Republicans: Are You Happy About McCain? Options

[blaarg]

Just seeing what you four or five people on the board who would classify themselves as "Republican" think about McCain getting the nomination.

[Hartmann]

I'm mixed on him... I think he is a better choice than Romney but he's going to have to work extremely hard to get elected.

As an aside, after reading the NYT article about this supposed lobbyist, I have to wonder, when did Dan Rather start working for them?

[impala454]

Fine by me really. He was my second choice after Thompson.

[James]

Wasn't my first choice as I didn't like the way he acted during some of the debates, but all the mature people are pretty much gone and I'd definitely rather have him over Hillary or Obama.

[pysex]

I tend to be more conservative but I don't really want McCain as a president.


I'm just glad Hillary no longer has a chance and I'd be ok if Obama was president...

[Dogmeat]

I really don't care who the president is as long as they aren't a socialist or a communist....

[pebkac]

So when you say socialist or communist, are you talking about people that are really socialist or communist or do you mean people that are "socialists" or "communists" (ie. Democrats)?

[Dogmeat]

So when you say socialist or communist, are you talking about people that are really socialist or communist or do you mean people that are "socialists" or "communists" (ie. Democrats)?

They _ARE_ socialists and communists.

That's the basis for the current crop of "Democrats".

[Psykopath]

They _ARE_ socialists and communists.

That's the basis for the current crop of "Democrats".

If they are "socialists and communists," then by your re-defining of political extremes...Republicans = fascists.

[Hartmann]

If they are "socialists and communists," then by your re-defining of political extremes...Republicans = fascists.

Well, that would be comparing apples to oranges. Socialism and Communism are socio-economic while Fascism is based loosely on racism and unity as far as class goes (sounds more Democratic anyway).

Anyway, my basic idea of a good government is one that understands people. People want to make money, they want to succeed, and they want to be happy. If companies are forced to support the society (therefore taking significant money out of their pockets), they will stop doing business.

[Dogmeat]

If they are "socialists and communists," then by your re-defining of political extremes...Republicans = fascists.

No, Republicans are Capitalists ...

[Testm0nkey]

so if a society didnt want to help people at all and were racists, sexists, jerkoffs, conservatives yada yada then the government should just be like okey dokey lets make our policies totally centered around that! the government DOES have an obligation to protect, serve, and help people. that usually doesnt fall right in line with letting 1% of the population make as much money as they want. the government has the obligation to support its citizens AND if there are people in society who are against they, they are the ones that have the problem and need to be changed. imho

this is in regards to hartmanns statement about the basic idea of government

[The Fanatic]

Side note:

Totalitarianism can exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Hartmann]

so if a society didnt want to help people at all and were racists, sexists, jerkoffs, conservatives yada yada then the government should just be like okey dokey lets make our policies totally centered around that! the government DOES have an obligation to protect, serve, and help people. that usually doesnt fall right in line with letting 1% of the population make as much money as they want. the government has the obligation to support its citizens AND if there are people in society who are against they, they are the ones that have the problem and need to be changed. imho

this is in regards to hartmanns statement about the basic idea of government

I mistyped but the basic premise is there. You're correct, the government does have an obligation to protect the people and to protect the rights of the people, even if that means 1% of the population makes an insane amount of money, that's their right to strive to do so.

Government's (a republic or democracy) purpose is to ensure the availability of such freedoms, not to give freedom to all then yank it back because others struggle. This isn't utopia and it never will be, that's a pipe dream.

Holding government to take care of everyone is inconsistent with how and why we were founded. It was the oppression of one group that led them here, and it was the taxation and land rights of that population that ultimately led to war. The British taxed everyone, even if for the benefit of the king, and it did not stand well.

I hate to say it but you cannot force people to "want" to help others, it just doesn't work that way. Cuba is a great example of this, everything is for the greater good right, because it's Communism? Not really. The elites (military) get rich and everyone else gets rations. If instead you tax evenly and allow people who work for it to succeed, good will come of it.

In my experience, the people who are poor but make an effort, eventually start making a living. The ones who ask for a break, get it, then squander it, and ask for another, continue on the same cycle, always wanting more but doing nothing to improve themselves.

I have no qualm agreeing with the idea that we should help each other, but I can only help so much. It takes each person doing their part.

[Dogmeat]

so if a society didnt want to help people at all and were racists, sexists, jerkoffs, conservatives yada yada then the government should just be like okey dokey lets make our policies totally centered around that! the government DOES have an obligation to protect, serve, and help people. that usually doesnt fall right in line with letting 1% of the population make as much money as they want. the government has the obligation to support its citizens AND if there are people in society who are against they, they are the ones that have the problem and need to be changed. imho

this is in regards to hartmanns statement about the basic idea of government

Racism, sexism, whatever have no place in a capitalist society.

You're rewarded for how you do for yourself. This is completley independent of race or sex.

If a black guy out works me and figures out how to make more money than I do, then more power to him.

By and large, the harder you work the better you do.

I fail to see why my hard-earned dollars should go to reward mediocrity amongst those who are simply put, too fat, stupid, and lazy to better themselves.