Alright, I admit I can't adequately answer all your questions. You'll just have to accept that in my answer(s). My post will undoubtedly be biased as I'm in the conservative wing of the Republican party. I am a Bible-believing Christian as well, which I think transcends any allegiance to a political party. Oh yeah, and I still cheer for the Cubs so factor that into what you may call "blind faith". That being said, I'll attempt to give as much clarity as to what I want the party to be, and try to balance it with what I think it actually is.
bedub1 wrote:Is it the tea-party that wants to shrink government?
Partly. I believe that most of the tea party people have left the Republican party and become independents. They're tired of having to choose between entitlement spending increases (Dems) and small rates in spending reductions (Repubs). They're told by the GOP that if you elect us we'll cut spending, only seeing them cave in as soon as the mainstream media labels them as uncaring. Sure, there's a tea party element within the Republican party, but I think most of them are leaving, with a wait-and-see approach to see how much actual action they'll take in fulfilling campaign promises of less spending.
bedub1 wrote:Is it OWS that wants equality for the common man?
Definitely not. Even the moderate wing of the Republican party does not believe in dictated equality of results.
bedub1 wrote:Is it the religious right that wants the bible to be the constitution?
I object to the characterization unless you're willing to add the 'religious left' into the conversation. What most Bible-believing Christians want (if they're politically involved at all) is an adherence to natural law. We believe the Declaration of Independence outlines that in its basic 3 categories of God-given rights...life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And no, we don't think that pursuit of happiness means being allowed to do whatever you want in whatever way you wish. American culture/society will never be perfect, but an adherence to the principle of natural law allows others who don't share my exact interpretation of the Scriptures to still be grateful that these rights are naturally given, and it's government's role to protect them. It also motivates others who don't share my exact Biblical Christian worldview to preserve/conserve that principle. The moderate wing is probably not interested in this issue, and most likely embarrassed to discuss it in the terms that I've used.
bedub1 wrote:Is it the bigots that wants to take away peoples rights?
This is so broad and biased how could anyone give a serious response to it? I'm assuming that you're referring to homosexual marriage or abortion. Your question also assumes that whoever the "bigots" are, that they are subject to your definition.
bedub1 wrote:Is it the ron pauls that want equal rights?
There's definitely a libertarian element that's more focused on American not being involved in foreign affairs any more than absolutely necessary as part of our national interest and/or defense. I disagree with them, but they are within the party. My personal belief is that it's more rooted in a cult of personality towards the man himself than what he stands for, but then I'm projecting my own bias into why they like him so much. Their main concern is stopping spending, and getting government out of the business of being a referee on social issues. Not all, but many.
bedub1 wrote:Is it the rmoney's that want to f*ck over the 99% to make the 1% richer?
I think all the different elements of the GOP would disagree and take issue with your premise on this. What I believe is that dictated equality of results can't be achieved is futile. What I don't like is having the top income earners demonized and automatically being labeled as hostile to 'the poor'. They pay more than their 'fair share' in helping society. I believe the best way to get more people off the government dole is to offer the incentive to keep more of what they earn through work. I believe that work is dignified and to be preferred over a perpetual position of dependency to the state [through entitlement programs]. The moderates and conservatives probably agree on this one. Example of what I believe is harmful to the human spirit through dependency.
bedub1 wrote:Is it the angry/scared people that wants to take over the world with a larger army?
I don't want to take over the world, and I think the moderate wing doesn't either. We have enough problems dealing with governing ourselves. Your question also assumes (argues from omniscience) that the motivation for wanting a strong military is based on fear. The best way to contain dictatorships and other types of ruthless regimes is to force them to think twice about attacking us or our allies through military force - not what I like, but it needs to be a reality that they'll suffer a military response if they attempt to intimidate. What I would like to see is peaceful world, but knowing my Bible and believing in its prophecies, I know that ultimately all human efforts at this will fail.
bedub1 wrote:Is it the NSA people who want to watch your every move?
Well maybe, there's a huge element of the Republican party that likes Sting & The Police. There's really no reconciling this between conservatives and liberals because they define interrogation techniques differently, and government's role in protecting vs. providing. Conservatives like myself probably see the NSA people like Jack Bauer, and the liberals probably see them as the govt. agents from V For Vendetta
bedub1 wrote:Whatever happened to personal responsibility and compassion for your neighbor?
It's always been there. We (actually I, but you know what I'm saying) reject the left's general definition of both terms. Personally, I believe it is wrong to encourage class envy (and yes, I define this 'unfairness' charge as class envy) against those who are risking their capital to provide a good or service in the attempt to make profit. To me, true compassion is providing a temporary safety net for those needing help. Unfortunately, government entitlement programs have become too much of a breeding ground for perpetual dependency. It robs people of their God-given natural right to find dignity through earning profit and pursue the happiness of keeping the property that they've acquired through hard work.
I do think that the moderate wing of the Republican party would only partially agree with me on that point. They think that entitlement programs need to be run more proficiently and executed properly for them to work correctly.
That's the best you're going to get from me anyway. I had time to post, and most of the games I've watched on TV today are boring blowouts because the replacement refs are gone, unable to change the outcomes (teasing guys). It's been awhile since I really wrote anything anways. You should join us, Bedub. We're proud of our first nominee, Lincoln, and are making a major push for him to be included in the next Avengers
movie since he's already been known to kill vampires. Any photoshop geniuses want to try to insert Lincoln in that group? Saxi?