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-78983

Gotta 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.

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.

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.

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.

Haha



I agree with three or more. I don't have an opinion on some.

Edit:

If you had posted this a little sooner...


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

.

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.

(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

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.

I WOULD THINK EVEN oBAMA AGREES WITH 5 OF THOSE.

oopS CAPS LOCK


EDIT. wELL MAYBE NOT

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) WTF
7) I support the sentiment but think the heavy handed way Bush went about it was counterproductive
8) NO.
9) See #2 though I think some level of rationing is unavoidable
10) I really dont care though I think "some" government restrictions are fine (no guns for former felons, waiting periods, must show legal ID, etc).

(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



Agreed...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.

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

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)

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.

Tell that to my wife.

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.

So the Republican party is like marriage? Good luck selling that.

Also, could someone please tell me what #6 means?

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.

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.

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"

I have no problem with this. The whole point of a political party is to defend and promote a specific political ideology. If they allow too much diversity they no longer have a position to defend.

But strategically, I think they should stick to things like #1 and #2, and leave things like #6 which have to do with tactics and not political philosophy out of it. I also think things like #8 weaken their position.

You're right, George Bush didn't go over there and bitchslap them personally, so it's not a valid point for republicans to support. Wow. Remind me again if you're for or against military involvements, and if you're against them, what Bush should have done to stop the proliferation that he didn't do. I hear machmood and kim are super friendly non-lunatics who are completely open to polite suggestions.



Oh, cool. What are the other options to fight Al Qaeda?

As to Iraq, whether it was our job or not, I think deposing a ruler who killed thousands of his own citizens falls on the side of "generally positive". Super deflection though!

Problem is the situation is much more complicated than a simple war where generals would always be the best experts to rely on. Generals are trained warriors and of course want to solve the problems they see with the hammer they have. That doesn't mean its the best way to do so.

I'm for ones that made sense. What Bush should have done was nothing. His saber rattling and cowboy mouth was the problem. Also, sending a dickhead like John Bolton to piss everyone off at the UN. That only pisses off the people on our side. Kim and machmood are egomaniacs. They can be handled.

The other options are to fight Al Qaeda are unlimited. More troops. No troops. Black ops. Diplomacy. Back off and just worry about preventing domestic attacks. Figure out how to secure our ports and borders better. Let the military take a breather from constantly having to occupy hostile areas.

I dont think deposing Saddam was a positive. 100,000 Iraqis died in the process. The country is still in ruins. And there are still 18 other dictators out there.....when are we getting to them? Instead of dealing with Saddam, the people of Iraq will have their strings pulled by Iran for the next 50 years after we leave. There is nothing positive about what happened in Iraq. Nothing. The Iraqi people were forced to trade one hell for another and they get to suffer the indignity of Americans pat themselves on the back for their "generally positive" removal of Saddam. And we did nothing to help the war on terror.

More proof that I could never be a Republican.

I agree, but again I see it as saying let the Generals decide on how and when to use military tactics. It is on the president and congress to decide when and how to end our engagement.

I also agree on this point really not needing to be in there.

Right... so Obama must be better qualified to make these tough decisions........ OMFG

Dear God, I gave you WAY too much credit before, I'm not sure if you have noticed lately, but the UN has been the laughing stock of the Wacko-Psycho community( Ex: Kim J Ill, Iranian Loon dictator) And now, unfortunately because of Obama and his "tough negotiating" policies, the USA is next in line to not be taken seriously at all. Thank God and Liberals for the wussification of America. Everyone overseas sure loves us when we are weak.... hmm... ponder that for a second.

double post, sorry

If it makes you feel better, we never gave you any credit.

Iran is never going to take us seriously in a way. The hardliners think we are the Great Satan. The best thing we can do is stay involved in the UN to keep our allies on our side and let things take their course in Iran. The young people there are fed up with being poor and backward and if we just stay out of it for a while maybe the protests of last election will only be the beginning.

See when they tried to blame us for stirring up trouble in those elections it made them look absolutely ridiculous because every right-winger in America was complaining that Obama was not saying enough about it. What the GOP wants to do feeds right into Ahdminajed's hands. It lets him point the finger at the US and blame us for their economic squalor. Sometimes, the right thing to do is nothing.

Of course, to people like you who think they are tough but are actually mentally weak lost souls who think the most important thing is how tough America looks to shitholes like North Korea and Iran (seriously, our country is so much better than theirs I dont give a flying **** what they think about us. living here is not perfect but it is pretty great. Living there sucks monkey balls. Why do you guys care so much about perceptions? It's like a bunch of Jewish mother hens.) All that matters is what works.

The idea that we are weak is insane. If we felt like it, we could wipe either country off the face of the Earth in ten hours. if they want to delude themselves, that is their business. We don't need to engage in macho, dick-swinging posturing with a bunch of nobody countries still looking for their first nuclear weapon. It just feeds their propoganda.

Every time I hear a conservative talk about possibly emboldening the terrorists I cant help but feel that guy probably has a tiny penis and a sweet convertible.

I don't really like convertibles. But I do have a SUV.

Honestly, this is about the most intelligent post I have seen from you, congrats, the problem is that we could never do this above because of folks and leaders like you. Every insane wacko understands this as well. Unfortunately, from now on, with every war we fight... we will not just be fighting the war on the ground, we also must fight the PR war as well... and thus far, the Public Oppinion war seems the toughest to win. There is no doubt that we could very well wipe most places off the face of the earth, but with leaders such as Obama in charge, this has become an extremely empty threat. I am not saying that we should do this, but it would sure be nice knowing that we actually would if we needed to. Do you think that Ahmedinejad or Kim Jung would ever be afraid of this??? No way in hell. We are busy trying to negotiate with them. And as far as you talking about feeding their propaganda... what do you think these new absurd trials that will be happening by "Ground Zero" will do? Your beloved administration somehow thinks this is a good idea? You have gotta be fist f'ing me. Again, I do give you credit for at least making some valid points in this post.

Jesus Christ at the defense of marriage act. I don't even want to talk about the other points.

Really, Republican party, you consider that to be one of your ten most important points in general? Domestic, international, yadda yadda, of all the things you could talk about, refusing to allow fags to marry is in your top 10?


According to wikipedia, this is the defense of marriage act, summarized:




Regarding point 2, since when are "man" and "woman" completely separate, with no overlap? What about a man who has a sex change and becomes a woman, biologically. That person could then only legally marry a biological male, right? Well what if he hasn't had his snip-snip yet? What if a male and female get married, and then one of them undergoes a sex-change operation. Does that nullify their marriage?

What about hermaphrodites? Sucks to be them? (I mean yes, it probably does, but do we also have to ban them from marriage on top of all the other problems they no doubt have to endure)?


Seriously republicans, why in God's name do you care about homo-marriage? It's beyond preposterous - it's hateful and discriminatory. It's even perhaps worse than the old ban on interracial marriage, because at least people were honest about the reason for it: good ol' fashioned racism, plain and simple. Most people who support a ban on gay marriage, in my experience, pretend to not be discriminating against gays, but instead insist that the ban on gay marriage is to "protect the sanctity of marriage," which, to re-use a phrase, is beyond preposterous. The sanctity of this, really?!






Sanctity: noun: 1 : holiness of life and character : godliness
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

I think the trials are great. If the American justice system is so great, it should easily be able to handle open and shut cases like the 9/11 terrorists. If the American military is so great, they can handle transporting terrorists. Again, why are Republicans such scaredy cats? We are going to prosecute them out in the light and show the world how great the rule of law is and how great our criminal justice system is. Even terrorists like these scum get a real trial.

And then, we administer the death penalty which AG Holder is seeking. What's the problem again? Other than some alarmist bullshit like "oh no, the terrorists will be near the scene of the crime!" If anything, it should be New Yorkers on the jury putting these bastards to death. I think that is poetic justice.

also, nothing has happened that makes me think Obama would not use force if pushed. He had the marines jack those pirates. Again, the best course right now seems to be let the Iranians hang themselves. I thought the way he handled the Iranian election protests was masterful. He did such a good job that Iran was forced to bitch more about England than America. Now, if only I could travel back in time and convince Obama not to get bogged down in the Everglades swamp of healthcare.

All I can say is, you're very, very, almost laughably wrong... even libs like Chris Matthews agree. We don't have to prove to anyone ESPECIALLY TERRORISTS how great our legal system and military are. Also, you didn't respond to the first half of my post.

trying to watch an NFL game here. I dont care what Chris Matthews says. There is no downside in my mind to giving these guys trials. There is nothing wrong with letting New Yorkers get to sentence these guys to death. Doing things the right way is what the good guys do. I dont mind bending the rules sometimes but I see no reason not to do what Holder is doing. Like you said the PR is as important as anything.

This is the same alarmist whining that convinced people that supermax prisons could not be used to hold terrorists.

It's Obama's decision to make, he is commander in chief.

The question is who should be consulted in making the decision. My point is simply that listening to military leaders is bound to give you a military solution to the problem. In a complicated situation like this you really need to also consult political scientists, historians, cultural anthropologists, diplomats, etc. A general's advice isn't right by default, because this isn't a "war" in the traditional sense.

100 bucks is a bet.

LOL on the other part.

there is a lot of truth in this comment.

if that happened we wouldn't have a bet. Our governement getting involved with healthcare is the largest event in any of our life times. It will make 911 look like a hang over. It will cost us untold amounts of money, it will be abused to levels never dreamed of before, out kids and our grandkids will get screwed forever.....unless it can be defeated somehow.

The good news is that when the full effect of the healthcare costs start to kick in it will be the Democrats package and they will suffer the downfall...and start 20 years of conservative leadership.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassifie...not-guilty.aspx

QUOTE

'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose': In 9/11 Case, KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty

Michael Isikoff

Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

At least that's the way the system usually works.

How is that for American Justice????

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes ...

Okay. I support those thing as well, I guess, when they're presented in a vacuum. It's not too much of a statement (though it seems difficult at this point to promote both smaller debt and lower taxes, but whatevs.

... by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

Nope. Lost me here. I supported and support Obama's stimulus, and most economists agree with me on that.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

Not exactly sure what this means. I mean, a "market-based" solution would mean getting the government completely out of any health care decisions, and no republican has even come close to suggesting this (save Ron Paul, obv).

And Obama's plan isn't government run heath care, and it's funny that Republicans think that it is. Obama's plan in about insurance. If you want government run health care, go to England.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

ie we don't support doing anything about global warming or having the government fund alternative energy. Good call, guys.

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

I really don't know what this means. But it sounds good, I guess. DOWN WITH CARD CHECK!

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Sticky issue. I'm not sure there are many who oppose legal immigration. I'm not sure there are many who are for full amnesty. This argument often becomes dumb fast because people choose to selectively ignore reality and any sense of practicality and pragmatism. Meh.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

I supported the Iraq surge. Obama is about to announce a 30,000 troop Afghanistan surge. I'm not sure that I support that (in my mind, Afghanistan is a black hole, and our presence there should be limited to special forces and drone strikes on the Paki border).

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

Containment? Really? Welcome to 1967. "Containment" leads to the Vietnam war. I support intelligent solutions to Iran and North Korea, which in particular means not grouping them together in stupid ways (there about as different of countries as you can get). Also, isn't North Korea pretty well "contained" on it's own? I mean, you can't get in or out of that place. It's a total nightmare. Iran, on the other hand, is much more liberal in many areas than people realize. A large fraction of the (male) population is well educated and pro western. We need to cultivate that, not "contain" it. Blah.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Die. kthanks.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

So, Republicans don't support government health care, but they don't support health care rationing? So, they fully expect all people to go out and spend their own money without any consideration for the price? Yeah, that'll drive prices way down. Who needs death panels? It's much easier to sentence nearly all of the elderly who can't afford their own medications out of pocket to death in one pen stroke. Easy peasy.

I'm not touching the abortion thing.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

Guns don't kill people. Crazy people kill people. Guns just make it easier for those crazy people to kill lots of people fast.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0665832850.html



Additionally, we had to disclose how we compiled the list. We could track and tap their cell phones. Guess who immediately stopped using cell phones?

Once it becomes a war, the hammer thing is the only way to solve it.

Pretending that Washington can sit down every Tuesday morning and pick the bombing targets that will make the most people happy, while not angering someone else and ignoring reality has already been tried in Vietnam.

It's results should have been burned into our national psyche and that method should never be tried again.

Ever.

If the politicians fail, and war begins, then go all out and win. No holding back, no stupid rules of engagement.

It's not the soldiers job to die with their hands tied behind their backs because politicians have failed at their jobs.

At least it shouldn't be.

As far as the 'Contract With America II', it is about time the republicans found a central voice.

If they hold on to these points and shout them from the roof tops, and hold to them...they will sweep 2010 and 2012.

I am slightly optimistic more from fear of how bad things could get without something to stop the Pelosi/Obama stupid sandwich being forced down our throats, then from confidence in the ability of republicans to stay focused.


And silly democrats, getting all upset about what the republicans want to do. The alternative is to join the democrat party, what in the world makes you think we should all agree on everything? I mean you act like the republicans are declaring jihad on your stupidity ( which they might be ) instead of realizing that democrats and republicans are different types of people.

Republicans want all people to succeed by teaching them to fish

Democrats want to feed you the fish they take from a republican so that you become dependent on them for fish.

Plus republican women are way hotter. By a factor of at least 6, maybe 7.