Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post

Wow, that was quite an extensive and well researched post. Too bad all that effort only addressed a tongue in cheek jibe. Basically you just spent quite a bit of your time and effort refuting a wisecrack instead of either taking it in stride or offering an equally wise comeback. Seriously, do you actually think that I think everyone from Australia is Paul frickin' Hogan!? Of course not! My comment was a wise crack and not in any way a serious degradation to the educational system of Australia.

My post did address some serious, nearly impossible, decisions the conservative party of the United States needs to make in order to function. Sonna, your tangent was nice and informative, but didn't really address any issues I brought up. The modern republican party calls itself the party of Abe Lincoln, which they were, but they also call themselves the anti-federalists, which Abe Lincoln clearly was not. One entity cannot advocate smaller federal government, while claiming to be in the house of the greatest federalist who ever lived among us. One cannot be for a smaller government and for absolute power of centralized government at the same time.

That's what the modern Republican Party has cornered itself into, a duality of idealogies. On one hand, the republican cares for his family, his community, his state and himself. On the other he weighs his patriotism & country. Neither should falter, but decisions these days are hard. It's often impossible to choose one without sacrificing the other.

Case in point: The War on Terror. Senators McCain and Kyle, and Representative Flake, my representatives in Federal Politics, did not give an up or down, yes or no, on the expenditures in life and treasure attributed to the War on Terror all at once. Instead all of this manipulation was brought about in a series The War on Terror is commencing and I'm expected to pay for it, at great cost and yet my representatives in Federal Government were not given the chance to vote up or down on a declaration. There was no chance to put a green light or red light on any further resolutions, there were only resolutions in succession A declaration was introduced, but didn't pass committee Instead a hundred "resolutions" were passed. These resolutions approved funding, the use of force, etc. However, they did not approve a state of war within this country. We kept living our lives, those of you who weren't deployed, as if it were business as usual. The United States, not for the first time, placed soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in a posture of War without a declaration of the people!

To the recently modern republican party that is patriotic, to the historical one that is unacceptable! To the rest of us, that is downright confusing.

Take all of these events, from 2003 until today and try to reconcile them under the Republican Party's ever wavering platform.

1.) 2003: Invasion of Iraq authorized by the negation of a cease fire agreement, but justified by the failure of the U.N.....the republicans never believed in the U.N. An outside governing force is unpatriotic.
2.) 2004: Iraq has been conquered, Afghanistan is subdued, the Republican Led U.S. government turns up it's "Domestic Terrorist" program. Most republicans say, "What the Fuck?", but the patriot card is played and they are silent.
3.) 2005: We are still in Iraq, G. W. Bush has just announced that we must train our military to be less aggressive, we must teach our military to act as policemen on foreign soil in order to defeat our enemies. Basically, defeating aggressive people with guns is no longer a priority of the military. They must be more civil and less powerful while protecting our freedoms. G. W. himself has said we must teach our Military leadership to build nations instead of destroying them.
4.) 2006: An overwhelming force of democrats, opposed to everything republicans believe in at the time are swept into the congress to stem the absolute retardation that has taken over. Unfortunately they only add untold layers to the retardation and don't really accomplish anything. Yes they are just as stupid as the republicans in power, but don't we want to be better and smarter than them? In any event, a lot of gas is expelled and nothing changes. The debt grows waist deep, program spending is increased, and troops in Afghanistan and Iraq receive more voted upon funding. Any thoughts on a declaration of war are right out the window.
5.) 2007: The primaries are in full swing. Congressman Paul is pointing out that recession is imminent. Guilliani, a gun grabbing liberal from way back, is on the same stage as men like Paul, McCain and Thompson, which is an absolute disgrace. It's clear from the idiots like Romney, Huckabee, and Guilliani, the Republican party doesn't even know what it is anymore. We nominate McCain, because at least he's different, a Maverick that doesn't operate within our own party. Yeah, that says a lot about our own party.
6.) 2008: McCain/Palin is rocking the boat. The economy is in a meltdown, foretold by the ever ridiculed Ron Paul. The republican nominee, who thought America's economy was and will be fine, is supporting measures that will socialize the banking industry forever. The democrat nominee is in lock step with him on this issue. The wars are still ongoing, no one is even mentioning their expenditures or resolutions at any debate, except in lip service, and to be honest everyone expects them to spread, to further detriment of our economy.

Such is the duality of republicanism. If we supported house and home, family and church, we would have just said no to sending our youth to die in a cause not ratified and placed upon the highest priority by every other state (that's what a declaration is). A declaration means we are all on the same page, and Oklahoma boys know good and well that South Carolina boys are pulling just as hard to support them. Instead we get a half assed measure from a half assed split party that can't even decide what it wants to stand for. We get things like damn near, unlimited wiretapping and spying, because republicans believe their patriotism is more important than their family. At the same time, we allow the republican CEO to bail out the banks, because the economy of the country is more important than my families needs.

Republicanism has two faces, individualism and federalism. Pick one or the other, because this half assed absolute patriotic "country first", shafts individualism at every turn, and small government principles don't hold up when our CEO approves a 700bn tax payer funded bailout. Are we individuals who care for our own, live our lives as we see fit, and spend our earned dollars as our families see fit, or are we collectivists who hail the federal government for patriotism sake, live our lives and give our labor to the country to redistribute because it's patriotic.

We won't win this election, and we won't win any election until we reconcile these federalist Vs. individualist tendencies within our party in a form of sustainable policy.