Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jaxian Regarding the speech, it seems absurd to commend the republicans of today for the actions of republicans of the past. Some republicans in the past may have supported freedom, but by punishing people with minority sexual orientations, by preferring the majority religion, by supporting increases in censorship, by engaging in a war on drugs, and by many other actions, many Republicans today certainly do not.
If one is to be proud of voting for republicans today, let him state the accomplishments of those republicans. Of what relevance are the accomplishments of long-dead republicans whom history has grown to look favorably upon? There should be no doubt that virtually every Democrat also supports the ideals of those republicans. The only way to determine which party supports freedom today is to look at the actions of those parties today. Freedoms won in the past do not excuse freedoms denied in the present.
That speech brought up only one present-day issue where Republicans are supposed to have supported freedom to a greater extent than Democrats: bringing Democracy to Iraq. But it should not be forgotten that there are many countries without democracy and without freedom, yet we would be horrible to bring democracy to every such nation in the same fashion which we have brought it to Iraq. We brought democracy through war, through the murder of thousands. I do not mean to claim whether those deaths were worth freedom, only that there are two sides to this issue, and that while we may have increased the freedom of some people, we have stripped the most important freedom, the freedom to live, from many others. One's stance on the Iraq War is hardly a clear-cut indication on where he stands on freedom and civil liberties.
And let us not confuse democracy with freedom, for although we certainly brought democracy to Iraq, I question whether we have brought freedom. It seems to me that even freedoms so simply as the freedom of religion were compromised in Iraq. What we have brought may have been more freedom, but I do not consider it enough.
The speech ends by suggesting that the "Republican commitment to civil rights and individual freedom undergirds our policies of limited government and peace through strength." But I have to question this. Are there more than four issues on which Republicans support more civil rights and individual freedom than Democrats? If so, why not list those issues? And what does it mean to say that Republicans support peace through strength? Doesn't this claim follow the claim that Republicans used war to impose freedom on those without it? For consistency's sake, wouldn't it make more sense to say that Republicans support freedom through war instead of peace through strength? |
Minority Sexual Orientation - the desire of a few to have sexual relations with a few. So tell me, should we now legalize rape, bigamy, polgamy and pedophilia? Those are the only sexual orientations that our party seeks to punish. Do not confuse puinishing with the denying or recognition, they are two different things.
Majority religion. The Republican party does not belong to one religion, however, we do and will continue to support religion over no religion.
Which increase in censorship have we supported. I recall no efforts by anyone to deny someone their speech. If holding someone accountable for what they say is censorship, well, that is really stretching it don't you think.
The war on drugs was started to stem the tide of the destruction caused by the use of drugs. Crime, prostitution, and poverty. Like it or not, this things lead to the further decline of a society. We have seen the effects on inner city neighborhoods where drugs ran rampant. Today they remain eyesores, where the law-abiding citizens live in fear, because the criminals control the streets.
And just what freedoms have been denied today. Time and again people talk about the denying of civil liberties, and time and again they can show none that have been denied.
You may question whether or not we have brought freedom to Iraq, but the simple fact remains that today in Iraq, athletes who lose sporting matches are not being tortured, those who speak against the government are not being jailed, tortured, or killed. There may be violence in Iraq, however, the violence stems not from the democracy that is trying to be grown, but rather from the terrorist who wish to see Iraq as a theocracy governed by the 4th Century tenets of Islam. A country where religious freedom is denied, a country where woman are subservient to men, where they must cover their faces, not look a man in the eyes, not leave the house without a man, and not speak to a man unless the man first speaks to them.
Peace through strength still means the same today as it did when Ronald Reagan first began use of the term. We will not sacrifice our freedom by allowing our military to decline. We will use force when necessary to secure the liberty we have always had. In the case of Iraq, yes we used war. But if the use of war is wrong, then too it must have been wrong during WWII when we freed the European continent from Hitler. Or is it only wrong now? For if that is a case, what racist view of opposing oppression you have.
The speaker in the speech only address four issue mainly because of time constraints. As he has said, the calendar has been issued with 365 days and 365 events, but even a single year, and 365 days are not enough time to list the achievements the party has stood and accomplished. Unlike the democrats, we can and remain proud of our past. Unfortunately the same can not be said of them, for if they are proud of their past that means that they are proud of slavery, Jim Crow, and the many other sins that we are so quick to turn a blind eye towards, to embrace their anti-War, anti-Bush mantra of today.
dmk