast that our old laws were obsolete. They went on and on about laws that punished chicken thieves by making them work in victims' gardens, and so forth.

As for the lack of constitutionality of laws like the VAWA, yes, the Supremes should have declared them so, and the circuits should have decided accordingly sooner. To my knowledge, only one judge did so in Emerson, and the Supremes refused to hear it. But for the most part, judges didn't do what they were supposed to do. So we shouldn't be blowing the horn of despair and reiterating that nothing can be done. We should be doing what we can do instead of running the same old anarchist interference for a bunch of Marxists.

We should certainly jump on the bandwagon of Republican efforts to replace liberal/left activist judges who were installed by Dems who know exactly what they're doing and others who didn't (Reagan's appointment of looney O'Connor, for example). We should be talking to our congressmen. This hasn't happened, yet, in any volume to compare with the opposition (bars, feminists, et al), even though we have the numbers. We can inform those who know not what they do. We cannot inform those (Dems and liberaltarians) who know what they're doing to destroy the family.

But too many in the ranks of fathers' rights continue to waste time with pushing parties and doctrines that are anti-family, and therefore, anti-father. If you want to see a change in the Republican Party, it will be necessary to work within the same Party patiently and wisely. If you don't, then, well, what do you hope to accomplish and how?

The tactic of Susan B. Anthony and her friends (refusing to vote, offering to join the other party, etc.) won't work. She set back the effort for the women's vote for half of a century.

[Axenolith]

Incrementalism is the hallmark of American politics

Precisely because it is the only way to effectively undermine those pesky Constitutional restraints...

[templar]

The Republicans have adopted so much of the Democrats domestic agenda, that I'm not sure many people care.

It's just the political walking thing: left foot takes a step, right foot takes a step, left foot takes a step, right foot takes a step ...People get too interested in which foot is in front to notice which direction they are both going.

[RogerFGay]

It's just the political walking thing: left foot takes a step, right foot takes a step, left foot takes a step, right foot takes a step ... People get too interested in which foot is in front to notice which direction they are both going.

Exactly. They're both going in the same direction. On the metaphore front, looking at policy development, traditionally, Democrats created the building blocks by introducing new leftist government intrusions and centralization, and Republicans cemented them into place with block grant types of things.

[RogerFGay]

But too many in the ranks of fathers' rights continue to waste time with pushing parties and doctrines that are anti-family, and therefore, anti-father. If you want to see a change in the Republican Party, it will be necessary to work within the same Party patiently and wisely. If you don't, then, well, what do you hope to accomplish and how?

Art; It's obvious that your primary interest is partisan. You're a Republican, and your discussion on fathers' rights and family issues is insincere.

[Capitalism2003]

I only have one question to you so-called conservatives here.

How much longer will you compromise?

Socialism, fast with the dems...slower with the pubs. The destination is the same, and it keeps getting closer.

When will you stop the compromising?

[familyop]

"You're a Republican, and your discussion on fathers' rights and family issues is insincere."

Your consequent doesn't always follow your antecedent. You are making a very unwise accusation with that ad hominem. But that is the point you're trying to make with your campaign against Republicans who advocate for fathers. And my opinion against your work for legitimization of homo-sex unions triggered it.