Agree With All 10 Of These Or You Cannot Be A Republican

[CaneBrain 97]

And you guys think the Democrats are the ones trying to tell people how to think? This is just sad.http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...rns/#more-78983Gotta love this guy. 'We welcome diverse views....except on these 10 important subjects." So much for the big tent. Glad to see they managed to keep "discriminate against homosexuals" in at #8.

[Sal Paradise 57]

it says "three or more."

[CaneBrain 97]

it says "three or more."

I didnt get that far I was so disgusted. Still. I think you can only support 4 of those and be a great republican. Actually, I dont even want to get into that. This is just weird.I am going to blame CNN for burying the 3 or more part which is fairly important. Lousy, biased msm.As a start, they should just try to commit to #1 when they are in power. because somehow they never can.

[El Guapo 10]

I'm not sure with what you are saying. I pretty much agree with all of those. I am guessing most people that post here do.

[Sal Paradise 57]

yeah I mean I don't know what 4 is, and I don't support 8, but the rest are all fine with me for the most part (not super jazzed about the military ones, but pretty much agree). and I don't even consider myself a republican.

[JoeyJoJo 20]

it says "three or more."

Haha

I'm not sure with what you are saying. I pretty much agree with all of those. I am guessing most people that post here do.

I agree with three or more. I don't have an opinion on some.Edit:If you had posted this a little sooner...

yeah I mean I don't know what 4 is, and I don't support 8, but the rest are all fine with me for the most part (not super jazzed about the military ones, but pretty much agree). and I don't even consider myself a republican.

I could've just said "this" or "QFT" or "^^^." You know, something that indicates I feel the same way.

[strategy 4]

.

[CaneBrain 97]

I'm not sure with what you are saying. I pretty much agree with all of those. I am guessing most people that post here do.

I'm saying the idea that a political party is setting up strict guidelines for inclusion seems counter-productive to me.Also, most people that post here are part of the Republican base. This is basically the biggest 10 GOP talking points. You could call them the Palin points. Some of them are also empty. We support victory? What does that even mean? Not to mention that #7 keeps getting worse the more we let Republicans handle the situation. And #2 and #9 seem to be basically the same.Maybe this is less troubling and more.....stupid.

[dapokerbum 0]

(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 healthcare;(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, 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; and be further

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Just to be clear:RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; Meaning, you must support at least 7 of the 10 principles.

[colonel Feathers 5]

I WOULD THINK EVEN oBAMA AGREES WITH 5 OF THOSE.oopS CAPS LOCKEDIT. wELL MAYBE NOT

[CaneBrain 97]

I WOULD THINK EVEN oBAMA AGREES WITH 5 OF THOSE.oopS CAPS LOCK

maybe not the two that mention him by name.for me:1) Yes, although some stimulus bills have merit.2) Yes, though I prefer a real libertarian approach and not what the GOP wishes to do.3) No, I dont trust polluters to police themselves.4) No.5) No.6) WTF7) I support the sentiment but think the heavy handed way Bush went about it was counterproductive8) NO.9) See #2 though I think some level of rationing is unavoidable10) I really dont care though I think "some" government restrictions are fine (no guns for former felons, waiting periods, must show legal ID, etc).

[akoff 0]

(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 healthcare;(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, 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; and be furtherAgreed...I must be Republican. Not real high on on #6 but we are kind of in to deep to leave...cept for BHO. He is gonna talk to them some more.

[Sal Paradise 57]

I love how he didn't turn the caps lock off even after he posted that he had it on.

[akoff 0]

maybe not the two that mention him by name.

Which are 2 of the most important on the list...which is why he is going to be a 1 term president (small p for small man)

[El Guapo 10]

I'm saying the idea that a political party is setting up strict guidelines for inclusion seems counter-productive to me.

I am just going to have to vehemently disagree here with you. A political party is supposed to set up strict guidelines as to show the direction they are trying to achieve for their constituents. This has been the problem with the Republican party for the better part of a decade. They had not basis for their decisions. They were all over the map.What they have done here is set up basic blue print that the majority of their party should follow. You don't have to agree 100%, but you should agree with most, if not you are not a republican. Seems pretty straight forward to me, and a breath of fresh air.If over time, the parties overall thoughts, based on their constituents beliefs, change; then these points can change as well. (<--- that's a lot of commas)

[CaneBrain 97]

I am just going to have to vehemently disagree here with you. A political party is supposed to set up strict guidelines as to show the direction they are trying to achieve for their constituents. This has been the problem with the Republican party for the better part of a decade. They had not basis for their decisions. They were all over the map.What they have done here is set up basic blue print that the majority of their party should follow. You don't have to agree 100%, but you should agree with most, if not you are not a republican. Seems pretty straight forward to me, and a breath of fresh air.If over time, the parties overall thoughts, based on their constituents beliefs, change; then these points can change as well. (<--- that's a lot of commas)

I think having to agree 80% of the time is a lot.

[El Guapo 10]

I think having to agree 80% of the time is a lot.

Tell that to my wife.

[CaneBrain 97]

Which are 2 of the most important on the list...which is why he is going to be a 1 term president (small p for small man)

100 bucks? you guys will do something stupid like run Palin.also, only a truly small man would think not capitalizing the word president in a lame post on a poker wesbite is a dig.

[CaneBrain 97]

Tell that to my wife.

So the Republican party is like marriage? Good luck selling that.Also, could someone please tell me what #6 means?

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

I'm saying the idea that a political party is setting up strict guidelines for inclusion seems counter-productive to me.

I prefer a party actually say what it believes in, at the very least in broad terms. The constitution wouldn't be particularly effective if it just said "Hey, at least we're not England!". I also prefer honesty to "We have a very specific agenda that we don't really talk about openly because it flies in the face of common sense and hundreds of years of basic economic priciples, so we're campaining on a platform of trying to make everyone happy!"

Also, most people that post here are part of the Republican base.

... No. We had a huge quiz thread and the basic result was that most people tend to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate or liberal. I would say there's more of a libertarian base here than anything, you just like classifying anyone who thinks Obama is making poor decisions as a republican.

This is basically the biggest 10 GOP talking points. You could call them the Palin points.

Palin is, in fact, a republican. She would probably agree with all of these points. So would Kay Bailey Hutchison (Senator from Texas). Can we call them the Hutchison points? Are you ever going to get tired of using Palin as the offhanded punchline in everything you don't like? Because one person you don't like agrees with something does not make it a bad idea. George Bush didn't like Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean that mean he owns that point of view and anyone who shares it is George Bush?

Some of them are also empty. We support victory? What does that even mean?

It means the idea of continuing a fight without the correct support seems like a bad idea, so our options are to concede and give up on fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or get the troops in there to get the job done so we can be done. I use the royal we for America here.

Not to mention that #7 keeps getting worse the more we let Republicans handle the situation.

What does THAT even mean?

And #2 and #9 seem to be basically the same.

While somewhat duplicitous, I empathize. It's hard to put into one sentence all of the things that are horrible with Obamacare.

Maybe this is less troubling and more.....stupid.

right back at ya

[CaneBrain 97]

I prefer a party actually say what it believes in, at the very least in broad terms. The constitution wouldn't be particularly effective if it just said "Hey, at least we're not England!". I also prefer honesty to "We have a very specific agenda that we don't really talk about openly because it flies in the face of common sense and hundreds of years of basic economic priciples, so we're campaining on a platform of trying to make everyone happy!"... No. We had a huge quiz thread and the basic result was that most people tend to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate or liberal. I would say there's more of a libertarian base here than anything, you just like classifying anyone who thinks Obama is making poor decisions as a republican.Palin is, in fact, a republican. She would probably agree with all of these points. So would Kay Bailey Hutchison (Senator from Texas). Can we call them the Hutchison points? Are you ever going to get tired of using Palin as the offhanded punchline in everything you don't like? Because one person you don't like agrees with something does not make it a bad idea. George Bush didn't like Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean that mean he owns that point of view and anyone who shares it is George Bush? It means the idea of continuing a fight without the correct support seems like a bad idea, so our options are to concede and give up on fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or get the troops in there to get the job done so we can be done. I use the royal we for America here.What does THAT even mean?While somewhat duplicitous, I empathize. It's hard to put into one sentence all of the things that are horrible with Obamacare.right back at ya

I was referencing the Daily Show with the "Palin Points" comment. It's funny, you should check out the clip. During the Bush years, Iran and North Korea made more progress on gaining nuclear weapons than during any other 8 year stretch. Not hard to follow. You do not list all the options there are to fight Al Qaeda. That is the problem with a empty, hollow bullshit statement like we support victory and more troops. What is victory? There has never been a Republican who will actually answer that question. What were we trying to accomplish in Iraq? Did we accomplish it before deciding (under Bush) to leave? Somehow I doubt we did much of anything positive.They just were having trouble getting to 10. So that's how they got #9 in there. It's ok. 10 is a good round number.

[El Guapo 10]

So the Republican party is like marriage? Good luck selling that.Also, could someone please tell me what #6 means?

6 basically means - we want to win this war and we are going to listen to the experts (the generals in charge) to give us direction.

[CaneBrain 97]

6 basically means - we want to win this war and we are going to listen to the experts (the generals in charge) to give us direction.

And yet even those generals cannot properly answer the question:What would winning this war constitute? it would be great if we figured out that question first. because the first time we listened to the "experts" we ended up in a country (that we thought was linked to 9/11 but was not) looking for WMDs (that were not there) and decided a year in that we would settle for toppling one of the 19 bad dictators in the world and hanging up a banner. The surge worked fairly well in tamping down violence.....but it did not do much to further the original goal.Some of that was a massive intelligence failure. Some of it was lashing out at a convenient target. None of it actually helped the war on terror. We need to re-think everything about how we fight this "war" because invading Muslim countries and seeing what happens has not produced ANY results so far. And a nice start would be abandoning empty garbage like we support victory. If retreat is the best option given the facts, then we should support retreat. I feel like I need to send a copy of the The Art of War to every GOP politician.

[El Guapo 10]

And yet even those generals cannot properly answer the question:What would winning this war constitute? it would be great if we figured out that question first. because the first time we listened to the "experts" we ended up in a country (that we thought was linked to 9/11 but was not) looking for WMDs (that were not there) and decided a year in that we would settle for toppling one of the 19 bad dictators in the world and hanging up a banner. The surge worked fairly well in tamping down violence.....but it did not do much to further the original goal.Some of that was a massive intelligence failure. Some of it was lashing out at a convenient target. None of it actually helped the war on terror. We need to re-think everything about how we fight this "war" because invading Muslim countries and seeing what happens has not produced ANY results so far. And a nice start would be abandoning empty garbage like we support victory. If retreat is the best option given the facts, then we should support retreat. I feel like I need to send a copy of the The Art of War to every GOP politician.

You cannot go back 8 years and change this. What I take from the one line statement is, "we are politicians, not military experts, we will let them figure out the best way to get out of this"