Can any republican tell me why any intelligent person should be republican?

[thereisnospoon]

I don't mean conservative. I mean republican specifically. Why should anyone vote republicans in our government?

What good have republicans of today done for this country? What are their accomplishments?

I want real answers. Don't say crap like "because they are better than democrats". That's a lame answer as always. I don't care what you think of democrats or liberals in general. Let's just pretend for a moment liberals don't exist.

Here are some specific questions:

1) What have republicans of today done for the middle class?

2) If tax cuts are so effective as you claim, why is it that 2x as many private jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8?

3) Corporate profits are at an all time high. Why are tax cuts for the investment class and deregulation necessary? What other republican policies are there that create jobs?

4) How is it the Republican Party not "the party of no"?

Just to give you stupid PC liberals the old mind ****

 

[blackhawk]

I could ask the same question of Democrats their record is no more impressive as many have said on this board including myself there is very little if any difference between the two parties.

unless you believe in a working supreme court, a working congress, reproductive choice, equal pay for women....

shall i go on?

So your claiming the Democrats are responsible for us having the Supreme Court? Do you actually consider this thing in D.C a working Congress? Reproductive choice by which I take to be abortion was decided by the Supreme Court not the Democrats in a 7-2 decision. Equal pay for women are your claiming the Democrats accomplished this? If that's the case then all this equal pay for women that the left and the President has been pushing would be bull shit. By the way did you happen to miss the story not that long ago that women who work in this White House are payed less than the men who work there?

 

[SFC Ollie]

On September 9, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Originally proposed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, the Act marked the first occasion since Reconstruction that the federal government undertook significant legislative action to protect civil rights. Although influential southern congressman whittled down the bill?s initial scope, it still included a number of important provisions for the protection of voting rights. It established the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, and empowered federal officials to prosecute individuals that conspired to deny or abridge another citizen?s right to vote. Moreover, it also created a six-member U.S. Civil Rights Commission charged with investigating allegations of voter infringement. But, perhaps most importantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 signaled a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights.


oops


In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.


Oops oops.....

 

[Paperman299]

On September 9, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Originally proposed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, the Act marked the first occasion since Reconstruction that the federal government undertook significant legislative action to protect civil rights. Although influential southern congressman whittled down the bill?s initial scope, it still included a number of important provisions for the protection of voting rights. It established the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, and empowered federal officials to prosecute individuals that conspired to deny or abridge another citizen?s right to vote. Moreover, it also created a six-member U.S. Civil Rights Commission charged with investigating allegations of voter infringement. But, perhaps most importantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 signaled a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights.


oops


In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.


Oops oops.....

Isn't it a little silly to insist that, in Freewill's list of legislation landmarks (wrongly attributed entirely to Republicans, as I pointed out), he meant Eisenhower's toothless Civil Rights Act from 1957, and not Johnson's historic 1964 act which actually ended segregation? They both enjoyed strong Republican support, after all, but at least the 1964 act actually accomplished something.

Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trying to pass off a paragraph from the Civil Rights Digital Library as your own - though I'd certainly be looking at Rand Paul sideways if he was copy/pasting posts on this board and providing no quote box or link. So addressing the CRDL's point, I agree a symbolic act has its importance in history, even if it is just a follow-up on a much more substantial declaration. But we're talking about a law which, even boosted by its sister act in 1960, increased black voting by only 3% in three years. Now does that sound like an accomplishment that should help spur someone to vote Republican?

As to the second piece of your post, this one apparently from conservative blogger Robert "Old Marine" Rohlfing (seriously, though, link or quote these things), I agree Republicans have a strong historical civil rights record. The Republican civil rights platform between 1933 and 1964 has my full support.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, time travelers can't vote. So how is that a reason to vote for the GOP now, fully half a century later?

 

[SuMar]

On September 9, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Originally proposed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, the Act marked the first occasion since Reconstruction that the federal government undertook significant legislative action to protect civil rights. Although influential southern congressman whittled down the bill?s initial scope, it still included a number of important provisions for the protection of voting rights. It established the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, and empowered federal officials to prosecute individuals that conspired to deny or abridge another citizen?s right to vote. Moreover, it also created a six-member U.S. Civil Rights Commission charged with investigating allegations of voter infringement. But, perhaps most importantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 signaled a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights.


oops


In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.


Oops oops.....

Isn't it a little silly to insist that, in Freewill's list of legislation landmarks (wrongly attributed entirely to Republicans, as I pointed out), he meant Eisenhower's toothless Civil Rights Act from 1957, and not Johnson's historic 1964 act which actually ended segregation? They both enjoyed strong Republican support, after all, but at least the 1964 act actually accomplished something.

Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trying to pass off a paragraph from the Civil Rights Digital Library as your own - though I'd certainly be looking at Rand Paul sideways if he was copy/pasting posts on this board and providing no quote box or link. So addressing the CRDL's point, I agree a symbolic act has its importance in history, even if it is just a follow-up on a much more substantial declaration. But we're talking about a law which, even boosted by its sister act in 1960, increased black voting by only 3% in three years. Now does that sound like an accomplishment that should help spur someone to vote Republican?

As to the second piece of your post, this one apparently from conservative blogger Robert "Old Marine" Rohlfing (seriously, though, link or quote these things), I agree Republicans have a strong historical civil rights record. The Republican civil rights platform between 1933 and 1964 has my full support.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, time travelers can't vote. So how is that a reason to vote for the GOP now, fully half a century later?

Why vote Republicans now? Small government.

 

[GISMYS]

SIMPLE!!! Most Republicans are better,smarter more moral people.Most Republicans are pro GOD,PRO STRONG MILITARY,SMALL GOVERMENT,LESS REGULATIONS, anti abortion(murder),anti sexual perversion,anti same sex marrage, ANTI TAX AND SPEND,ANTI CUT AND RUN!!!

 

[whitehall]

Anybody on the left still think windmills and solar panels are the future of American energy while the rest of the freaking world gets rich from the production of fossil fuel? The Chinese just signed a treaty with Russia for fossil fuel. The freaking federal government employs about two million seven hundred thousand civilians working in federal bureaucracies so big that they have lost their initial mission. The VA is a microcosm of what the future in Obamacare will become. The Hussein administration is mired in a dozen scandals, anyone of which would make Watergate look like child's play. The department of education is busy making sure kids know how to put a condom on a banana and feel good about themselves while 70% of 8th graders can't read. Meanwhile the low information left has convinced themselves that republicans are the enemy.

 

[zen]

Who the hell are you to ask me to take my time to answer such a question? Go read some history and current events and look at what BOTH parties have done...but don't bother us...I'm hitting the ignore button on your (probably) paid troll ass...

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Does the fact that I am not a Republican preclude me from offering an answer?

The answer is that we all seek the best representation we can get from our two party system. If, issue by issue, one finds more significant disagreement with one party than the other party, then one is forced to "hold ones nose and vote" for the other party.

Simply because one affiliates with the Republican on their voter registration card does not then require one to listen to Rush radio and horde whatever commodities Glenn Beck commands.

What should someone do if they truly believe that keeping an AR-15 in their home is the only way to ensure the honesty and good faith of our democracy? It is harder to inflict tyranny on a well armed populace. Not impossible, but harder. Such a person cannot very well vote for someone who would ban the AR-15.

The contentions you have with this the recent power structure within the Republican party are due to an increased polarization and a strange demonization of each party's leadership. I cannot say what the cause is. I have read several hypotheses on the subject, but I don't find any one answer satisfactory.

 

[Paperman299]

Isn't it a little silly to insist that, in Freewill's list of legislation landmarks (wrongly attributed entirely to Republicans, as I pointed out), he meant Eisenhower's toothless Civil Rights Act from 1957, and not Johnson's historic 1964 act which actually ended segregation? They both enjoyed strong Republican support, after all, but at least the 1964 act actually accomplished something.

Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trying to pass off a paragraph from the Civil Rights Digital Library as your own - though I'd certainly be looking at Rand Paul sideways if he was copy/pasting posts on this board and providing no quote box or link. So addressing the CRDL's point, I agree a symbolic act has its importance in history, even if it is just a follow-up on a much more substantial declaration. But we're talking about a law which, even boosted by its sister act in 1960, increased black voting by only 3% in three years. Now does that sound like an accomplishment that should help spur someone to vote Republican?

As to the second piece of your post, this one apparently from conservative blogger Robert "Old Marine" Rohlfing (seriously, though, link or quote these things), I agree Republicans have a strong historical civil rights record. The Republican civil rights platform between 1933 and 1964 has my full support.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, time travelers can't vote. So how is that a reason to vote for the GOP now, fully half a century later?

Why vote Republicans now? Small government.

I don't want to sound as if I mean to say there's no reason to vote Republican. I was just pointing out to an earlier poster that some of the legislative accomplishments he listed as his reasons to vote Republican were actually reasons to support Democrats (the Clean Water Act, the EPA, etc).

However, I don't think Republicans have the high ground on shrinking government, either. They give it more lip service, definitely. But Bush, for instance, grew the public sector by 1,748,000 jobs. Under Obama, the public sector has actually shrunk by 738,000 (a fact which, it is worth noting, has dented his unemployment numbers). If he can keep to this trend, Obama will be the only president of the last six to leave the government smaller than he found it:

 

[Iceweasel]

Here is a link to an eHow on registering with the Democratic Party.

Bravo! Funniest post I've seen yet!

 

[bedowin62]

sure fella!1

well for starters Republicans apparently own every corporation on the planet to listen to the loony Left tell it.
and Republicans; despite smaller numbers; are always somehow able to foil the best intentions of so-called "brilliant critical thinkers" on the Left

why wouldnt you want to be associated with such AWESOMENESS?????

LOL

 

[sameech]

I am not a republican, but some of these are easy enough to answer

Here are some specific questions:

1) What have republicans of today done for the middle class?

First, true Americans are not just the middle class-that is a Scotsman fallacy which you are making by implication. Any who, middle class people did benefit from lowered capital gains rates just like wealthy people did. Some people just refuse to participate in the capital markets because they would rather have a new car than a nest egg. Right now, Republican governors in several states have been successfully expanding early childhood education which is why Obama, in his lead from behind way, has recently tried to steal that success by saying "we need to expand early childhood education".

2) If tax cuts are so effective as you claim, why is it that 2x as many private jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8?

I don't know that they have since the current administration considers jobs not lost as jobs created. Nonetheless, the Bush Administration saw an outflow of jobs because of the Clinton trade deals. Hardly Bush's fault that Bill signed 300+ trade deals, including NAFTA and lowering tariffs via GATT/WTO.

3) Corporate profits are at an all time high. Why are tax cuts for the investment class and deregulation necessary? What other republican policies are there that create jobs?

Since the GOP is not in charge and do not have the ability to override a presidential veto, the policies today are not republican policies.

4) How is it the Republican Party not "the party of no"?

The party out of power is often the No party. It is all that they can do, especially when the other side refuses to compromise. John McCain tried to warn the President at the Healthcare Summit that the PPACA would create a system in which one's location would determine their healthcare and that was bad and Obama refused to even discuss it, let alone do anything to stop this unfortunate situation from developing. Obama already had the votes and a commitment to take the deem and pass route and had no interest in even being there other than to pose for the cameras.

 

[SuMar]

Isn't it a little silly to insist that, in Freewill's list of legislation landmarks (wrongly attributed entirely to Republicans, as I pointed out), he meant Eisenhower's toothless Civil Rights Act from 1957, and not Johnson's historic 1964 act which actually ended segregation? They both enjoyed strong Republican support, after all, but at least the 1964 act actually accomplished something.

Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trying to pass off a paragraph from the Civil Rights Digital Library as your own - though I'd certainly be looking at Rand Paul sideways if he was copy/pasting posts on this board and providing no quote box or link. So addressing the CRDL's point, I agree a symbolic act has its importance in history, even if it is just a follow-up on a much more substantial declaration. But we're talking about a law which, even boosted by its sister act in 1960, increased black voting by only 3% in three years. Now does that sound like an accomplishment that should help spur someone to vote Republican?

As to the second piece of your post, this one apparently from conservative blogger Robert "Old Marine" Rohlfing (seriously, though, link or quote these things), I agree Republicans have a strong historical civil rights record. The Republican civil rights platform between 1933 and 1964 has my full support.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, time travelers can't vote. So how is that a reason to vote for the GOP now, fully half a century later?

Why vote Republicans now? Small government.

I don't want to sound as if I mean to say there's no reason to vote Republican. I was just pointing out to an earlier poster that some of the legislative accomplishments he listed as his reasons to vote Republican were actually reasons to support Democrats (the Clean Water Act, the EPA, etc).

However, I don't think Republicans have the high ground on shrinking government, either. They give it more lip service, definitely. But Bush, for instance, grew the public sector by 1,748,000 jobs. Under Obama, the public sector has actually shrunk by 738,000 (a fact which, it is worth noting, has dented his unemployment numbers). If he can keep to this trend, Obama will be the only president of the last six to leave the government smaller than he found it:

Before the presidential election, start with the mid term elections. Clean out the democrats in the senate and maintain the republican majority in the house. Then defund obamacare.

Bush could not reduce government with the democrats controlling house and senate nor could he start a war without their support.

 

[SFC Ollie]

SIMPLE!!! Most Republicans are better,smarter more moral people.Most Republicans are pro GOD,PRO STRONG MILITARY,SMALL GOVERMENT,LESS REGULATIONS, anti abortion(murder),anti sexual perversion,anti same sex marrage, ANTI TAX AND SPEND,ANTI CUT AND RUN!!!

This is true for those Republicans on our level, that is the common voter...Unfortunately many republicans forget this when they get into office

 

[SFC Ollie]

On September 9, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Originally proposed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, the Act marked the first occasion since Reconstruction that the federal government undertook significant legislative action to protect civil rights. Although influential southern congressman whittled down the bill?s initial scope, it still included a number of important provisions for the protection of voting rights. It established the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, and empowered federal officials to prosecute individuals that conspired to deny or abridge another citizen?s right to vote. Moreover, it also created a six-member U.S. Civil Rights Commission charged with investigating allegations of voter infringement. But, perhaps most importantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 signaled a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights.


oops


In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.


Oops oops.....

Isn't it a little silly to insist that, in Freewill's list of legislation landmarks (wrongly attributed entirely to Republicans, as I pointed out), he meant Eisenhower's toothless Civil Rights Act from 1957, and not Johnson's historic 1964 act which actually ended segregation? They both enjoyed strong Republican support, after all, but at least the 1964 act actually accomplished something.

Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trying to pass off a paragraph from the Civil Rights Digital Library as your own - though I'd certainly be looking at Rand Paul sideways if he was copy/pasting posts on this board and providing no quote box or link. So addressing the CRDL's point, I agree a symbolic act has its importance in history, even if it is just a follow-up on a much more substantial declaration. But we're talking about a law which, even boosted by its sister act in 1960, increased black voting by only 3% in three years. Now does that sound like an accomplishment that should help spur someone to vote Republican?

As to the second piece of your post, this one apparently from conservative blogger Robert "Old Marine" Rohlfing (seriously, though, link or quote these things), I agree Republicans have a strong historical civil rights record. The Republican civil rights platform between 1933 and 1964 has my full support.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, time travelers can't vote. So how is that a reason to vote for the GOP now, fully half a century later?

Oh gee I forgot a link.....Shoot me.....
Eisenhower had a Democrat congress that watered down his bill....Do try to tell the whole truth.

 

[bedowin62]

well for starters virtually everything was better when republicans were in charge

 

[NYcarbineer]

well for starters virtually everything was better when republicans were in charge

This from the fuckwit who said in another thread that the Republicans were never in charge.

 

[Paperman299]

I don't want to sound as if I mean to say there's no reason to vote Republican. I was just pointing out to an earlier poster that some of the legislative accomplishments he listed as his reasons to vote Republican were actually reasons to support Democrats (the Clean Water Act, the EPA, etc).

However, I don't think Republicans have the high ground on shrinking government, either. They give it more lip service, definitely. But Bush, for instance, grew the public sector by 1,748,000 jobs. Under Obama, the public sector has actually shrunk by 738,000 (a fact which, it is worth noting, has dented his unemployment numbers). If he can keep to this trend, Obama will be the only president of the last six to leave the government smaller than he found it:

Before the presidential election, start with the mid term elections. Clean out the democrats in the senate and maintain the republican majority in the house. Then defund obamacare.

Bush could not reduce government with the democrats controlling house and senate nor could he start a war without their support.

Actually, Bush never even attempted to shrink the government. The increase in the public sector was what his administration wanted.

“What we have presided over is the security of the nation — the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the fighting of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don’t apologize for the spending needed to protect Americans,” White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said.

“If somebody wants to be critical of those efforts, go for it. Have fun. It’s a silly point to make,” Mr. Fratto said.

...

There has been no repeat of a Sept. 11-style attack on U.S. soil, a fact that may turn out to be one of this president’s enduring legacies.

Of course, after 9/11, increasing and improving national security was a must. But as to your point, that Bush was prevented from trimming the public sector by Democrats, the truth is the Bush administration simply did not believe in shrinking government. And didn't think it would matter to voters either. As Vice President Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter [to the electorate]."

The Bush White House “didn’t focus on spending,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “They didn’t make it a priority. And this predates September 11. It just wasn’t on the list of things they were going to do.”

If you really want to vote in favor of smaller government, it's a Democratic president with the only proven record. If that doesn't appeal to you, maybe you should be voting Libertarian.

 

[Paperman299]

On September 9, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Originally proposed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, the Act marked the first occasion since Reconstruction that the federal government undertook significant legislative action to protect civil rights. Although influential southern congressman whittled down the bill?s initial scope, it still included a number of important provisions for the protection of voting rights. It established the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, and empowered federal officials to prosecute individuals that conspired to deny or abridge another citizen?s right to vote. Moreover, it also created a six-member U.S. Civil Rights Commission charged with investigating allegations of voter infringement. But, perhaps most importantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 signaled a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights.


oops


In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.


Oops oops.....

Isn't it a little silly to insist that, in Freewill's list of legislation landmarks (wrongly attributed entirely to Republicans, as I pointed out), he meant Eisenhower's toothless Civil Rights Act from 1957, and not Johnson's historic 1964 act which actually ended segregation? They both enjoyed strong Republican support, after all, but at least the 1964 act actually accomplished something.

Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trying to pass off a paragraph from the Civil Rights Digital Library as your own - though I'd certainly be looking at Rand Paul sideways if he was copy/pasting posts on this board and providing no quote box or link. So addressing the CRDL's point, I agree a symbolic act has its importance in history, even if it is just a follow-up on a much more substantial declaration. But we're talking about a law which, even boosted by its sister act in 1960, increased black voting by only 3% in three years. Now does that sound like an accomplishment that should help spur someone to vote Republican?

As to the second piece of your post, this one apparently from conservative blogger Robert "Old Marine" Rohlfing (seriously, though, link or quote these things), I agree Republicans have a strong historical civil rights record. The Republican civil rights platform between 1933 and 1964 has my full support.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, time travelers can't vote. So how is that a reason to vote for the GOP now, fully half a century later?

Oh gee I forgot a link.....Shoot me.....
Eisenhower had a Democrat congress that watered down his bill....Do try to tell the whole truth.

Rand Paul! It is you! Please comb your hair.

So first you claim that the Civil Rights Act referenced in the post I was responding to was the 1957 act, and give us a large paragraph extolling all its supposed accomplishments. And when I show you how that act was just bureaucratic juggling and a thumbs-up for the Supreme Court's decision, you claim Democrats gutted it. So what is your position exactly?

As to these Southern Democrats you're rightly deriding, no one can deny the Democrats have a hefty blemish on their historical voting record when it comes to Civil Rights. People like to believe the parties have immutable principles which they've held all through their history, and it ain't so. Their values and goals have changed as the different political coalitions which make them up have changed.

So where, now, are those Southern Democrats we both shake our fists at? They were folded into the Republican party. So if you believe in counting voting records half a century old as still definitive of a political coalition's identity, and you're upset with those Democrats who post-1948 were still not getting with the program on civil rights, then not only have we not found a good reason in this issue to vote Republican; we've actually found a good reason not to.

If civil rights are a strong voting concern for you, you might need this link