Both parties do it, but why are republicans more likely to put party loyalty above loyalty to country?

Yes. A twenty-year study reported in Psychology Today shows that kids who are considered dorks, nerds, whiners and losers in school become conservatives when they grow up: Here are the facts. A meta-analysis culled from 88 samples in 12 countries, and with an N of 22,818, revealed that “several psychological variables predicted political conservatism.”

Which variables exactly? In order of predictive power: Death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem. The researchers conclude, a little chillingly, that “the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and a justification of inequality.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/geni...

Romney wants $6.6 trillion of tax cuts for the rich, and Gingrich wants even more. This will literally double the budget deficit. They still support them, and will still vote for them in the final election.

They are so anxious to get Obama out of office that they forget the budget deficit was the biggest reason they wanted Obama out of office in the first place. This ideology of always voting for the Republican candidate, no matter how bad that president is, is exactly why Bush won re-election in 2004, and it is exactly why most of the GOP base will not think twice about voting for Romney if he wins the nomination, which he probably will. So far there is nothing a Republican candidate can do that will jeopardize the voting base.

Starting a war over WMD's that don't exist and giving massive tax cuts to the rich didn't stop Republicans from re-electing Bush in 2004, and Romney's proposed $6.6 trillion tax cuts for the rich won't stop Republicans from voting to double the budget deficit in the next election. This is exactly why it is dangerous to have a Republican in the white house. In means that, like Bush's re-election in 2004, no matter how bad a Republican president is, he will likely win another 4 years after the first 4 years.

It doesn't matter how bad Romney's first 4 years may be, the GOP base will still vote for him in the next election. This is why if both candidates were equal, we're better off having a Democrat in the white house. A Democratic candidate will face a tough uphill battle for another 4 years, while there is practically nothing a Republican can do that will jeopardize their voting base from coming out in full force to loyally vote to give them another 4 years in office.

I'm still frustrated that Bush somehow won re-election in 2004, even though this is history now. This is one of the reasons I'm concerned about a Romney presidency - it doesn't matter how bad his first 4 years may turn out, he will still somehow get another 4 years just like Bush did. If Romney wins election we'll probably be stuck with him for 8 years.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.