Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Republican Party

2009-07-21T11:28:30Z

Concernedchris: /* 2009 */

== Contemporary Party ==

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". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 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:''

1) 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]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

2) 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]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 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.

*I agree...and it did make me laugh!

Democrats: "Views and Criticism"

Republicans: "Ideology" {{unsigned|Plutoisstillaplanet}}16:07, 8 April 2008

*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)

Seriously, TARS (Teen Age Republicans) consider Andrew Johnson as a Republican. [[User:DLCAUS462|DLCAUS462]] 17:21, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey, iwant to, why can i not edit this page when i can edit the democrats?

== Supporting Slavery ==

someone correct me if im wrong, but was the democratic party not the conservative party of the 1860's? and why isnt that mentioned anywhere? [[user:bushgreatorgreatest]] 14:27, 22 July 2007

*If you have the citations and information, feel free to edit it in! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:48, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism ==
I think this article should include an idology/criticism section similar to that on the [[democratic party]] page since the republican party is not free from criticism either. {{unsigned|Wikidan81}}

== A Question ==

Why is the Christian Right aligned with the Republican Party? And why do these Christians knock Socialism? Jesus taught ideas close to socialism and would not agree with many Republican policies. {{unsigned|Probus1}}
: I'm an Aussie and not sufficiently familiar with the American parties to comment directly on them, but the Bible supports the idea of private property and reward for effort, ideas that socialism is at odds with. Yes, the Bible teaches ideas that are superficially similar to socialism, but as I once saw an atheist (I think it was) writer say, the difference between socialism (or was is communism?) and Christianity is that socialists force everyone to share, whereas the Bible teaches us to share because we love. That is, of course, a very simplistic comparison, but I think that's the key to the answer to your question. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:45, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Presidential Dominance==
I do not get the following since this President is a Republican 'Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat'--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

From this section: "Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats" A bit nitpicky, but I count only 10 presidents that were re-elected during this time: Grant(R), Cleveland(D), McKinley(R), Wilson(D), FDR(D), Eisenhower(R), Nixon(R), Reagan(R), Clinton(D), and GWB(R), for a total of 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Am I missing anyone, or should the number be changed?
Also, the section outlines how the circumstances for the democratic Presidents' elections were not "ordinary" except for the election of Cleveland, but the definition of "ordinary circumstance" seems a bit arbitrary in this instance. I believe a more balanced perspective could be achieved by stating how many total elections were "ordinary". Following the general guidelines given here (which leaves out the elections of incumbant presidents), it seems that, besides the Democrats, the elections of Grant, Hayes, Harrison, Harding, Reagan, GWB, and possibly Eisenhower all had circumstances that could qualify as not ordinary. This would put the totals at 6-7 Republicans elected under ordinary circumstances vs. the 1 Democrat (or 2, if Obama's election meets the ordinary circumstances criteria, which I'm not sure about).
[[User:Rosalind80|Rosalind]] 16:54, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
::Good points. let's count TR in 1904. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:06, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
== new history ==

I wrote the history section and previously posted it to Citizendium. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==Government expansion==
What FredSteel included was basically correct. For good or bad the Bush Administration did expand the government; the expansion included the Dept of Homeland Security, the federal wiretaps, the Patriot Act, the absorbing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within the government, etc. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:29, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==McCain as Head of the Party?==

I could see why people would accept this since he's their official candidate, but wouldn't the current leader of the party actually be George W. Bush since he's still the sitting President and commander in chief? Just curious. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::It's very dramatic the change in power -- Bush is invisible and McCain controls the convention, the agenda, and the Republican National Committee. Bush is still raising money, though. If McCain loses then who is in charge is ????[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:09, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== 2009 ==

The 2009 paragraph is tat. Just a bunch of random facts that are only notable because they are recent. The relevant facts would be better merged into sections about Republican history in the senate, Republican opinion polls, and possibly into the page on Obama. [[User:Concernedchris|Concernedchris]] 10:08, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
::I disagree. The paragraph is a good summary of the state of the GOP today. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:43, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
:::But the article is meant as an encyclopedia article on the GOP, not a news article. The paragraph in question contains information that is not notable, and the corresponding facts from 1895 wouldn't make it into the article. [[User:Concernedchris|Concernedchris]] 07:28, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

User talk:Concernedchris

2009-07-14T17:55:12Z

Concernedchris: Created page with 'Hi there! I am chris, and I am concerned. I would not call myself conservative or liberal, I don't think such polarisations are a good idea. Freedom of speech and freedom of cho...'

Hi there! I am chris, and I am concerned.

I would not call myself conservative or liberal, I don't think such polarisations are a good idea. Freedom of speech and freedom of choice are both extremely important to me. I will bring my children up this way, and if I felt that wikipedia trampled on those values I would start a new encyclopedia too.

What I'm saying is, conservapedia has a seed of greatness, but it needs work. It was started as an educational tool, for people who wanted to bring their children up with christian, conservative, america-centric values, and that's great. We are entitled to bring up our own children with any (reasonable, legal) set of values we choose. And wikipedia isn't compatible with those views.

The articles on opponents of the views held by most members of conservapedia are those which need most work. To formally oppose evolution for example, you need to have an understanding of evolution from an evolutionists point of view that is greater than that of your average evolutionist.

I have a number of views which some would consider conservative, and others which would be considered liberal. Generally, I am an economic conservative, and a social liberal. Politically, I am bored with the bickering between the two sides, which ultimately have become two sides of the same basically centrist coin.

Anyway I would particularly like to edit articles which cannot be slanted in any way, and try to help out where the conservative viewpoint crosses the boundary into bias.

Talk:Republican Party

2009-07-09T14:08:00Z

Concernedchris: /* 2009 */ new section