I am a Republican because...

[GloriaInEleusis]

So many people seem to have a interpretation of Republicans that is no to me at all what we stand for. So, I'm copying this here in hopes that it might educate a few people.

I am a Republican Because...

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

Furthermore, Dinosaur, I don't know why I believed you and was so quick to doubt myself.

Pratice is a verb and a noun in my language. And I think that on a thread about American politics we could resonably expect to see American English.

'Clinton was a figurehead' of a Republican controlled Senate.

lol. does this mean he was really a Republican President in fact?

It must suck when the other party steals your President or 'your' ideas.

OK, I admit, I'm happy to be rude about flabby thinking.

At least you're being honest about it now. Admitting the problem is of course the first step towards solving it.

Oh please.

Can I ask a question?
Does your party agree with the current situation that allows a young adult to legally buy a gun (sometimes) years before they can legally buy a beer?

My understanding (admittedly from Sky news)is that the young man involved in the mall murders earlier in the week had a gun permit. But legally, he's not deemed responsible enough to buy a beer!

This law will vary from State to State. The drinking age in the US is 21. I believe that in most States you can purchase a gun at 18. He couldn't have just gone in and bought one, there are waiting list and so on.

The Republican party tends to be a bit softer on gun control than the Democrats. I think most of the democrats would like to see guns taken away all together. While this may seem like an ideal scenerio there are alot of problems with it, just one of which is that the right to bear arms that is protected by the Bill of Rights.

I personally believe that more restrictions should be in place, I certainly think you should be at least 21 to own a handgun. I think a gun for hunting is ok at 18. I think that you shouldn't be able to own one if you have commited a crime (this is the case in some but not all states. However I wouldn't think it ok to take away guns from everyone.

"I think you will find many Republicans who agree that George Bush failed to uphold fiscal responsibility."

I'm not just talking about Dubya, though he has squandered an astonshing amount, I'm talking about them ALL. How many times can you keep talking about this party as the party of fiscal responsibility in the face of 40+ years of nothing but fiscal irresponsibility and debt, debt, debt? What does it take to change your mind on this?

"However, you are giving CLinton self proclaimes and undue credit. Pardon the pun. The reson for his apparent success with the budget is largely due to the S & L bailout costing less than originally forecast. and also due to riding on a high economy through the dot com boom (much like Gordon Brown's success as Chancellor)."

Explain this to me please, I don't understand how that could've affected the dramatic recovery. Clinton still added a net gain of $526 billion to the US economy. You can find excuses for Clintons sucess, but history speaks for itself- in his first term Dubya had a net loss of $648 billion, GH Bush had a net loss of $135 billion during his term, Reagan lost $81 billion, Ford $68 billion and so on and so on... Republicans just don't appear to have a track record of fiscal responsibility, despite the rhetoric.

"I do believe that fiscal responsibility is important, but that does not mean that no Republican has ever or could ever violate that belief."

Yeah, truth is, THEY ALL HAVE. Face facts. If you want to vote Republican quit pretending it's about fiscal responsibility because you're flat wrong.

"If we vote in a far right republican to challenge the Democrat, we best be prepared to say President Clinton ---- AARGGGHHHH!!!!"

I am as unhappy as you about a second Clinton for the presidency. Quite apart from anything else, I don't like the dynastic ring to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton on the role call of presidents. I disagree with her centrist, establishment politics and I think that the Democrats need to have some balls and put forward a presidential candidate with some status quo challenging policies and politics. Clinton falls far short of that. That said, I still feel she'd be a better bet than any Republican because they've shown nothing but utter incompetence under the current administration.

I do think a great deal of confusion results from the fact that most government functions are carried out at the state and local level.

The government allocates monies to states to spin these functions off, and states in turn allocate funds to localities, who also have powers to raise revenues in a variety of ways.

Hence, you have many variations from state to state in laws and goverment administration.

PPB, thank you, yes I worked on your side of the pond for a while so know the ages.

I was just wondering if Americans in general consider it a little odd (IMO of course) that you're not deemed responsible enough to buy a bottle of wine for dinner, yet it's ok to buy a dangerous weapon.

I think the drinki9ng age should be lowered to 18 actually. If you are old enough to go and fight for your country you should be old enough to have a beer

Quite!
But then here too there's cause to debate the,
'No taxation without representation!'

What surprised me was that in the US it was rare to find someone who didn't think that socialism was just what communism is called in other countries. Nobody believed me that Tony Blair was a socialist (in theory anyway!)

To go back to the OP, regardless of integrity or individual views, the outside world (certainly Europe) regards the Republicans as ultra right-wing zealots.

Maybe I'm socialising with all the wrong people but I would think most people would know the diffrence between a political system and an ecomonical system. I know that people like to paint Americans as stupid but to be honest I think it says more about the people with whom you kept company than Americans themselves. Having said that Most Americans are very isolated and probably wouldn't know much about the Labor party (Not that knowing much about the labor party would tell you much about Mr. Blair).

as for Republicans being Right Wing Zealots, there are zealots of course, but given that most Europeans are very libral it doesn't suprise me that they approve of a more conservative point of view

I meant to say that of course the majority of them are not zealots.

"Most Americans are very isolated and probably wouldn't know much about the Labor party"

Snort.

Most Americans are so isolated they couldn't tell you where almost any other countries are (unless a 7 o'clock news disaster has befallen one of them)

While it may make you feel smug to think so its just not true.

Oh no, I don't hold with the notion that most Americans are stupid or any such ridiculous generalisations.

I do think that they (you) are perceived to be so because of the isolationist tendencies. The low level of passport ownership for example.

You think?

We lived there for 4 years - if the 7 o'clock news featured an international story we generally fell off our chairs.

I suppose Eye-rarq will feature heavily these days though.

Its true that there isn't alot of International news but that doesn't mean people don't know their Geography.

WW, being isolationist does not equate to being stupid though! Narrow-minded and perhaps xenophobic but no bearing on actual intelligence.

exactly

I didn't say it did - just that Americans are generally very insular and unaware of the rest of the world.

Unpalatable but undeniable (IME)

If you wish to criticize Americans, then you must criticize the human race. Unless you refer specifically to the aboriginies of the country, there is no such thing as a racial American.

One of the major reasons the 'Americans' don't travel much is because they have everything they desire on their own, rather vast, doorstep.

They have deserts and ski-slopes, verdant fields and sea-boards, gambling towns and prurient towns, vineyards and distilleries, hot and cold, black and white, salt and pepper ... an entire cosmos all on one continent.

With regard to the OP, I can understand much of the sentiment ... and the cynicism too.

But one thing I will always advocate (and this is more of a right wing thought process) is less government. We pay through the nose for the feckers in suits of any political persuasion, in any country. Politicians are all a bunch of feckless twunts, and I'd rather not pay for too many of 'em.

By implying that we wouldn't know where most countries were you sort of imply a bad education.