Difference between revisions of "Talk:Republican Party"

Revision as of 03:26, June 28, 2007

F UCK YOU REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F UCK YOU, F UCKING STU PID F UCKERS

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Contemporary Party ==
+F UCK YOU REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+F UCK YOU, F UCKING STU PID F UCKERS
-The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. '''Recently, in what is seen as a slight change in policy direction, the Republican Party has taken on several of the tenets of national socialism.''' "  Go Jesus!!!!!
-This is getting worse than Wiki.....
---[[User:TK|TK]] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
-:FYI: "Wiki" refers to the type of software used. Conservapedia is a "Wiki". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
-LOL...That's the Trouble with being Ernest.  I think people know what I meant.  --[[User:TK|TK]] 20:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
-Shouldn't we put a "criticism" section in the article, like in the Democratic Party article?  Seems to me that would be a fair and balanced approach to the topic.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
-It probably won't matter until someone has reasoned, meaningful criticism to add.  Being as this is Conservapedia, a serious criticism isn't extraordinarily likely to come from a serious contributor... you'd have it largely used for vandalism, or the criticisms presented would probably be deleted in short order.  [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]
-Yes, where is the '''CRITICISM''' section?? I respect that the editors want to slant the information to the right wherever possible, but the misalignment between the two party pages only makes this site look like a farse.
-''I suspect these will probably be removed by nervous conservative moderators. Nevertheless, here a few common criticisms the Republican Party:''
-) The [[Republican Party]] is often jokingly called "pro-pollution" in that they vigorously fight policies on environmental reforms. This is most apparent in the current [[Global Warming]] debates. These positions are due in large part to the party's long-standing ties with the energy sector and their lobbyists. The current president and his vice president, for example, are both former oil company executives.
-:To be fair here: The Clean Air Act(s) were constructed under (mainly) Republican presidents. Ike, (Kennedy/Johnson) Nixon and Bush I.[http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/cwa.htm] The Clean Water Act under Nixon, passed under Carter,[http://www.ametsoc.org/sloan/cleanair/index.html], updated under Bush II [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+33USC1] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 12:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
-) The current administration has pushed the [[national debt]] to record levels due to excessive spending on its highly contentious war. Such practices go against the GOP's standard positions on big government and high taxes.
-*I would love to provide you with answers, but since you didn't sign your post, I can't very well answer no one. --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
-:*I believe that would be [[User:Balancedandfair2| Balancedandfair2]] I only added the "to be fair" part. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 12:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
-== Why such difference between the articles about the democratic and the republican party? ==
-Let's see, in the article about the democratic party, it says:
-"On the other hand, several planks of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's support for the legality of abortion - are contrary to Catholic teaching."
-When talking about some of the democrats being catholic. Why isnt it included here that some republicans think of themselves as catholic, yet the republican party is for the death penalty when the catholic church is against it?
-The overall differences between the articles is just laughable.
-*Well, this is the ConservaPedia....its outlook is announced in its name, no?  One cannot look at either party without seeing the secular agenda of the Democrat platform, which is certainly, according to hundreds of polls, out-of-step with the majority of Democrats out there. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
-== New Deal was a success? ==
-That's certainly news to me.  Most historical analysis has shown that FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression much longer than it otherwise would have been.  Too bad this article is locked so people can't correct the liberal bias in it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
-:Dude. Are you serious? Liberal bias in this article? You're out of your mind if you think this article is anything other than laughably slanted to the right. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 12:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
-== Out of Date Information ==
-Somebody should change the part about Republicans controlling congress to the present day as that isn't true anymore. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 07:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
-== Orphan Republican Primary ==
-I think this [[2008 Republican Primary]] should be linked here, fo example "see also" and end of article or something like that. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 20:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
-== Andrew Johnson ==
-Even though Andrew Johnson was a Southern Democrat, but he and Abraham Lincoln ran the President on the Union platform. I consider him as a Republican President.[[User:DLCAUS462|DLCAUS462]] 18:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
-:Even though this can a beer in my hand is Milwuakee's Best, I consider it Guinness Stout. Wow.  Even though the Volkswagen I drive is a Volkswagon, I consider it a BMW.  Geez, [[liberalism]] and [[relativism]] really does work!  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Republican Party"

Revision as of 03:26, June 28, 2007

Navigation menu

Search