• G.O.P. Considers ‘Purity’ Resolution for Candidates
    63 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The battle among Republicans over what the party should stand for — and how much it should accommodate dissenting views on important issues — is probably going to move from the states to the Republican National Committee when it holds its winter meeting this January in Honolulu. Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they “espouse conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to “Obama’s socialist agenda.” According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement. The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee members and was distributed on Monday morning. They are asking for the resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting. The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Mr. Reagan had said the Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also be open to diverse views. President Reagan believed, the resolution notes, “that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.” Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with the party on fewer than eight of 10 items. The resolution demands that Republicans support “smaller government, smaller national deficits and lower taxes,” denial of government funding for abortion, and “victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.” It calls on candidates to oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act. The development is going to put pressure on Michael Steele, the party chairman, as he tries to maintain a balance between those in his party who have been saying the road to victory is to include divergent views, and those who say the party needs to embrace conservative principles that have been at its core. Mr. Steele managed, at his party’s last meeting, to steer clear of potentially contentious resolutions, including one that equated Democrats with socialists. Gail Gitcho, a spokeswoman for the committee, said it was not clear what Mr. Steele would do. “The deadline for submitting resolutions for the R.N.C. Winter Meeting is more than 30 days away,” she said. “At this point, we do not what resolutions will be submitted nor what the final language of any resolution ultimately submitted may be.” (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill; (2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care; (3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation; (4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check; (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants; (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges; (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat; (8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act; (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and (10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership. [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-resolution-for-candidates/?scp=3&sq=RNC&st=cse[/url] To understand #4, read this [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act[/url]
I only agree with 5 and 10 and partially 1 and 7. Although I don't understand how this is a "purity" list, when it's just a bunch of things they are telling you to believe in. Seems more like fascism than purity.
1) Yes 2) I support Hybrid healthcare; retain market-based insurance but also offer a basic public option 3) Yes 4) What is this? 5) Yes 6) No 7) No 8) No 9) Yes 10) Yes Welp, guess I'm still not a republican.
Of course there's nothing on there about not cheating on your wife. If there was, half their members would be banned from the party. [img]http://centristvoice.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/sanford.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=RBM11;18610915]Of course there's nothing on there about not cheating on your wife. If there was, half their members would be banned from the party.[/QUOTE] That could probably go for any party.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18610938]That could probably go for any party.[/QUOTE] I know but it's still funny. The reason I mentioned it is because the Democrats aren't considering any "purity list" and family values is a supposedly conservative and, by extension, Republican ideal.
1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) ???? 5) Yes 6) Yes 7) Yes 8) No 9) Yes 10) Yes Is that a pass?
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;18610973]1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) ???? 5) Yes 6) Yes 7) Yes 8) No 9) Yes 10) Yes Is that a pass?[/QUOTE] Yes. You can only have a minimum of TWO disagreements.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18611015]Yes. You can only have a minimum of TWO disagreements.[/QUOTE] Emperor Scorpious on the scene again, saving the conservatives.
[QUOTE=Wayword;18611134]Emperor Scorpious on the scene again, saving the conservatives.[/QUOTE] Wayword on the scene again, making shit posts.
1) Depends on what category. The government's purpose is to serve the people and healthcare is something solely to support the people. Small government is a buzzword that's too general. I don't support a larger government in the instance of intruding on citizen's privacy, like Republican Bush supported(PATRIOT Act) but I do support a larger government in the area of healthcare and social services, like Democrat Obama supports. (2) No. There should be a public option but only for those who can't afford their own. Private should be the dominant healthcare service. The public healthcare shouldn't support some elective surgeries, like liposuctions. And people's health, which should be a basic right, should not be solely for profit. (3) Don't care to write about it. (4) ? (5) I do believe that legal immigration should be made easier but any current illegal immigrants should be given opportunities to apply for worker visas and resident alien status. Any noncompliant illegals or illlegals who have committed a crime other than illegally coming her should be deported immediately. (6) Yes for Afghanistan, no for Iraq. Afghanistan should be focused on suppressing the Taliban, Iraq was just a huge mistake that should end soon. (7) Unless they are actively hostile and if we have the backing of the UN/NATO, no. We can't afford it and we should have learned our lesson. (8) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdictionthe equal protection of the laws." -Amendment XIV Marriage is a state sanctioned privilege. It's very much a civil matter as a religious matter. The state should have no say in who takes part in this privilege. (9) See 2. (10) Yes
[QUOTE=Wayword;18611134]Emperor Scorpious on the scene again, saving the conservatives.[/QUOTE] Yes, worship me, for I am the new Jesus come forth to save all of the Republicans. :v:
[quote](1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;[/quote] (1) We support freedom and the cure for cancer, and not killing the Jews. [quote](2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;[/quote] I don't particularly care for that part of politics. [quote](3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;[/quote] What exactly does "Market-Based" mean, anyways? [quote](4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;[/quote] Voting? We're still having issues with just voting? I vote for a voting reform. [quote](5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;[/quote] I'm not sure what to say on this. [quote](6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;[/quote] Goto (1) [quote](7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;[/quote] Containment? Is this some sort of infection going around? [quote](8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;[/quote] No thanks. [quote](9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and[/quote] Goto (1) [quote](10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.[/quote] Or you'll shoot them if they try to take away your guns. Right?
For those who don't understand what #4 is about, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act[/url]
[QUOTE=Sams Brume;18611281]What exactly does "Market-Based" mean, anyways? [/QUOTE]Basically it means companies don't have to cut their pollution if they don't feel like it.
Strength through Purity!
I don't agree with half of them, so I guess I'm still a moderate.
(1) Yes (2) Hybrid Healthcare=Foolproof (3) Yes (4) Supports WORKERS rights so I guess ya. (5) Im not sure D: (6) I guess (7) Yes (8) Yes (9) Yes to the first, no to the second (10) YES
[quote](9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and[/quote] what the hell kind of bizarro world bullshit is this? "we must protect poor, vulnerable people by making sure that they have to pay money and wrestle with insurance companies to get insurance coverage." [editline]08:59PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Derubermensch;18611563] (8) Yes [/QUOTE] you are human filth. go kill yourself
(1) Gaaaaah what the fuck this isn't something you can "yes" or "no." Even as a Republican you have to concede the stimulus bullshit, if only because we already went through with a lot of it. (2) Call me a commie, but the healthcare bill as is is pretty tame and quite digestible. Enough so that this is something you could be entirely apathetic about unless you've got an idealistic reason to support/oppose it. And by idealistic I mean "completely unrelated to stances held by either of our major parties." (3) Replace this with "flat energy tax by the kilowatt-hour" and you'll get something done. As is, meh. (4) Yeah sure why not. (5) Provided there's a slew of stuff to go with this...amnesty for people already here, for instance. (6) NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Fucking hell, what is this garbage! Why in God's name would you arbitrarily support "victory" in either country? They aren't conventional fucking wars! Both need special attention paid to them and nonstandard tactics for dealing with locals and the like, not this retarded assumption that we can just pour enough money into both and we'll suddenly have "won." (7) Uh...maybe. Until Iran actually, you know, has one, I'm not entirely sure they need "containing." But sure, fuck with the NK all you'd like. (8) Apathy..this is just an argument of semantics and benefits, not a real issue. Certainly doesn't merit kicking you out of the party for having either position. (9) Woah, loaded one. Yes, yes, but neither of these are in danger of happening, and what the fuck are you talking about, respectively. (10) Well duh. [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;18601724]I'm a card carrying member of the GOP[/QUOTE] If this goes through I'm apparently shredding the fucker.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;18611815](1) Gaaaaah what the fuck this isn't something you can "yes" or "no." Even as a Republican you have to concede the stimulus bullshit, if only because we already went through with a lot of it. (2) Call me a commie, but the healthcare bill as is is pretty tame and quite digestible. Enough so that this is something you could be entirely apathetic about unless you've got an idealistic reason to support/oppose it. And by idealistic I mean "completely unrelated to stances held by either of our major parties." (3) Replace this with "flat energy tax by the kilowatt-hour" and you'll get something done. As is, meh. (4) Yeah sure why not. (5) Provided there's a slew of stuff to go with this...amnesty for people already here, for instance. (6) NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Fucking hell, what is this garbage! Why in God's name would you arbitrarily support "victory" in either country? They aren't conventional fucking wars! Both need special attention paid to them and nonstandard tactics for dealing with locals and the like, not this retarded assumption that we can just pour enough money into both and we'll suddenly have "won." (7) Uh...maybe. Until Iran actually, you know, has one, I'm not entirely sure they need "containing." But sure, fuck with the NK all you'd like. (8) Apathy..this is just an argument of semantics and benefits, not a real issue. Certainly doesn't merit kicking you out of the party for having either position. (9) Woah, loaded one. Yes, yes, but neither of these are in danger of happening, and what the fuck are you talking about, respectively. (10) Well duh. If this goes through I'm apparently shredding the fucker.[/QUOTE] Xenocidebot, you have betrayed the Party :commissar:
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;18611815] (8) Apathy..this is just an argument of semantics and benefits, not a real issue.[/QUOTE] no, it's an issue of loving, monogamous same-sex couples not being able to make medical decisions on each others' behalf in the case of emergencies, tax breaks, right to sick leave from work to care for an ill or injured spouse, and access to social security survivor benefits alongside with lots of other things. Marriage provides a huge number of benefits to the married party, benefits that people are denied simply based on the fact that they are homosexual
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18611879]no, it's an issue of loving, monogamous same-sex couples not being able to make medical decisions on each others' behalf in the case of emergencies, tax breaks, right to sick leave from work to care for an ill or injured spouse, and access to social security survivor benefits alongside with lots of other things. Marriage provides a huge number of benefits to the married party, benefits that people are denied simply based on the fact that they are homosexual[/QUOTE] All of which I've got no problem giving them (well, actually, I do- but I support removing some of the benefits given to married couples currently, because I'm a heartless bastard. I'd rather see the whole practice reformed.) But whether or not the Fed calls it marriage is irrelevant. I'm well aware that both the English word and the practice never originally had a heterosexual connotation, but to assume that it didn't develop one with time is silly. That's the root of my apathy, actually. It's impossible to tell whether or not the word has that connotation now, at least in this country. So, as long as the Fed considers it between a man and a woman, I'm content assuming the majority of us think the modern meaning of "marriage" has that heterosexual connotation, and if we end up calling homosexual unions marriages as well eventually, well, then it doesn't. But I'm not really going to voice a strong opinion on it because I really don't care. The issue has absolutely no impact on me (and, really, very little on anyone that isn't homosexual) beyond that little linguistic quirk.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;18611146]Wayword on the scene again, making shit posts.[/QUOTE] Madman_Andre on the scene, not giving a shit. :munch: On a serious note, I wonder it the Democrats have a list like this.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;18612064] But I'm not really going to voice a strong opinion on it because I really don't care. The issue has absolutely no impact on me (and, really, very little on anyone that isn't homosexual) beyond that little linguistic quirk.[/QUOTE] ok so you don't care about anything that doesn't have an effect on you what a great way to go about politics. It's people like you that change the world :911:
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18612206]ok so you don't care about anything that doesn't have an effect on you what a great way to go about politics. It's people like you that change the world :911:[/QUOTE] People generally don't care about what doesn't affect them. If you do, good for you, but majority of the populace couldn't give two shits about anything.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18612227]People generally don't care about what doesn't affect them. If you do, good for you, but majority of the populace couldn't give two shits about anything.[/QUOTE] perhaps that's why the world is such a shitty place and I don't think that's true anyway. Why did so many people vote against same-sex marriage in California last fall? Same-Sex marriage being legalized wouldn't have any effect on straight couples, but they certainly seemed to care.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18612253]perhaps that's why the world is such a shitty place and I don't think that's true anyway. Why did so many people vote against same-sex marriage in California last fall? Same-Sex marriage being legalized wouldn't have any effect on straight couples, but they certainly seemed to care.[/QUOTE] They think it affects them by "destroying" their idea of marriage. They feel its an attack on a religious sacrament that they hold.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18612206]ok so you don't care about anything that doesn't have an effect on you what a great way to go about politics. It's people like you that change the world :911:[/QUOTE] *plays "My Heart Pumps Piss for You" on the world's smallest violin* You act like what definition people assign to a word matters in the grand scheme of things. Certain issues just aren't worth the effort, comrade.
wow cool a list of 10 things, each utterly reprehensible in their own way 1. FREE MARKET KNOWS ALL 2. hating poor people and ensuring that the US has the shittiest healthcare compared to every single other 1st-world country 3. DRILL BABY DRILL FUCK THE ENVIRONMENT 4. hating poor people/labor 5. racism 6. SUPPORT ARE TROOPS OORAH militarism, jingoism 7. jingoism 8. hating gay people 9. disguising hating poor people and women as "protecting lives" 10. OBAMA WILL TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS OH NO!!! :ohdear: This is literally what they can all be boiled down to. prove me wrong. [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;18612064]All of which I've got no problem giving them (well, actually, I do- but I support removing some of the benefits given to married couples currently, because I'm a heartless bastard. I'd rather see the whole practice reformed.) But whether or not the Fed calls it marriage is irrelevant. I'm well aware that both the English word and the practice never originally had a heterosexual connotation, but to assume that it didn't develop one with time is silly. That's the root of my apathy, actually. It's impossible to tell whether or not the word has that connotation now, at least in this country. So, as long as the Fed considers it between a man and a woman, I'm content assuming the majority of us think the modern meaning of "marriage" has that heterosexual connotation, and if we end up calling homosexual unions marriages as well eventually, well, then it doesn't. But I'm not really going to voice a strong opinion on it because I really don't care. The issue has absolutely no impact on me (and, really, very little on anyone that isn't homosexual) beyond that little linguistic quirk.[/QUOTE] wow what the fuck [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;18612305]*plays "My Heart Pumps Piss for You" on the world's smallest violin* You act like what definition people assign to a word matters in the grand scheme of things. Certain issues just aren't worth the effort, comrade.[/QUOTE] yeah what's the point of equal rights and human rights. they all suck.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.