EckerNet.Com

Received a forward from a liberal friend of mine today. I read it and giggled the whole way through. An email filled with strawmen, half-truths, and deliberate mischaracterizations is supposed to be taken seriously? Sorry, but I had to shoot the poor guy down. Almost felt bad about it. Almost. But if he wants his side to start winning elections, liberals are going to have to actually understand what Republicans actually believe and why that resonates with the public so much more than the deceitful BS they\’ve been shoveling for the last however many years.

So guess what Republicans believe in (according to a Liberal)…

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

First of all I don\’t think anyone has claimed Jesus hates homosexuals or Hillary Clinton. But really this is just an example of elitist thinking that if you disagree with the ultra-liberal agenda of Hillary Clinton or gay activist groups it can only come from an irrational hatred of homosexuals and/or Hillary Clinton. And of course that hatred can only come from redneck hicks who love Jesus and know that Jesus loves them (and all people). Disagreement is a long way from hatred.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Ah, but the three are not equal. You see Cuba deprives it\’s citizens of some basic freedoms like freedom of speech and the like. Sure China and Vietnam have that same problem, but they have made inroads to improve the lives of their people. They still have a long way to go yes, but it\’s a start. And as motivation to continue down that road we agreed to trade with them.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

Do you actually know how the UN works?? First of all it doesn\’t. And what attempts it does make to function are bumbling half-assed attempts at a democratic process. First of all, name the last thing the UN attempted that was a success. Go on….I\’ll wait.

…

…

That\’s right nothing. Because the whole freaking system is busted. Their General Assembly has less power than your city council does. Which is good because dictatorships outnumber democracies there. Really, the Security Council is the closest thing to a functioning body they have and even that\’s a mess. You have 15 countries, 5 permanent that can veto everything. So let\’s say 14 of those countries agree on something, but because France hates it, France gets it\’s way. Let\’s say the entire General Assembly is in favor of something…oh wait they can\’t actually do anything. So they ask the Security Council to do something. Let\’s say Russia says no. So even though the rest of the world says yes, because Russia says no, Russia wins.

This is a body you want the US to be part of?? This is something we should actually support?? An organization that doesn\’t even begin to follow the most basic tenets of democracy? An organization that is so hopelessly inept that they have bungled everything they\’ve touched resulting in millions of deaths?? And that\’s not even touching the idea of national sovereignty.

But heh, you know the old saying, \”Even a stopped clock is right twice a day\”. Sometimes the UN gets something right…not often, but heh, sometimes they mess up and do the right thing. The problem is they have no power to actually do anything. They have no troops. They have no actual power…unless someone does the job for them. So when the US actually goes out of it\’s way and puts it\’s own people and resources on the line to enforce one of the few things the UN got right, you want to fault the US for that?!?

A woman can\’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Ok first of all let me address something that made me spray soda all over my keyboard. WITHOUT REGULATIONS?!? Have you ever held a job?? No I\’m serious. Ever?? Hell even a job at a McDonalds is full of so many government regulations you can\’t move without being subject to one. Or even better, take a look at import/export regulations…and I say \”look\” because if you tried to hold them you\’d have to have superhuman strength. There are so many hopelessly complex regulations on that area of business alone that an entire profession has grown just to interpret those regulations….and even they get it wrong occasionally!

But let\’s get back to the meat of the issue. We\’re not talking about \”decisions\” we\’re talking about A DECISION. Abortion. This has nothing to do with trusting the woman. This has to do with the fact that many people believe that abortion is murder. Pure and simple. I know Democrats would rather hide that but heh, let\’s bring it all out in the open. It comes down to whether or not you believe a fetus is a life. If you do, please explain why a womans right to make decisions over her body supercedes the life of a fetus? If you don\’t believe that fetus is a life, then well that\’s a whole other argument. But in this case I\’m explaining why people who believe a fetus is a life oppose abortion.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans\’ benefits and combat pay.

Actually has John Kerry ever voted for a pay raise for the military??

By let\’s get right to the facts okay? You remember them right?? The pesky little things that get in a liberals way. The FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act directed that pay raises for 2000 through 2006 will automatically be one-half percent above the private-sector wage increases. Pay raises may exceed these automatic levels if authorized and funded by Congress.

In January 2004, officers and enlisted members received a minimum of 3.7% pay raise. Some grades with certain years of service received a higher increase–up to 6.25%. The average increase was 4.1%. Link – DOD

The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) established that the military pay raise will be equal to ECI after 2006. Of course, Congress can enact raises that exceed these percentages as they did for 2003 and 2004.

So you see pay has been increasing, rather than being \”slashed\”.

And veterans benefits?? The number of veterans has been declining for years, yet point to me one time in which the budget for the Veteran\’s Administrations has decreased?? So what is being slashed???

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won\’t have sex.

Wow…this entire statement is completely devoid of any reality. Nobody says that teens won\’t have sex if there are no condoms handed out. We also don\’t think that not giving a bottle of tequila or a bag of weed is going to stop teens from drinking or doing drugs.

And I want to point out what is being ignored here…this is all at taxpayer expense. Convenient that that is never mentioned.

Really what this comes down to though is Republicans don\’t believe they should be handed out without Parental Permission. It\’s the responsibility of the parent to talk to their child about sex, NOT the schools. I know it is inconvenient to put the responsibility of parenting on the parents but who said life was fair? And some of those lessons might be a little trivialized if the taxpayer funded Condom Fairy is running up and down the halls of school tossing condoms to all the naughty boys and girls.

It\’s the responsibility of the parents to talk to their kids about this sort of thing, and the last thing those responsible parents need is the school system undermining what they are teaching.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

First of all, when did we demand money??

Belittling our long-time allies?? Allies?? They were only our long-time allies because we\’ve been protecting their ungrateful asses for the last 60 years. And what cooperation did we get?? They sold arms and intelligence to our enemies. That\’s hardly cooperation, that\’s deliberately obstructing our progress. We didn\’t \”demand\” cooperation, but we would have been happy with them just not getting in the way.

And \”allies\” is a pretty big stretch. We\’re in the middle of what some people are calling World War III. We\’re fighting for the right to not be subject to Islamofacism. We\’re fighting for the peace of mind of not having to worry about the building we\’re in being blown up by extremist followers of the \”religion of peace\”. Basically, our right to exist. If our allies can\’t support that, or at least not obstruct us in that, are they really our allies??

And belittling?? When did we belittle?? I remember Bush being called everything from a moron (by Canada) to a Nazi (laughably by Germany). But I don\’t remember us belittling our allies. I remember our allies insulting and obstructing us but that\’s about it. And really we shouldn\’t have to hold our allies accountable for anything, just the US.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

Government run health care IS socialism….everywhere it happens.

However, it\’s obvious you\’ve never read the Iraqi interim Constitution. Well I have, and I refer you to Article 31 which states:
First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The state takes care of public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and medical institutions.

They have the right to health care…not that the government will provide it to them.

Regardless, this is beside the point. The point is that Iraq is a sovereign country, and they are welcome to decide whatever the hell they want to decide because they know best what will work. The US is not dictating to them what they have to do. We\’ve offered advice on what might work best and how best to move forward, but ultimately the end product is their decision.

Are you implying that we should decided the whole structure of their society for them???

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart, as do oil companies.

Obviously you aren\’t big on economics.

The fact is with a free market system, the customer does always benefit, as do the companies involved. If you let the market work, all benefit in the long run. The fact that someone makes a profit along the way should not detract from that.

Let me explain this as simply as possible. Under a free-market system you have this thing called competition. Health care companies need to compete with each other for business. So they have to provide the services customers want at a higher quality and lower prices than their competitors. Sure they make a profit, but in the end the customer gets a higher quality product at a better price. How could you possibly be opposed to that?!?

Global warming is junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

Global warming isn\’t junk science…to be that it would have to be science. It\’s not. It\’s a bunch of alarmist propaganda. Look the planet is a complex system of numerous checks and balance. It is a fact that the world climate goes through cycles, and we don\’t completely understand why yet. Now you look at the last couple decades and see data that indicates that is happening and you want to claim it\’s because of a little hairspray?? This is part of what the planet does, it\’s was happening before we got here, and it\’ll happen after we\’re gone. More than likely there is a little we can do about it except hang on for the ride and trust in the fact that so far our planet hasn\’t completely snuffed out life.

And I don\’t think asking creationism to be taught in schools is a real universal conservative belief. At best, I think it\’s being asked to at least let students know there are alternate theories to the theory of evolution.

And certainly asking that there be a mention of it in schools is hardly comparable to asking the entire world to restruct it\’s economy and daily way of life just because you think your neighbors Humvee is too big.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Clinton lied about his affair to a grand jury. That\’s wrong and illegal by the way.

Bush never lied about anything. Intelligence indicated the WMDs were there. Our allies intelligence indicated it was there. Hell the UN inspection teams had seen the WMDs. Thousands of Kurds died because of WMDs that were actually used. Given all that I think it hardly can be called a lie for Bush to have believed the WMDs were there.

Actually it\’s a FACT that there were WMDs. We just don\’t know what happened to them. Were they destroyed?? If so where, when and by whom? If not, where are they now? Syria? Buried in the desert?

Clinton actually lied. Bush believed in his people. There is a subtle difference.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

You really do live in a simple world don\’t you??

Government SHOULD limit itself to powers outlined in the Constitution.

Banning gay marriage is being done according to the procedures laid out in the Constitution (you remember that \”living document\” right??). Republicans are seeking a constitutional amendment. This is part of the Constitution and it\’s been done at least once or twice since the Constitution was written.

So Republicans are acting according the Constitution. Those who are NOT acting according to the constitution are the activist judges who are bypassing the legislative process and deciding to dictate from the bench that gay marriage is okay despite the public rejecting it every chance they get. For example, a bill rejecting gay marriage passed in the liberal utopia of California by an overwhelming majority, but then a judge in San Fransisco decided gay marriage was okay anyway. I\’m supposed to think that is democracy???

And as far as censoring the internet goes, Republicans are not the one wanting to censor the internet, unless you are upset about outlawing kiddy-porn sites. I imagine quite a few people have a problem with that, Democrats and Republicans.

The public has a right to know about Hillary\’s cattle trades, but George Bush\’s driving record is none of our business.

I don\’t remember that anyone has stated Bush\’s driving record is none of anyone\’s business. What I DO remember is that Bush has admitted he has a drinking problem and has since gone off the hooch. So excuse me if I don\’t consider the fact that someone with a drinking problem having a DWI on their record in their youth is a newsworthy event.

Now while I don\’t necessarily considering Hillary\’s personal business transactions to be all that newsworthy, the fact that she has to go out of her way to hide them is certainly interesting. Remember Bush admitted his faults, why is Hillary so intent on hiding hers??

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you\’re a conservative radio host. Then it\’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

I don\’t suppose you\’ve ever actually listened to Rush have you?? Or even taken the time to hear what he has to say in his own words?? I don\’t recall that he has ever held himself up as an idol or claimed that there is anything great or noble about what he has done. If anything he has turned down praise for seeking help.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the \’80s is irrelevant.

Neither is really of vital interest to the nation, but their actions may be relevant to certain situations. For example, do you care if the average person on the street has a drivers license?? Not really. If they are applying for the position of bus-driver, do you care?? Yes.

Is it of national interest that someone is a draft dodger?? Not really. If they are applying for the position of Commander-In-Chief? Yes.

That\’s the case with Clinton. He was a draft dodger and the records are a matter of public record. In the case of Bush, well, he served. You may not like the level or branch in which he served but he did served. The fact that a base commander (who has Alzheimers) doesn\’t remember every officer that served under him is hardly conclusive proof. If he failed in his duties, explain why he was honorably discharged.

Now if you want to go into the supposed cocaine accusations, I\’m sorry but we\’re only dealing in facts here. First find someone who is actually accusing him of it, and then provide proof. That\’s how this game works.

Well there you have yet, just another set of what passes for political debate on the left.