June 12, 2009

Moron Pundit For President: Why I'm Not A Republican

My previous post left questions about why I'm not a Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian so I'll answer these in order.  Today I'm doing Republican (I'm not sure there's enough bandwidth to explain why I'm not a Democrat... I'll probably just list their platform verbatim). 

Oh, I'm going to get some hatemail for this one...

I'll go through the Republican Party Platform and list what I disagree with.  Of course, my BIGGEST beef with the Republicans is that they don't live up to their own platform, particularly in any of the Government Accountability or Fiscal areas but I figure I might as well address what they SAY they believe instead of what I perceive to be the ideological source of their behavior.

Americans hit by disaster must never again feel abandoned by their government.  The Katrina disaster taught a painful lesson: The federal government’s system for responding to a natural calamity needs a radical overhaul.  We recognize the need for a natural disaster insurance policy.

Bullshit.  Populist, cowardly pandering bullshit.  The default Federal position on natural disasters should be to let the state's handle it and, if requested, send appropriate aid. 

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. 

No.  Again, pandering to a perceived majority opinion instead of sticking to your guns.  Once again, it is the weakness and cowardice of the Republican Party that repels me.

Federal research dollars should be spent as though lives are at stake – because, in fact, they are. Research protocols must consider the special needs of formerly neglected groups if we are to make significant progress against breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, and other killers.

I do not generically support any Federal research money.  If tax money is to be spent on research, I'd generally say the States should do it so it can be targeted specifically by those paying for it.  I'll provide a default exception for military research as providing for the national defense is in the fucking Constitution.

Education

Simply, I am opposed to any Federal relationship to primary or secondary education.  I'm also generally opposed to anything except loan guarantees for post-secondary education.  Local and State governments are more aware of their education needs than a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. and that should be where these decisions are made.  No Child Left Behind was okay as far as Federal Education mandates goes but was still a piece of shit because it did the one thing I hate most about the modern federal government:  It demanded the States dance to get Federal funding. 

No mechanism has been responsible for more loss of freedom than the Federal government blackmailing States with funding.  Of course, this would go away if the Federal government would just stop sending money to the states.  Then the Federal tax level could go down and the State level could go up and the spending would be targeted at a more local level AND it would ensure governmental diversity*.

Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families.  We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet.

I think this is just idiotic and pointless.  This is exactly the kind of moralistic nannying I hate from the left.  The Federal government should be worrying about important things, not specifying what methods are acceptible ways to separate a fool and his money.

Ridding the Nation of Criminal Street Gangs

Law enforcement should be a strictly local situation aside from international/interstate threats like kidnapping, organized crime and terrorism.

The human toll of drug addiction and abuse hits all segments of American society.  It is an international problem as well, with most of the narcotics in this country coming from beyond our borders.  We will continue the fight against producers, traffickers, and distributors of illegal substances through the collaboration of state, federal, and local law enforcement. 

Huge waste of time and money while simultaneously giving the statists in both parties an easy excuse to obliterate civil rights of individuals.  No one can deny that the drug was is responsible for some of the most heinous breaches of privacy and search and seizure rights.

I'm not saying legalize it all... but this zero-tolerance "WAR" on drugs needs to be put on the backburner or moved to state law enforcement agencies.  Let each state (or county or city) decide how they want to deal with this and give the money we save to me.

The symbol of our unity, to which we all pledge allegiance, is the flag. By whatever legislative method is most feasible, Old Glory should be given legal protection against desecration.

Meh, I support a much more effective method of deterrance.  I support the classification of flag burning as "fighting words" which will indemnify an assailant from any wrongdoing if he happens to kick someone who'd burning a flag in the balls.

Pro Life Stuff
I don't support any federal activity on this issue whatsoever. 

I support a federal amendment that specifies that the following issues are not in any way effected by the Constitution and therefore are categorized as "reserved to the States Respectively, or to the people" : Abortion, Marriage, Prostitution, Gambling, Education, Intra-state commerce, Unemployment/Welfare Support, Criminal Sentence Requirements, Drug Legality.

WHERE YOU COME IN:

Tell me where I'm an idiot.  Tell me where this won't work.  Tell me where I am wrong about the Republican Position.  TELL ME WHY I SHOULD BE A REPUBLICAN. 

I'm open to convincing.  Bottom line is, I think the Republican Party believes it is acceptible to use the power of the state to enforce their beliefs on others in an attempt to create an ideal end state. 

I don't believe in an end state.  I believe things SHOULD be imperfect and in flux forever, constantly changing and open to change.  Every party, Republicans least of the three, seeks to create a Utopia.  They seek to make government perfect.  They want to make PEOPLE BETTER**. 

 This is where I seriously diverge from most people politically.  I'm not a Utopian (I call them Utopiates).  I think this is all an experiment which has no final solution.  The only way to create a Utopia is to have everyone believe the same things and be working toward the same goal.  I believe the only way to achieve that is through fascism and mass-murder.  People are independent and each different.  If allowed freedom they will achieve a vast diversity of beliefs and talents and success or failure.  That state of randomness is the direct opposite of any utopian ideal I've come accross. 

* - This is a theme that I'll probably need a whole post for.  Diversity as I intend the term implies a diversity of government style, thought, philosophy and results.  Through this diversity we can continue the great experiment of Republican Democracy and continue to advance.  At the moment all law is the same in every state and county, the experiment will be dead and the long descent into totalitarianism will begin.

** - Oh Captain, my Captain Mal.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 09:09 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 1232 words, total size 8 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
20kb generated in CPU 0.01, elapsed 0.0161 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.0086 seconds, 131 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.