Do you support safety, education, and a good economy?
I am on the list of the Republican National Party because of my relationship with the OU College Republicans. I receive mailings pretty frequently asking for donations and encouraging me to be a good Republican. I will clarify my political affiliation:
I have Republican printed on my voter's registration card. In the state of Oklahoma, our primaries are closed. So, if you want to vote in the primaries, you have to vote for a particular party. Rarely in Oklahoma does anyone run outside of the two major parties. So, am I a Republican or a Democrat? Well, I think the lottery is stupid. I support more fiscal responsibility and less government involvement in individual's lives, and I believe that the Republicans are more that way than the Democrats. In Oklahoma, Republicans have been very smart in working to protect the rights of Home Schoolers, while Democrats are still trying to understand why anyone wouldn't want to give more money to Public Schools. I've volunteered for the Republican Party in many elections, even if the candidate does not perfectly match my views because I like volunteering. As long as I keep my views about homosexuality, the war on terrorism, Republicans' actual record of fiscal responsibility, and the No Child Left Behind act to myself, I'm good to go. I think Democrats are just as flawed in their positions on the above issues (save, maybe, for gay marriage), but then I disagree with them on Abortion, on Iraq, on taxes, and many other things. Without a doubt, this is a "lesser of two evils" situation, but I'm not even sure I'd call it evils. I believe that both sides are guinuinely interested in protecting the American way of life, but have different ways of policy-making on how to do so.
Anyway, I received a "Republican Party Census" with 18 questions about major political issues. Of course, on must fill out the form and return it with your donation or with $11 "to cover the cost of tabulating" the survey. Well, I start to read some of the questions, and I begin laughing. Are people really paying $11 to let the Republican party know their opinions on these "issues"?
Do you support President Bush's initiatives to promote the safety and security of all Americans? Yes or No or Undecided. You've got to be kidding me. No, I only like initiatives that promote the saftety and security of some Americans. Or, heck, let's eliminate safety and security altogether. How about a real question like "Do you support the PATRIOT Act?" or "Do you support the right of the U.S. Government to indefinitely detain and/or to torture prisoners who are believed to be terrorists or associated with terrorists?"
Do you continue to support increasing the amount of security at airports, train stations and all government buildings including monuments and museums? Yes or No or Undecided. Damn it, do they not understand that some people just like that terrorists have easy access to killing large numbers of people all at once? I mean, seriously, who is really going to say "No" to this question unless that have some concept of what kind of increased security we're talking about here. Even then, you'd have to come up with a really stupid suggestion to make this sound like a bad idea.
Do you support President Bush's pro-growth policies to create more jobs and improve the economy? Yes or No or Undecided. lol! No! If we don't have poor people and unemployment, what the hell else can we argue about? Improving the economy... who would think of such an absurd idea?
Do you think Congress should focus on cutting the federal budget deficit by reducing wasteful government spending? What?!? The government has wasteful spending!?! My God, this changes everything!
Do you support President Bush's plan to make our schools more accountable to parents and restore local control of education? No, as we've seen with the CIA and Guantanamo Bay , accountability is a bad idea. I mean, the truth might come out and that's just not good for anyone. And, wait a second, the President of the federal government is going to give education back to local control? What, by federalizing a system of accountability? This is so much more confusing than I anticipated.
Should students, teachers, principals and administrators be held to higher standards? Higher standards? And then our children might actually be expected to learn something! Heavan forbid! They might go out and get jobs and improve the economy!
Do you agree that teaching our children to read and increasing literacy rates should be a national priority? Oh my God, I can almost not joke about this anymore... Is there a single person in the world that disagrees with the above statement?
Do you support President Bush's initiatives to allow private religious and charitable groups to do more to help those in need? No... Charitable groups should be kept from being charitable, or at least under some circumstances.
Do you support the President's effort to save Social Security for future generations? I thought we covered the economic security thing? I mean, if old people aren't dieing because they can't afford to buy food, then really, what else can fill in the gap on slow news days? And wasteful spending, too! There's nothing like knowing that all those taxes we paid for so many years could just waste away to nothing.
Do you think U.S. troops should have to serve under United Nations' commanders? I'm not entirely sure I understand this question: Do you mean that in times where the UN and the U.S. are working militarily in the same area that under no circumstances should an American soldier serve under a UN commander? That the US will make it a policy to never have cooperation with this international organization militarily because we make it policy to never have our troops under UN commanders? Or that every U.S. troop should be obligated to follow the orders primarily of the UN commanders? That UN military policy dictates U.S. military policy? There is no "Yes" or "No" answer to this question, but I am definitely not "undecided" about my opinion on this issue.
Should the U.S. continue work on building a defense shield against nuclear missile attack? No! I like waking up every day and thinking, "Ah, today could be the day the world comes to an end." I mean, it takes away the suspense. Seriously, though, apparently this is a trickier issue than we thought. I had someone tell me we were under a treaty that disallows any nation to build a nuclear defense shield. The idea is that no single nation should have a defense against nuclear weapons over other nations. I just don't get it... The idea is that nuclear weapons are bad, right? If we build a nuclear defense shield, then we are removing the affectivity of nuclear weapons, right? So, wouldn't be a better deal to say, "If you make one, you have to share it." Then, rather than simply disarming with an uncertainty whether or not there is another nuclear missile floating around somewhere, we would have a defense system that could protect any population on earth from the possibility of a nuclear missile attack.
But, like I said, it removes the suspense. ::rolls eyes::
Final question:
Do you support the election of Republican candidates across the country and rebuilding our majorities over the next ten years? After questions like these? Oh, geez, it's a good thing I'm moving to France.
I have Republican printed on my voter's registration card. In the state of Oklahoma, our primaries are closed. So, if you want to vote in the primaries, you have to vote for a particular party. Rarely in Oklahoma does anyone run outside of the two major parties. So, am I a Republican or a Democrat? Well, I think the lottery is stupid. I support more fiscal responsibility and less government involvement in individual's lives, and I believe that the Republicans are more that way than the Democrats. In Oklahoma, Republicans have been very smart in working to protect the rights of Home Schoolers, while Democrats are still trying to understand why anyone wouldn't want to give more money to Public Schools. I've volunteered for the Republican Party in many elections, even if the candidate does not perfectly match my views because I like volunteering. As long as I keep my views about homosexuality, the war on terrorism, Republicans' actual record of fiscal responsibility, and the No Child Left Behind act to myself, I'm good to go. I think Democrats are just as flawed in their positions on the above issues (save, maybe, for gay marriage), but then I disagree with them on Abortion, on Iraq, on taxes, and many other things. Without a doubt, this is a "lesser of two evils" situation, but I'm not even sure I'd call it evils. I believe that both sides are guinuinely interested in protecting the American way of life, but have different ways of policy-making on how to do so.
Anyway, I received a "Republican Party Census" with 18 questions about major political issues. Of course, on must fill out the form and return it with your donation or with $11 "to cover the cost of tabulating" the survey. Well, I start to read some of the questions, and I begin laughing. Are people really paying $11 to let the Republican party know their opinions on these "issues"?
Do you support President Bush's initiatives to promote the safety and security of all Americans? Yes or No or Undecided. You've got to be kidding me. No, I only like initiatives that promote the saftety and security of some Americans. Or, heck, let's eliminate safety and security altogether. How about a real question like "Do you support the PATRIOT Act?" or "Do you support the right of the U.S. Government to indefinitely detain and/or to torture prisoners who are believed to be terrorists or associated with terrorists?"
Do you continue to support increasing the amount of security at airports, train stations and all government buildings including monuments and museums? Yes or No or Undecided. Damn it, do they not understand that some people just like that terrorists have easy access to killing large numbers of people all at once? I mean, seriously, who is really going to say "No" to this question unless that have some concept of what kind of increased security we're talking about here. Even then, you'd have to come up with a really stupid suggestion to make this sound like a bad idea.
Do you support President Bush's pro-growth policies to create more jobs and improve the economy? Yes or No or Undecided. lol! No! If we don't have poor people and unemployment, what the hell else can we argue about? Improving the economy... who would think of such an absurd idea?
Do you think Congress should focus on cutting the federal budget deficit by reducing wasteful government spending? What?!? The government has wasteful spending!?! My God, this changes everything!
Do you support President Bush's plan to make our schools more accountable to parents and restore local control of education? No, as we've seen with the CIA and Guantanamo Bay , accountability is a bad idea. I mean, the truth might come out and that's just not good for anyone. And, wait a second, the President of the federal government is going to give education back to local control? What, by federalizing a system of accountability? This is so much more confusing than I anticipated.
Should students, teachers, principals and administrators be held to higher standards? Higher standards? And then our children might actually be expected to learn something! Heavan forbid! They might go out and get jobs and improve the economy!
Do you agree that teaching our children to read and increasing literacy rates should be a national priority? Oh my God, I can almost not joke about this anymore... Is there a single person in the world that disagrees with the above statement?
Do you support President Bush's initiatives to allow private religious and charitable groups to do more to help those in need? No... Charitable groups should be kept from being charitable, or at least under some circumstances.
Do you support the President's effort to save Social Security for future generations? I thought we covered the economic security thing? I mean, if old people aren't dieing because they can't afford to buy food, then really, what else can fill in the gap on slow news days? And wasteful spending, too! There's nothing like knowing that all those taxes we paid for so many years could just waste away to nothing.
Do you think U.S. troops should have to serve under United Nations' commanders? I'm not entirely sure I understand this question: Do you mean that in times where the UN and the U.S. are working militarily in the same area that under no circumstances should an American soldier serve under a UN commander? That the US will make it a policy to never have cooperation with this international organization militarily because we make it policy to never have our troops under UN commanders? Or that every U.S. troop should be obligated to follow the orders primarily of the UN commanders? That UN military policy dictates U.S. military policy? There is no "Yes" or "No" answer to this question, but I am definitely not "undecided" about my opinion on this issue.
Should the U.S. continue work on building a defense shield against nuclear missile attack? No! I like waking up every day and thinking, "Ah, today could be the day the world comes to an end." I mean, it takes away the suspense. Seriously, though, apparently this is a trickier issue than we thought. I had someone tell me we were under a treaty that disallows any nation to build a nuclear defense shield. The idea is that no single nation should have a defense against nuclear weapons over other nations. I just don't get it... The idea is that nuclear weapons are bad, right? If we build a nuclear defense shield, then we are removing the affectivity of nuclear weapons, right? So, wouldn't be a better deal to say, "If you make one, you have to share it." Then, rather than simply disarming with an uncertainty whether or not there is another nuclear missile floating around somewhere, we would have a defense system that could protect any population on earth from the possibility of a nuclear missile attack.
But, like I said, it removes the suspense. ::rolls eyes::
Final question:
Do you support the election of Republican candidates across the country and rebuilding our majorities over the next ten years? After questions like these? Oh, geez, it's a good thing I'm moving to France.
posted by Jesi E. at 3/22/2006 02:00:00 PM
5 Comments:
This is a very good reason to only trust opinion poll results when you have read each question. And, this is also the reason Glenn Beck's evil conserative t-shirts are so funny.
The ABM treaty was a bilateral agreement between the USSR and the US in 1972.
The far left democratic Congress of the late 60s and early 70s solidified the US defense policy, as one of Mutually Assured Destruction. These wackos felt the best defense ensuring that if 100 million Americans die...100 million Soviets will also die. President Nixon pushed for an expansion of the ABM program in the US which was previously only capable intercepting a small number of missiles; the measures passed by one vote in the senate but was subsequently gutted financially. The idea of ABM has been controversial ever since.
With the arms race over, with Russian ambitions and motive derailed, and the proliferation of WMD to every crackpot nation and their grandmothers...this should be a non-issue. For the first time in the 60 years, the US could have the realistic ability to entirely defend itself from a missile threat; for the first time in those decades the death of any Americans due to missiles is unnecesary.
As far as a world solution...homeostasis in a world protected by American designed ABMs, and no nuclear missiles would only work until one nation secretly builds an ICBM that evade the ABM system...and then everyone is screwed. In a world where America holds the moral high-ground, or is at least still semi-free...a balance of power is not in her favor. There are no balances in nature or in state power.
This is something we didn't learn following WWI..we were to busy unlearning the last 100 years. Following WWI the US emerged as the dominant world power on a scale that had not been observed for hundreds of years in the west. We were unopposeable; world war II and all Cold War related conflicts would never have come into fruition.
Yet in the name of diplomacy we submitted to the whims of demolished western european states, and imposed punishment without hope on the German people. We siphoned taxes into Europe to rebuild it, we carried on inflationary and self-destructive economic policies in order to float the failing European central banks (the cause of the great depression), and militarily disarmed as the rest of the world was showing an opposite trend.
Just as the Europeans complain that a US ABM system, a US defense policy seperated from Europe, will hurt Europe, and distabalize the "balance".
I need to quit typing or I will go on forever. What as my point? I was going to talk about the "lesser of two evils" but missiles got me excited. Tomorow.
Ridiculous questions, no doubt.
Something I noted, I've been to France several times, going back in May as a matter of fact... I find it interesting why Americans find France as utopia. They have all the problems we do, unemployment is slightly over 20%, labor laws with severe protesting in the streets. If I were you, I'd visit before a commitment to move - unless this is a class type situation and not permanent.
Fat and Happy, I was referring to the concept of whether or not I would be supporting the Republican party over the next 10 years. If I'm living in France, my political activism on the American front will go down significantly.
No, trust me, in no way do I think that the French situation is better than the Americans. I appreciate that there is no death penalty, and they were right about Iraq. On the other hand, they have a funny way of pissing off their Muslim population on a daily basis, they can't seem to get their economy in order, and their social system is something that I believe hampers their growth in technology, medicine, and other sciences. At least, it hampers it in a way to keep the population from enjoying the degree of services we in the U.S. take for granted.
I'm already in pain thinking that I may only get to use the internet once or twice a week while I'm living there. Back to the stone age of rummaging through library catalogues for research and actually having to show up to your professor's office hours to talk to them. ::shivers::
France right about Iraq? What? Let me first say that I doubt any nation or citizenry truly understand the issues that are none the less being confronted haphazardly in Iraq.
I am interested to know what you mean. I know you've been seriously contemplating the Iraq matter in the last few months.
Post a Comment
<< Home