The shrubs home state GOP platform and what you may be voting for...

[WDWHound]

We oppose the Endangered Species Act.
Agree, see my post above

The Party supports repeal of all Motor Voter laws; re–registering voters every four years
Agree

The Party opposes any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.
Agree, but ALL religions and beliefs should have access to this right. I would fight a Christian only interpretation of this.

The Party supports the immediate adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States of America. While encouraging fluency in additional languages by all citizens, no governmental entity shall require any agency, contractor, business, or individual to publish public documents in a language other than English.
Agree. Most other countries do this. I don’t see the problem. One language just makes communication easier.


The Party views any form of desecration of the American flag as an outward act of disregard for our nation and its people and advocates penalties for such acts.
Disagree. I STRONGLY disapprove of flag desecration, but would fight for someone’s right to do so.


The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation.
Disagree. While I feel this is true, such a statement has no place in politics or government.

The Party believes that capital punishment should be swift and unencumbered.
Well, it should at least be swifter and more unencumbered. The murderer of my wife’s uncle is still awaiting the carrying out of his sentence, 10 years after he was found guilty. However, care should be taken to insure to innocent may is ever executed again.

The Party recognizes that addictive drug, alcohol, and pornography use is dangerous and affects all sectors of society.
Agree. I have no problem saying this, however I still feel the war on drugs has been mostly wasted money.

We call upon the Texas Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws.
Hmmm, I'd have to think on this. I feel that many people enter into marriage too lightly and that costs society in the long run, but I'm not sure if this is the right approach to solving the problem.


The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders.
Oh c'mon now. Homosexuality is against my beliefs too, but whets that got to do the a political platform? Government should keep its nose out of this.

The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy.
Disagree. Just why should government care?


The Party believes that pornography is repulsive, addictive and
Contributes to deviant criminal behavior.
Hmmmm, I'm not a fan of the stuff myself (though I have no problem with a picture of an attractive naked lady, tastefully done), still I think this is pushing it a bit.

We urge the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
I'm still 50/50 on this one. I believe we don't yet know when life starts, so I think many people to easily disregard the possibility that they might be committing murder when getting an abortion, but I do understand the other side as well. Given the split on this in our country, I suppose it’s reasonable to have this in a platform.


The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress.
Agree for the most part (though I think learning disabilities and infectious diseases belong in the ADA)

We favor strengthening our common American identify and loyalty over the ideology of multiculturalism that emphasizes differences between racial and ethnic groups.
Agree. We are a Americans, not something hyphenated with Americans. You can still embrace your culture and consider yourself an American first.

The Party supports the termination of bilingual education programs.
Agree, but you must provide a way to get the students up to speed in English as fast as possible. Don't just let them sink or swim.

The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations.
I wish we could. I see the UN as worse than useless. However, this would be a really stupid thing to do at this time in terms of global politics.

 

[peachgirl]

I find it amusing that people are okay with the government marrying them and following the laws set forth, but when it comes time for resolving the dissolution of a marriage, the government cannot set forth its rules.

As far as I know, you don't have to provide a reason to get married, you shouldn't have to provide the government a reason for getting divorced.

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Whatever happened with the blind cave spiders? I remember that one from the DB.

I haven't heard much about it lately. I assume the are still there and still blind, but the highway construction moving forward at a rapid pace. I'm guessing that effort to block construction on their behalf failed.

Actually, the big problem for ranch owners around her is endangered birds. If a spotted ow or a certain thrush (cant remember the exact breed) is found on your land, you pretty much lose all rights to develop your land as you wish, but reciieve no compensation for the lost rights.

 

[brerrabbit]

I am a Texan as you can see from my profile at the left. I am also a conservative. I do not agree with all the ideas presented in the Republican Platform. However, I do agree with more than I disagree. The original poster took the "Party Platform" from the Texas Republican website but later did not post the link to the site. Fortunatley someone else did. If you have time go look at the site and read it. Read the whole thing, not just the sound bites originally presented. To many people in America today are willing to see or read little bits an pieces of information that someone else edits for them. We are so set in our beliefs that we spend little or no time actually understanding each others positions. That is espcially true on these boards because to present a full discourse of the facts and positions would take far to much time, effort and server space. I don't agree with everything the Texas Republican Party presents in it's platform. However, I find agree with more in theirs than I do with the Democrats Platform. Politics is all about comprimise. The founding fathers understood that and intentionally designed the system that way.

The moral of the story is do not try to use the Texas Repbulican platform to dismiss George Bush as I will never try to use the Ma. Democratic State platform to dismiss John Kerry.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by brerrabbit
The moral of the story is do not try to use the Texas Repbulican platform to dismiss George Bush as I will never try to use the Ma. Democratic State platform to dismiss John Kerry.

By all means, please DO judge John Kerry by the Mass. platform:

Mass Dems Party Platform

I haven't read through the entire thing word for word, but from what I see, there's certainly nothing in there to be ashamed of (as there most certainly IS in the tripe that started this thread).

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by lucky_bunni
If these are the ideals our country is headed for, I guess I'll be applying for Canadian citizenship someday...

Then you wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes 250 years ago.

 

[treesinger]

DP.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I'm sorry, but when contained in a document that also contains this quote...:



...your attempt to justify their position just falls completely flat. That may be what you believe, and why you believe it (and I don't have a major problem with that stance, btw), but it's not how it comees off in that document. You're simply giving them the benefit of the doubt in regards to their intentions, something I'm not willing to do with any politician, let alone the Texas Repugnican Party that spawned our current "president".

You hit it on the head. I take the words for what they say. I take it to mean that cutural identity will not be unencouraged. Rather, I see it as encouraging people to focus on similarities rather than differences.

BTW, do terms such as "repugnican" and "spawned" really add anything to the conversation?

 

[brerrabbit]

I find nothing overtly offensive in the Platform you provided a link to. As I found nothing overtly offensive in the Texas GOP Platform. I find things I disagree with in both sites. However, the differences are why there are two parties (major parties, we all know there are more) Given my views I agree with more of the GOP's than the Dem's. However I do not now nor ever refer to the positions as tripe. I see them as differences of opionions and views. Thats what makes me greatful to be American. We can hold our own beliefs and have open honest discussion of them. Hopefully without taking the discussion to a personal level by bashing candidates. I am not one who believes that Bush walks on water while Kerry slithers on the ground. Both have good ideas and hopefully well founded beliefs that are meant to better our nation. In the end I just happen to agree with more on the right than I do with those on the left. But I refuse to get into a bashing contest about either one.

Do your research, determine who aligns more closley with your vision for America and cast your vote. But try as hard as you can to not fall into the negative campaign tactics of BOTH parties.

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by peachgirl
As far as I know, you don't have to provide a reason to get married, you shouldn't have to provide the government a reason for getting divorced.

Exactly.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by Saffron
treesinger ... just an aside ... I don't speak a word of Chinese, but I know if I were to walk up to someone who only spoke Chinese, whose house was on fire, I would understand the universal launguage of pointing at a burning building and making rocking motions to indicate a baby or "stacking motions" to indicate little children and how many. Something else had to be going on at that fire in Philly with people who did not speak English. (Which I don't remember at all).

It's kind of like the universal gesture for choking. I don't have to speak Chinese to know a Chinese person is choking. Etc. etc.

It is easy enough to lose your composure and your head if you children are in a burning building. I agree that it is easy enough to communicate something like "choking" or "baby". I think there is more to the story and there is an ongoing investigation last I heard. Perhaps that was a bad example.

Let's change it. Let's say one person has legitimately threatened to shoot another. The threatened person finds a police officer who doesn't understand. The best the person can do is make "shooting" motions. The police arrive there and see no crime committed and further cannot ascertain any threat because of the language barrier.

Or, God help you if you are Arab, taking pictures of a nuclear power plant for a school project or something, get stopped by security AND DON'T SPEAK A WORD OF ENGLISH. The possibilities are endless, really.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by treesinger
You hit it on the head. I take the words for what they say. I take it to mean that cutural identity will not be unencouraged. Rather, I see it as encouraging people to focus on similarities rather than differences.

What do you think the words mean, then ? We're not going to teach your children in their language, so they'll have to learn ours (and fall behind until they do). What does the quote I provided actually say, then ? Is it just empty rhetoric ?

Originally posted by treesinger
BTW, do terms such as "repugnican" and "spawned" really add anything to the conversation?

Ya' know, I'm getting pretty tired of the complaints of Bush supporters about how he is addressed. When Vice President Crashcart can go an entire press conference without lying about John Kerry, and when Bush can go an entire day without one of his moles lying about Kerry's record, I'll start being more careful about how I refer to him.

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Then you wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes 250 years ago.

I, for one, like to move forward, not backward. I am forever grateful that I was not born 250 years ago, as are most people, I believe.

 

[jrydberg]

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by KristaTX
hmmmm. . . . . interesting .

LOL! You crack me up!

 

[treesinger]

Originally posted by wvrevy
What do you think the words mean, then ? We're not going to teach your children in their language, so they'll have to learn ours (and fall behind until they do). What does the quote I provided actually say, then ? Is it just empty rhetoric ?

Its a matter of interpretation, really. I take a literal interpretation. You take the interpretation and what it might mean if taken further. If it were to be taken further, meaning active suppression of extra-culture, I would agree with you 100%. I don't think the platform position takes it that far, however.

Ya' know, I'm getting pretty tired of the complaints of Bush supporters about how he is addressed. When Vice President Crashcart can go an entire press conference without lying about John Kerry, and when Bush can go an entire day without one of his moles lying about Kerry's record, I'll start being more careful about how I refer to him.

I'm not making excuses for either side. I don't think name calling or ad hominem attacks reflect well for either side. Myself, I prefer to set the bar a liitle higher, lead by example, and refrain from trying to put down anyone.

It would be easy enough to put you down, truly. I disagree with you on just about every issue that there is to debate. At least, that's my experience so far. But I also know that you are an intelligent person. What good would it do to insult you? What does it add to the debate?

Myself, I think it debases me to participate in such a way. I think it detracts from any point I wish to make. I think that people will stop taking me as seriously because it will look like I'm led by ideology rather than informed opinion.

While I don't think the same of you despite the name-calling you use towards the right, I think I am in the minority. And that's unfortunate. I'd rather we all respectfully disagree and stop with making the issues personal.

 

[Chicago526]

We oppose the Endangered Species Act.---Okay, I can see the point of some of the previous posters about a single land owner being prohibited from delveloping their land because of an endangered critter that happens to live there. But to scrap an Act that has saved thousands of animals, including this country's symbol, the American Eagle, over a small side effect of the Act, is just stupid in my opinon. Change it a little to allow for some common sence, sure, but don't repeal it!

The Party supports repeal of all Motor Voter laws; re–registering voters every four years---This seems like a state issue for Texas, so I won't comment.

The Party opposes any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.---Sorry, but religion (of any kind) has no place on display in the halls of government. It isn't needed, and you're free to worship and display symbols on private property. Isn't that enough?

The Party supports the immediate adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States of America. While encouraging fluency in additional languages by all citizens, no governmental entity shall require any agency, contractor, business, or individual to publish public documents in a language other than English.---While I agree that imagrants should make every effort to learn English, and that the government should not cater to foriegn language speakers in general, I don't see how this law would change anything. And emergancy services MUST be provided in other languages, when practical. Can you imagine trying to call 911 and not being able to get help because none of the operators speak spanish? I've been told that people forget their own address in an emergancy, you think a non-native English speaker is going to remember how to congigate a verb when their kid is chokeing to death?

The Party views any form of desecration of the American flag as an outward act of disregard for our nation and its people and advocates penalties for such acts.---While I feel there are better ways to protest, I feel this is a freedom of speach issue and any law would be un-constitutional, anyway.

The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation.---Ummm....okay.....?

The Party believes that capital punishment should be swift and unencumbered.---Hey, if the guy is guilty why not? Oh wait, maybe he didn't do it.....If the whole court system is overhauled to prevent inocent people from being sentanced to death, I'd be all for this. But in IL, half of those on death row (6 out of 13, I think) were found to be inocent and eventually released from prison. Good thing it isn't "swift" in this state!

The Party recognizes that addictive drug, alcohol, and pornography use is dangerous and affects all sectors of society.---Okay, drugs and being addicted to alcohol I can see, but how is porn dangerous?

We call upon the Texas Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws.---Sorry, but if I don't want to be married any more, it's no one's business as to WHY except mine.

The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders. ---Our nations founders didn't see fit to give women the right to vote or own property or businesses in their own names, either, so I don't think I'll take their word for it on this issue. If you feel it's wrong, that's fine but don't force your values on others, thanks!

The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy. ---See above

The Party believes that pornography is repulsive, addictive and
contributes to deviant criminal behavior.---This only applies to child porn. Consenting adults can do as they please. Oh, and didn't the Texas legislature try to pass a $10 per person "cover charge" on strip joints to help fund education? I could be wrong but I seem to remember this in the news a few months ago.

We urge the reversal of Roe v. Wade.---Oh, I've got so many arguements against this that I'm not even going to bother. Next!

The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress.---I didn't know "homosexual practices" were included in the ADA. As for the rest, sorry but I feel those are all valid.

We favor strengthening our common American identify and loyalty over the ideology of multiculturalism that emphasizes differences between racial and ethnic groups.---Nothing wrong with being patriotic, but this is a bit too much for me. We should embrace our cultural diversity WHILE ALSO celebrating being Americans. This sounds like we should forget where we come from.

The Party supports the termination of bilingual education programs.---They want everyone to speak English but don't want immagrant kids to learn it in school??????

The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations.---Okay, I'm not a huge fan of the UN at the moment, but pulling back from the UN will do more harm than good in the long run. We need other nations as much as they need us, and the UN helps to influance other nations to our points of view, too.

Sorry, but I'll vote for Kerry and the Dems! If you agree with the Reps. platform, that's fine-I'm not judging you. But I just don't get how a party that is for "less government because the people know how best to govern themselves" can also be for poking their noses in to marragies, same-sex relationships, and doctors offices because the "poor imoral sinners don't know any better". But hey, what do I know?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by treesinger
Its a matter of interpretation, really. I take a literal interpretation. You take the interpretation and what it might mean if taken further. If it were to be taken further, meaning active suppression of extra-culture, I would agree with you 100%. I don't think the platform position takes it that far, however.

Granted....But again, why put that plank in the platform if it is nothing more than rhetoric, with no intention of doing more about it ? And again, how do you differentiate between "long term" multi-lingual instruction and "short term" ? At what point are the children of immigrants going to be forced to try to tread water with kids that have been speaking the language their entier lives ?

Originally posted by treesinger
I'm not making excuses for either side. I don't think name calling or ad hominem attacks reflect well for either side. Myself, I prefer to set the bar a liitle higher, lead by example, and refrain from trying to put down anyone.

That's fine, and I think John Kerry is doing just that. However, the president and VP most certainly are not doing so, so why should I ? I'm not running for public office, nor am I asking anyone to vote for me. I'm engaging in political debate on a public website.

Originally posted by treesinger
It would be easy enough to put you down, truly. I disagree with you on just about every issue that there is to debate. At least, that's my experience so far. But I also know that you are an intelligent person. What good would it do to insult you? What does it add to the debate?

First of all, I doubt seriously you could "put me down", as I have quite a bit more going for me in the self-respect department than what some yahoo I'll likely never meet says about me on a public message board. That said, were you to insult me personally, I would simply refer it to the board administrators, since that kind of thing is against board rules.

Originally posted by treesinger
Myself, I think it debases me to participate in such a way. I think it detracts from any point I wish to make. I think that people will stop taking me as seriously because it will look like I'm led by ideology rather than informed opinion.

Anybody that's actually read my posting knows that I'm not just going on "idealogy", unless they simply are accusing me of it because they believe differently. If I don't know enough about a subject to have what I would consider to be an informed opinion, I'll say so. I see absolutely NO difference in my posting here from the left and someone like Hannity broadcasting to millions of people from the right.

Originally posted by treesinger
While I don't think the same of you despite the name-calling you use towards the right, I think I am in the minority. And that's unfortunate. I'd rather we all respectfully disagree and stop with making the issues personal.

Let me make this clear, other than one repugnant poster I've gone around with on here, I have never ONCE insulted someone on this board personally. Yes, i've attacked their positions on various topics, but that does NOT constitute a personal attack. My use of terms like "repugnicans" has been explained before...it refers to a certain select group of people on the idealogical right, NOT ALL REPUBLICANS. That select group would be the hypocrites that accuse Kerry of "flip flopping" while ignoring the same from their candidate. It includes the people that have never ONCE given any reason to vote for Bush, but are ever-ready with an attack on John Kerry, usually false.

I'm sorry, but the whole thing (complaining) strikes me as a diversionary tactic when people can't back up their arguments. Could I get a better response by dialing down the rhetoric when disagreeing with them ? Maybe, but I doubt it. There are any number of posters on here with whom I respectfully disagree most of the time (jrydberg comes immediately to mind), but that strike me as willing to listen to reasoned argument that they disagree with. Those are the truly enjoyable exchanges for me, whether one of us bends a bit towards the other's stance or we simply agree to disagree.

I think people just need to get it through their heads that disagreement is not a "personal attack".

(Sorry for the long post...just thought all that needed to be said)

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Then hey, here's a thought.....Why not try to find things like that out before you buy the property ?

I would be nice if you could check before you buy, but thats not how it works in reality. In many cases, animals were declared endangered after the purchase. In some cases (mostly envolving birds), the animals set up shop on the land after the purchase. In a whole lot of cases, the land was owned before there even was an endangered species act. Also, there are many rather obscure endagered species out there. It is often prohibitively expensive to check for them all, but there are envirnomental groups that would be happy to spend the money to do so if they oppose the development of your land.

As I already said, I have no problem with the concept of the endangered species act,. I simply feel that if a person is forced to give up the rights to develop their land and face a loss in value on that land in the name of preserving animals, than he should be compensated for his loses. Its not fair to force someone to give up so much for the good of society without being compensated for that society

Oh...wait....You're not saying the Republicans are worried about protecting the consumer are you ? That'd be a first. Not a chance...This doesn't have anything to do with an individual buying land to build a house, it has to do with corporations overdeveloping wilderness areas in their immense greed for the almighty buck, completely heedless of what damage they may do to the wildlife in that area.

What an interesting and completely inaccurate assumption. Yes, their are some corporations who lost their rights to this, but they have almost always been able work out a compromise. Its the little guy, who you so blithly demise, who is getting screwed here. What avbout his rights. Oh, sorry, I forgot your priorities. Better to just assume that its all about protecting corporations than to do something to help the private land owners who's rights were tampled, Right? See my next post to find out just how many little guys are effected.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by WDWHound
I haven't heard much about it lately. I assume the are still there and still blind, but the highway construction moving forward at a rapid pace. I'm guessing that effort to block construction on their behalf failed.

Actually, the big problem for ranch owners around her is endangered birds. If a spotted ow or a certain thrush (cant remember the exact breed) is found on your land, you pretty much lose all rights to develop your land as you wish, but reciieve no compensation for the lost rights.

I'm a bird person, lol! I wonder if it has to be a nesting area for more than one bird? Some birds nest in the same areas when others don't all nest togethor. Some are tree nesters where others may nest in or on structures. It is very interesting. Sometimes for endangered birds wildlife groups will build the type of nesting structure that will attract them.

I watched the most interesting special on endangered species on the nature channel the other day.

Anyway I'm not even going to deal with the issue on "homosexual view, etc". I don't feel like getting annoyed.