Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?
I see you "greed for expansion" and raise you 'an extra 300km between Berlin and Moscow' as well as 'directing Hitler westwards'. Soviet expansionism was firmly halted by Stalin in the late 20ies after, the Trotsky and Trotskyite purges being the clearest examples, and the idea of 'socialism in one country' was officially endorsed. By the time of the M-R pact the Comintern was on it's very last legs, especially after the brutal purging of the 5th through 7th congresses.
It should also be noted that the West destroyed Czechoslovakia, which infuriated both Hitler and Stalin, the former for losing glory ("That damned Chamberlain spoiled my parade into Prague") and the second due to the strengthening of Russias enemies Poland, Germany, Slovakia, and Hungary. Most of all, Munich gave Hitler the dangerous idea that the West wouldn't stand up for Poland, just as he "had not thought it possible that Czechoslovakia would be served up to me by her friends".
I think there are a large numbers of Republicans who share your not unreasonable beliefs, the problem is they are being drowned out by the religious zealots, who are now running the party and have a very strict religious litmus test.
So, you'll take their overall neanderthal views on women and gays, their promotion of policies that are turning out to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor and middle class, their knee-jerk rejection of Obamacare in favor of a system that makes health care cheaper for some by denying it to others?
Well, foo on you! ;)
"policies they are turning out to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor"...our entitlement programs take money the wealthy earned and redistribute it to the poor. Redistribution of wealth is a Marxist/Communist idea. I am just going to start calling Democrats Communists. People that have some sense in this country should be afraid of them. Also, our welfare programs are not going to work they will bankrupt us for certain. Johnson started this ridiculous "war on poverty".
Unseen, I'm sorry if I offend you but you are terribly offensive so I think you deserve to take you licks as well.
...our entitlement programs take money the wealthy earned and redistribute it to the poor.
I wonder how much of the rich's wealth is actually "earned" in the ordinary sense of the word, meaning by the sweat of their brow, and how much is passive interest earned, often in overseas investments or while sitting in a Swiss bank. I suspect a Swiss bank creates jobs, but more likely in Europe than in the United States.
Also, what about wealth absolutely unearned, such as inherited wealth. That isn't earned in any sense of the word.
The poor spend their money at home, buying food and other goods in ways that create American jobs. Relatively few people just get 100% of their income from the government and those tend to be unemployable or else Social Security recipients at least theoretically collecting money they paid in over the years.
"I am just going to start calling Democrats Communists."
Then you'll be joining the ranks of the many morons who have tried to do this throughout the 20th century.
@Jon Patterson: If you take a good look at what the two parties stand for today--and not in the past--I think you will find that you are actually not a republican anymore. You may even be a democrat now. The republican party you agree with no longer exists.
I agree. It's not totally clear that today's Republicans would stand with Lincoln on the matter of freeing the slaves, given that they're comfortable with virtual and actual slave labor overseas. And what better friends do the members of the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about than today's GOP?
Today's GOP is built around that ass Ronald Reagan and Sarah Paylin/The Tea Party.
@Jon - RE: "What appeals to me is the idea of limited government"
I don't know where you fall on the economic scale, Jon, nor is it any of my business, but what most people fail to understand, is that within the Republican Platform, "limited government" has two separate meanings.
To the illiterate, economically disadvantaged, who are just looking for jobs and income to feed their families, "limited government" can mean, as I mentioned in a previous comment, no gun control, no abortions and freedom to teach the Christian religion in the public school system, because teaching it at home and in churches isn't working, and a captive audience is needed.
To the wealthy, well-educated Republican however, "limited government" means removing prohibitions to opening up virgin wilderness to oil exploration and logging, to make the rich, richer, using the illiterate, economically disadvantaged as virtual wage slaves, regardless of the ecological consequences, which is a problem for future generations and not those of the present. "Limited government" means relaxing environmental controls that mandate safe auto emissions and waste disposal procedures.
I could go on for a page, but I believe my point is clear. The term, "Limited government" is entirely dependent on whether you are the Screwer, or the Screwee.
Points worth keeping!
There are plenty of atheist republicans out there; typically they are fiscal republicans and typically they are moderate. In the current state of politics in the US there is a complete lack of actual discussion. Those with the loudest voice and most extreme ideas are getting the center stage because they attract attention, they make for good headlines, they entertain, and they sell. Those who are more reasonable, those who have more nuanced views, those who actually want to explore the options, and find compromises have been marginalized in a sense because they don't attract attention, they don't make for good headlines, they don't entertain, and they don't sell.
I personally have no idea what label would be appropriate for my political views if indeed there are any labels appropriate for me. My registered political party is democrat because then I get to vote in primaries and maybe influence the often more reasonable of the two parties in the direction I'd like to see it go. In local elections I typically vote Green Party, Independent or Democrat. Few Republicans have enough positions I agree with to vote for them but I don't rule out the possibility of ever voting for one. The one group I cannot stand are the Libertarians. I've never voted for one and I don't imagine that will ever happen as I find their positions on most things confused and/or detestable. My big issues are health care, education, environment and social responsibility. By social responsibility I mean thinking about how individual actions will affect the whole and taking that into consideration when making decisions on all levels.
Just as there is no place for moderates in the republican party, there is no place for true liberals in the democratic party.