The difference between Democrats and Republicans


PDA






Onmilo
June 29, 2005, 10:03 AM
A customer, who happens to be 83 years young, stopped by to pick up a pistol that I worked on for him.
We were sitting around chatting about this and that when I mentioned that Pres. George ll was speaking at my old stomping grounds of Ft. Bragg and that his dad, former Pres. George l and former Pres. Bill were playing golf together in Maine.
My customer sits up and asked me,
"Milo, do you know the difference between a Democrat of today and a Republican of today?"

"Nope, tell me.", I replyed.

"Republicans support the kiling of adults and Democrats support the killing of unborn children, other than that, there ain't no difference."

The more I thought about what he said, the more inclined I am to agree,,,what do you folks think?

If you enjoyed reading about "The difference between Democrats and Republicans" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 10:13 AM
They want to ban or regulate different things.

GunGoBoom
June 29, 2005, 11:47 AM
There's only 1 significant difference: SCOTUS appointments (and other judicial appts). Look at the 4 who dissented in Kelo - they were all repub appointees. As much as I dislike that wing of the republicrat uniparty, I think one almost has to vote republican for this reason, it appears, in my case holding my nose. Strict constructionists (usually) actually try to interpret the Constitutional fairly, and don't view it as a "living, breathing, changing" document, and repubs tend to appoint this type of jurist.

PS. Wasn't Kerry in favor of the death penalty? Those kinds of issues are smoke & mirrors....

PPS. Actually, probably the best description I've personally observed as what I believe is the basic difference in the 2 major parties at the *federal* level:

-Democrats want to destroy the 2nd amendment (RKBA).
-Republicans want to destroy the 7th amendment (Jury trial).
-Both parties are 100% in favor of destroying the 10th amendment (state's rights), the 1st amendment (speech - see mccain feingold), and the 4th and 5th amendments (criminal defendant protections - see patriot act, and war on some drugs)
-Both parties are also 100% on board with saddling our children and grandchildren with massive oppressive national debt.

Vernal45
June 29, 2005, 11:50 AM
The difference between Democrats and Republicans


Is the speed of the HANDBASKET GOING TO HELL.

JohnBT
June 29, 2005, 12:13 PM
Aw, things are never as bad as they seem. For instance, look at the complaints about FDR and the New Deal and... uh, nevermind.

Okay, LBJ and the Great Society. Talk about people saying the world was coming to an end... nevermind. I concede.

:)

John...I'll never be confused with Earl Warren.

ProGlock
June 29, 2005, 12:30 PM
Look at the 4 who dissented in Kelo - they were all repub appointees. As much as I dislike that wing of the republicrat uniparty, I think one almost has to vote republican for this reason, it appears, in my case holding my nose.

You seem to forget that Kennedy was appointed by the neo-cons greatest president in recent time, Ronald Reagan.

chopinbloc
June 29, 2005, 12:34 PM
none!

honestly, i think as far as voters are concerned, republicans tend to believe in personal freedom and responsibility more and democrats tend to believe in the nanny state more. problem is, the politicians will never do anything particularly noteworthy because they want to collect as much of a base as they can. parties like the green party or libertarian party tend to have very clear objectives and the politicians in these quixotic organizantions would probably actually do something really noteworthy, but because of that very fact, they'll never get a substantial portion of the vote. my dad thinks we should hold runoff elections wherin you vote your conscience the first time around and the second time, they only put the two with the highest plurality of the votes on the ballot. this approach would allow a true multiparty system and would probably have some surprising results. unfortunately it would require a constitutional ammendment and those in power now would never support it.

obiwan1
June 29, 2005, 12:37 PM
Actually todays Republicans are the same as yesterday Dems. Todays Dems are the same as yesterdays Socialists. It's an evolutionary thing. They all want to micromanage our lives, the degree of control is different and evolving.

boofus
June 29, 2005, 12:48 PM
:eek:

MrTuffPaws
June 29, 2005, 01:07 PM
Is the speed of the HANDBASKET GOING TO HELL.

+1

scottgun
June 29, 2005, 01:28 PM
The difference between a Republican and a Democrat:

A Republican is walking along the beach and sees someone drowning 50 feet off shore. They throw them a life line 40 feet out and make the drowning person work to reach the lifeline.

A Democrat is walking along the beach, sees a person drowning 50 feet off shore, tosses them a life line out 50 feet and then drops it to go save the next person.

wdlsguy
June 29, 2005, 01:31 PM
Democrats believe in Tax and Spend, Republicans believe in Borrow and Spend. Neither party believes in individual liberties.

GT
June 29, 2005, 01:53 PM
How trite.

I guess when you get to that age you should be allowed to make asinine statements.

You folks crack me up with your survivalist mentality and your personal freedom blather. Be careful what you wish for, you might not be able to handle it.

I actually come from a Socialist workers paradise: England; and you do not know how good you have it. So listen up.

We were attacked on 9-11 (that was the second time terrorists tried to kill me personally - I was about 5 miles from ground zero when it happened watching from a rooftop- so excuse me if I seem a little angry).

If Algore had been elected then we would have responded in the Bill Clinton mode: couple of missiles/feel your pain/Mogadishu/United Nations.

Thank God that George Bush 43 was in charge. We crushed the Taliban and routed Al Quaeda.
We then crushed Saddam's regime who was the trainer, financier and enabler of Al Quaeda among many other terror organizations.
Libya crumbled, North Korea was exposed, Pakistan fell into line and now is getting along with India, Iran is on the brink of an internal uprising and so-on.

All this has served to focus terrorist activity in the mid-east not here.

That is the first difference between Dem and Republican: foreign policy. The Democrats sell the US out at every turn, the Republicans don't (just occasionally from time to time for political convenience).

The second difference is domestic policy.
The Democrats are consistently and continuously for higher taxes despite proof that tax cuts INCREASE revenue (don't quote me JFK and his tax cuts; how long did he last?)
The Democrats are consistently and continuously for individual disarmament (unlesss they are trying to get elected for five minutes)
The Democrats are consistently and continuously pushing for bigger gvt, more welfare programs, more control.

The Republicans have some in their ranks who might subscribe to some of the above ideas, but they are relatively few and far between.

And yeah, Kennedy was appointed by Reagan AFTER the Democrats assassinated Bork's character!
Kennedy was Regan's third choice. At the time Kennedy was a fairly reasonable centrist he morphed into the nut you see now over the years (...absolute power corrupts absolutely).

If you are going to parrot somebody elses stupidity for crying out loud try to do a little research.

Libertarians? Give me a break! They are so high on Mexican weed they want to open the southern border completely! Guess it would make getting that good stuff a lot easier.
I might look like a shambolic slob but I sure don't want my President to look like he just got back from an all night bender (dude where's my platform?)

So sure, the Democrats give all our missile technology to China, raise people from the grave in Chicago and on Indian reservations across the country, set the IRS on their political enemies, conspire with Communist totalitarian regimes around the world to the disadvantage of the US, support Islamic Jihad... the list goes on and on.

Is Bush 43 perfect? No of course not. Think you could do better? Go for it.
Bush 41 and Clinton? Whatever.

Yeah, no difference, all bad, dang politicians.


We are having technical difficulties, please do not adjust your tinfoil.


G

wmenorr67
June 29, 2005, 02:15 PM
What GT said.

MikeIsaj
June 29, 2005, 02:38 PM
Yeah, me too, what GT said. Well said1

cpileri
June 29, 2005, 02:55 PM
You should read the book, Hegemony or Survival. By Naom Chomsky .
C-

Onmilo
June 29, 2005, 03:23 PM
:)
I have to admit the opinins here are far better than those expressed in any farmtown tavern,,,,,
By the way I am a Republican and have been since I was old enough to understand political agenda.
As for my customer, don't let his age get in your way, it doesn't get in his, the man is brighter than one might think.

JohnBT
June 29, 2005, 03:35 PM
Geez guys, it was a cute joke. Speaking of the English, here's another one.

Why are jokes about the Irish so simpleminded? So the English can understand them.

JT...who had grandparents named Cullen and Kennedy. My family has known about the English from hundreds of years back. That's why they left...and had to fight them again here...twice.

David904
June 29, 2005, 03:56 PM
I agree with most of what GT said... though I like to classify myseld as a "lower case 'l' libertairan." As far as the who supports killing whom... I am very strongly pro-choice (I do not believe life begins at conception and the government has no business in our doctors offices), pro 2nd ammendment (heck, pro preservation of ALL of our rights), pro strong military and pro smaller government involvement in our personal daily affairs (no Nanny State which is what the Social Democrats support).

And I vote Republican. I cannot stand a number of stances that Bush 43 has on domestic issues, but I believe him to be an honest straight shooting man. And I think he has saved our country by implementing an aggressive foreign policy with the GWOT.

Your 83 year old friend has unfortunately shown that age doesn't always yield wisdom.

JohnBT
June 29, 2005, 05:54 PM
And wisdom rarely comes with youth and seldom with middle age. Those lucky enough to live long enough may discover it. My conclusion? It pays to talk to all the old folks you meet because the odds on learning something are much better.

John

cropcirclewalker
June 29, 2005, 10:18 PM
How trite. <snip>...

with your survivalist mentality and your personal freedom blather. Be careful what you wish for, you might not be able to handle it.

I actually come from a Socialist workers paradise: England; Your characterization of our "Mentality and Blather" made me think that you were a Limey even before you stated it.

We were attacked on 9-11 (that was the second time terrorists tried to kill me personally - I was about 5 miles from ground zero when it happened watching from a rooftop- so excuse me if I seem a little angry).<snip>... Not very characteristic of a Limey who holds our "Mentality and Blather" in low regard. Perhaps you should have emigrated to France.
<snip>...that tax cuts INCREASE revenue (don't quote me JFK and his tax cuts; how long did he last?) Really, do you think it was the Dems that did him in? I vote fer the MIC and more of them are Republicans than Democ-rats.

All seriousness aside, there is NO difference between them. They are the same party, only different sects.

It's a cryin' shame that wisdom is wasted on the old.

javafiend
June 29, 2005, 11:09 PM
As much as I dislike that wing of the republicrat uniparty, I think one almost has to vote republican for this reason, it appears, in my case holding my nose

I know what you mean.

Is the speed of the HANDBASKET GOING TO HELL.

More likely, it's just different scenery along the way.

If Algore had been elected then we would have responded in the Bill Clinton mode: couple of missiles/feel your pain/Mogadishu/United Nations.

Karl Rove echo chamber.

We then crushed Saddam's regime who was the trainer, financier and enabler of Al Quaeda among many other terror organizations.

Pure myth, repeatedly debunked. Saddam and Al Qaeda hated each other.

Libya crumbled, North Korea was exposed, Pakistan fell into line and now is getting along with India, Iran is on the brink of an internal uprising and so-on.

Libya is still there, and in fact has been rebuilding its relationship with the West since the 1990s.
North Korea was exposed long ago and continues to build nuclear bombs on Bush's watch, the hawkish neocon rhetoric notwithstanding.
Pakistan has long been a US client state, and its role in nuclear proliferation was long deliberately overlooked by the US gov.
According to the CIA, In Iran conservative politicians have prevented reform measures from being enacted, increased repressive measures, and consolidated their control over the government.

bjbarron
June 29, 2005, 11:20 PM
Actually today’s Republicans are the same as yesterday Dems. Today’s Dems are the same as yesterdays Socialists.

Absolutely true. I worked on the Goldwater campaign when I was a college freshman, and have watched this stuff for 40 years.

Conservative/Progressive values seem to run in 60 year cycles...with hiccoughs like WWII, Vietnam, and the WGOT as accelerants. We are coming to the end of a liberal/progressive cycle, and 9/11 accelerated it.

I actually come from a Socialist workers paradise: England; and you do not know how good you have it. So listen up.

Always listen to those with a foreign upbringing, especially if they are informed and intelligent. If for nothing else than to reinforce your ideas about American values.

I have always made a point of listening to European opinion...before the Internet was available, I would listen to European news on the short wave. Not because I was particularly enamored by their politics, but I was always interested in how those offshore saw us.

A student of mine from Egypt told me that "...nothing seems to change in America, no matter who is president." He explained that what we see here as huge changes are seen overseas as movements right and left in inches. I always found that interesting…and comforting in some way.

My family has known about the English from hundreds of years back. That's why they left...and had to fight them again here...twice.

The interesting thing about the English (disclaimer, I’m 1st gen Irish) is that their democratic revolution was fought over here in 1776. Englishmen who valued personal freedom either fought for or came to America, and still do. Those who preferred order stayed at home. England has always been a nanny-state compared to America.

As for the difference between Republicans and Democrats….

Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15. - Ronald Reagan

lostone1413
June 29, 2005, 11:38 PM
Vote Republican for over 35 years. Only time I didn't was when George Wallace ran. Looking at the now law. Campaign reform bill, the Patroit Act have to wonder what party is the worst. Anymore I think both want to destroy the Constitution. Couple that with the Court rulings coming out when so called Conservative Republican Presidents appointed 7 out of 9 of them. Think time to look at the 3rd parties. Since 911 their has never been so much done to destroy the Constitution in the history of the nation

petrel800
June 29, 2005, 11:53 PM
What scares you more a theocracy or socialism?

Because those are the current directions of the parties. I'm just waiting to see which side has someone strap a bomb on themselves first.

I'm done with Republicans and their inability to stand up for the rights of private individuals, i.e. - Social Security (private accounts!), Tax Reform, the boarders, right to die, . . . the list goes on and on.

GT
June 30, 2005, 12:40 AM
Your characterization of our "Mentality and Blather" made me think that you were a Limey even before you stated it.
Wrong. I am a US citizen.
I was referring to those suburban survivalist wannabees on this board - you know who you are - not to the US.

Not very characteristic of a Limey who holds our "Mentality and Blather" in low regard. Perhaps you should have emigrated to France.

Been there. Didn't like it.

Really, do you think it was the Dems that did him in? I vote fer the MIC and more of them are Republicans than Democ-rats.
Don't have an opinion on that. Just glad he survived as long as he did.

All seriousness aside, there is NO difference between them. They are the same party, only different sects.
It's a cryin' shame that wisdom is wasted on the old.
I pre-fisked you on that. Try re-reading my post. Your post adds nothing informational and doesn't refute my arguments except to say "you are English you are stupid I know better"
And there's no fool like an old fool.


Karl Rove echo chamber.
Brrrr..... Is it cold in here? Now you are getting me all spooked.

Quote:
We then crushed Saddam's regime who was the trainer, financier and enabler of Al Quaeda among many other terror organizations.

Pure myth, repeatedly debunked. Saddam and Al Qaeda hated each other.

Nonsense.
I wish people would do a little research before believing the BBC. Folks should know they aren't to be trusted.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Libya is still there, and in fact has been rebuilding its relationship with the West since the 1990s.
Yes, but only admitted it had a WMD program after the Saddam azz-whupping. Then begged to have its weapons removed :)

North Korea was exposed long ago and continues to build nuclear bombs on Bush's watch, the hawkish neocon rhetoric notwithstanding.

"Long ago"? Well, not according to Maddy Notsobright. She and Clinton were convinced they had negotiated a "no weapons" policy with N Korea. Don't tell me you voted for Gore! Now that is funny.

Pakistan has long been a US client state, and its role in nuclear proliferation was long deliberately overlooked by the US gov.
You can claim everyone is a "US client state" if you try hard enough.
The issues were:
1 - Islamists using the Hindu Kush as a hideout while Pakistan ignored the problem out of fear of reprisals.
2 - Major sabre rattling between Pakistan and India (the hindus were rightly concerned with Islamists owning nukes).
Once the pressure was taken off Musharraf by the crushing of the Taliban he was able to do the right thing which culminated in the outing of A Q Khan and normalization of relations between India and Pakistan.

According to the CIA, In Iran conservative politicians have prevented reform measures from being enacted, increased repressive measures, and consolidated their control over the government.
I love it when people quote the CIA when it suits their argument and claim they are an incompetent and rogue agency when it goes against their argument.
OK. Fine, Iran is going to Islamist hell in a Sharia handbasket and there's not a thing we can do. Take it off the list. You win.
I will substitute the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon.
Or maybe those Syrians suddenly felt it was important that Lebanon should have some freedom out of the goodness of their hearts.

Always listen to those with a foreign upbringing, especially if they are informed and intelligent. If for nothing else than to reinforce your ideas about American values.
Bingo. Although I am not sure if I am included in the informed/intelligent group.
I actually chose this country. It wasn't an accident of birth.

A student of mine from Egypt told me that "...nothing seems to change in America, no matter who is president." He explained that what we see here as huge changes are seen overseas as movements right and left in inches. I always found that interesting…and comforting in some way.
Yes. It is a good thing thing that very little changes when the elected officials change. That's those pesky checks and balances in action, not that "they are all the same party and it's one big conspiracy".
It's supposed to work that way.
If you want to worry, worry about the Supreme Court. That was not supposed to work that way.

Finally, we only fought the British once: war of 1812, and I blame Canada for that one anyway :)
In 1775 we WERE British. It was a revolution not a war with another country. In fact for the first year the colonists were fighting for their rights as Englishmen.
Paul Revere didn't say "the British are coming" he said "the REGULARS are coming", everyone there was British.

But I digress.

Maybe we are all correct.
Maybe we are all seeing the same thing and reacting in ways based on our ideas of what should be.
Those who see both parties as the same wish for more radical action either towards the left or the right and feel impotent to effect it.
Those who see fundamental differences between the extremes of the two parties are happy for the negating effect of the parties and the general conservative trend that is happening now.

G

Standing Wolf
June 30, 2005, 12:41 AM
I can't tell the Republicrats from the Democans with a score card.

Rebar
June 30, 2005, 04:25 AM
While there might not be the amount of difference one might wish for, to say there is no difference is absurd. Just on the gun issue alone - while the republicans aren't pushing for more gun rights, the democrats are activily trying to take them away. That's a big difference right there.

Khaotic
June 30, 2005, 04:44 AM
I'll take handbasket for $500.00, Chuck.

Playing by the rules, against the folk who make the rules - is like playing a rigged game, with marked cards, against someone you know cheats...
Then complaining when you lose.

The whole system needs adjustment, and that'll take more than playing musical chairs between parties who's differences are in no way significant, as it's just a matter of emphasis - they all want your money, land, and obediance, every single one of em, from any party.

Of course, the key is finding a solution that doesn't wind up worse than the problem, and the answers to that question are, ermh... 'matters above my paygrade', cause I know damnall about political structure.

-K

Big Bad Wolf
June 30, 2005, 06:03 AM
Nonsense.

I wish people would do a little research before believing the BBC. Folks should know they aren't to be trusted.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Indeed.

Perhaps you should study up some more. The Weekly Standard is ran by Bill Kristol, a noted public supporter and defender of the neo-conservative movement as is Richard Miniter, not exactly 2 impartial and unbiased authorities to provide a fair view on this subject, especially since both shill for Bush.

Aside from a few casual meetings and a whole lot of wishful speculation there is no hard proof or a smoking gun of a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda on anything. Certainly nothing near the proof that should be needed to plunge us into war.

The 9/11 Commission could not find any evidence of a clear link between the two but hey, that was just a left wing conspiracy right, right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

Browns Fan
June 30, 2005, 09:26 AM
A republican sees a panhandler, reaches in his wallet and gives him $5.

A democrat sees a panhandler, reaches into the republicans wallet, and gives him $20.

Walt Sherrill
June 30, 2005, 09:38 AM
I work for a major financial institution. Several years back some of our marketing people were involved in market research about buying habits, practices, attitudes, etc. One co-worker saw studies that said the differences between Republicans and Democrats were pretty simple:

1) Republicans don't want government telling them how to spend their money, but doesn't mind it as much when government says "do this or that" with regard to most moral/social issues.

2) Democrats don't want government telling them how to live their life (moral/social issues), but don't mind it as much when government says, "pay for this or pay for that."

Its grossly oversimplified, and school prayer/abortion doesn't really seem to fit neatly into this scenario -- but you got a better, simpler explanation of the differences? When I look around me, and talk with friends, it has a certain ring of truth about it.

Subtle point: both groups are in favor of BIG GOVERNMENT interfering in the lives of the folks they don't like, as when BIG GOVERNMENT helps gore someone else's ox; but they all get really upset when their own ox is gored.

(Example: my arch-conservative friends who are against abortion don't mind a Constitutional Amendment outlawing choice, but are incensed when the Courts say they can't have school-led prayer. My liberal friends don't mind it when government says you can't own a gun, but get incensed when it says you've got to jump through hoops to get an abortion.)

Libertarians seem to dislike government having any role in our life, but most of them recognize that a certain (minimal level) of government is hard to get rid of.

I spent most of my adult life as a Democrat, but have voted Libertarian in the last several elections out of disgust for the major parties. The votes were protest votes, but I didn't seem to have many options. Bush/Gore or Bush/ Kerry seemed like horrible choices.

GT
June 30, 2005, 09:47 AM
Perhaps you should study up some more. The Weekly Standard is ran by Bill Kristol, a noted public supporter and defender of the neo-conservative movement as is Richard Miniter, not exactly 2 impartial and unbiased authorities to provide a fair view on this subject, especially since both shill for Bush.

Of course! I knew it! It's those pesky Jews again.
Uhh... you did know that "NeoCon" is Lefty code for "Jews that aren't Socialists" right?

As far as your BSNBC link, all that says is that the 9/11 commission found no link "in attacks on the US". Nothing like the same thing as no links at all:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005237

How about WorldNetDaily?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31597
No? NeoCons too?
how about the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism
http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/comment.cfm?id=995
heck no! Zionists be here.
Those guys are everywhere!

Bottom line? I believe Saddam was a huge enabler of Terrorism throughout the world via money, weapons and training (terrorism training guys, not flight school!).
I believe that Saddam was the "Big Bad" and once you drop him life becomes much easier on the terrorism front. I am yet to be proven wrong.
Upside of the whole thing? A lot fewer tortured and murdered Iraqis.

You believe that Bush went to war for? oil? self-aggrandizment? Haliburton? stupidity? And Saddam was just minding his own business torturing and murdering, and got a charge out of faking out the CIA on his non-existant WMD program?

We are somewhat off the topic, but Saddam had to go despite what John Kerry and Susan Sarandon said.

G

Waitone
June 30, 2005, 10:07 AM
I know a difference between the two parties.

Democrats are a part of principal, a party steeped in an underlying philosophical framework. :eek: A framework I find to be dangerous to my life, liberty, and property. It is a framework which has ultimately killed untold numbers of people in its more virulent forms. It is a philosophy which I reject out of hand.

Republicans is a party without a discernable belief system as exemplified by what they do, not just what they say. I find myself unable to formulate the belief system by which the party operates. Individual liberty? (Patriots Act) Limited government? (haven't got the time or space) Fiscal responsibility (move on, nothing here people) National sovereignty? (sovereignty, we don' need no steenkin' sovereignty)

Choosing between they two is like choosing between the electric chair or the gas chamber.

saltydog
June 30, 2005, 10:21 AM
The difference = "None!" Were screwed!!! :cuss:

RealGun
June 30, 2005, 02:15 PM
"Republicans support the kiling of adults and Democrats support the killing of unborn children, other than that, there ain't no difference."

Reducing it to something that simplistic may be humorous but is kind of ignorant in my opinion, if taken seriously. Abortion is not even a valid political issue, certainly not at a federal level. There is also no clear polarity between parties on that issue. It is absolutely wrong to say that the GOP is pro-life, anti-abortion crazy by definition.

It is also not valid to say that Democrats don't and didn't support the war in Iraq. Mostly they just don't acknowledge that GW or the GOP can do anything right.

Viewed seriously, this is just another example of how poorly founded some people's political opinions really are.

I believe it is still true that the GOP does not favor public entitlements and a heavily burdened budget. There are many initiatives to trim budgets like privatizing pensions and health care, reducing non-essential staffing, resisting pork programs, etc. All of that is in opposition to the Dems having no shortage of ideas how to spend money and how to require more taxes. "Tax and spend" is still very much a trademark of the Democrat party in my estimation.

All the fuss about the Iraq war from liberals is mainly because they are jealous of how money is being spent on the military, detracting from all their pet programs for big daddy health care and welfare programs. They don't have any power base if there is no money to spend.

Dems and Repubs can be hard to tell apart because they are in Washington. That means they are very impressed with how much power they have by way of tax revenue, national police forces, and financial leverage over the States. All that is built on the sand of "interstate" commerce and federal income taxes, including social security, the New Deal America brought to us by the Democrats and now considered standard fare, so entitled to tax revenue that it is hard to put an end to it.

Sindawe
June 30, 2005, 02:26 PM
Republicans vs. Democrats? Yep, We're boned!

2nd Amendment
June 30, 2005, 02:40 PM
How trite.

I guess when you get to that age you should be allowed to make asinine statements.

You folks crack me up with your survivalist mentality and your personal freedom blather.

Sad you had to preface a good rant with your bias and bigotry and ignorance.

Big Bad Wolf
June 30, 2005, 02:48 PM
Of course! I knew it! It's those pesky Jews again.
Uhh... you did know that "NeoCon" is Lefty code for "Jews that aren't Socialists" right?

Neo-Con is actually the slang name for Neo-Conservatism. You are a neo-con supporter and do not even realize it! It is not any special lefty code or Jew buzzword.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110005237

How about WorldNetDaily?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=31597
No? NeoCons too?
how about the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism
http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/comment.cfm?id=995
heck no! Zionists be here.
Those guys are everywhere!

Do you have any articles that do not have the words "may have" "perhaps" or "could have been" in every point they try to make? I did not think so.

Bottom line? I believe Saddam was a huge enabler of Terrorism throughout the world via money, weapons and training (terrorism training guys, not flight school!).
I believe that Saddam was the "Big Bad" and once you drop him life becomes much easier on the terrorism front. I am yet to be proven wrong.
Upside of the whole thing? A lot fewer tortured and murdered Iraqis.

Yeah he was a bad guy, no one disputes that but we reasons we went to war are in dispute. Also removing Saddam has made the war on terror much harder, not easier. Al Qaeda training camps moved in to Iraq post Saddam, the insurgancy grows with help from Al Qaeda post Saddam because the Bushies never bring up the fact that Saddam kept Al-Qaeda out of Iraq!

You believe that Bush went to war for? oil? self-aggrandizment? Haliburton? stupidity? And Saddam was just minding his own business torturing and murdering, and got a charge out of faking out the CIA on his non-existant WMD program?

Stupidity is a big one, oil would be a close second. The reasons we went to war with Iraq were because Saddama Bin Laden was an "Imminent Threat" to the US which we know to be false. The other reason was Osama Bin Hussain had close ties with Al Qaeda which no one has been able to prove, just a lot of "may have's" and "could've been's" and wishful speculations. But hey Bush says he has "credible evidence" to the contrary, maybe someday he will let us all in on it.

richyoung
June 30, 2005, 03:21 PM
What scares you more a theocracy or socialism?

socialism...

Because those are the current directions of the parties. I'm just waiting to see which side has someone strap a bomb on themselves first.

To mischaracterize a desire for God-fearing citizens to be able to send their children to school without having their religion actively attacked, to be able to pray before football games and at graduations, to be able to display the Ten Commandments, the root of our law system, at courts, and to cease having a clear prohibition against "establishing a relgion" twisted into an active government opposition to specifically Judeo-Christian religions, whilst seeking the same treatment under the following "or prohibiting the free expression thereof" as Wiccans, Satanists, and Scientologists are currently afforded, into "establishing a theocracy" is indicative of either a desire to mislead or a profound ignorance of the beleifs and principles of the men who founded this country and wrote the Constitution.

I'm done with Republicans and their inability to stand up for the rights of private individuals, i.e. - Social Security (private accounts!),

Private accounts are an affort to GRANT some rights to individuals, in lieu of what SHOULD happen, the abolition of the illegal, extra-constitutional Ponzi scheme masquerading as the government retirement program, Social Security.


Tax Reform,

...I do beleive 'tis the Repubs pushing this, again in lieu of abolition., (for which the Yellow Dog Democrats will never support)


the boarders,

..My states Repubs are on the correct side of this issue...

right to die,

How can they stop you?

. . . the list goes on and on.

When one is unconcerned about veracity, the number of items eligible to be on the list expands...

cropcirclewalker
June 30, 2005, 04:20 PM
Your post adds nothing informational and doesn't refute my arguments except to say "you are English you are stupid I know better" I would never had repeated myself 3 times like that. :neener:

kwelz
June 30, 2005, 04:53 PM
I must say, as someone who works for one of the above mentioned parties, if you cant' see a difference between the two then you need to start paying more attention.

rock jock
June 30, 2005, 05:05 PM
"Republicans support the kiling of adults and Democrats support the killing of unborn children, other than that, there ain't no difference."
I agree, except that the "adults" he refers to are all murderers. What did the children do to deserve their fate?

GT
June 30, 2005, 05:12 PM
CCW:
I would never had repeated myself 3 times like that.
Very good!

G

javafiend
June 30, 2005, 10:07 PM
Claim espoused by GT: "Saddam's regime" was "the trainer, financier and enabler of Al Quaeda among many other terror organizations."

GT's offers as proof a link to an article in The Weekly Standard regarding a top secret U.S. government memorandum dated October 27, 2003 which was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The memo itself is mostly about a series ofmeetings between Al Qaeda and Baghdad, but even if true, but so what? I myself have meetings with *lots* of people, some of whom I can't stand. Remember that Feith was boss of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, a unit that specialized in the circulation of cherry-picked intelligence items to provide rationalizations for the Bush administration's pre-determined policy of war against Iraq. Remember that the OSP was peddling unfounded stories of Iraq WMD stockpiles because the professional intel analysts in CIA and State were reluctant to say what Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neocons wanted to hear. "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."

In fact, the memo doesn't prove much of anything. The Defense Department itself, interestingly enough, issued a statement declaring that the annex to Feith's memo outlining "the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida" in fact "drew no conclusions." The statement concludes: "Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal."
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11292003.html

W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA, said that the Standard article "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"

As theDowningStreet Memos indicate, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Feith's job was to "fix" the facts to support the policy. Tommy Franks, who led the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, called Feith “the ????ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth," apparently for ideas he proposed to Franks and his planners.
See Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker, 2005-05-09
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050509fa_fact

For neocon true believers, its just doesn't seem to matter how many times it is amply documented that the Bush team simply got it wrong on Iraq.

Additional reading: A Pretext for War : 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385506724/qid%3D1106243696/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dpd%5Fka%5Fb%5F2%5F1/002-5163273-3718436) by James Bamford (Doubldeday: 2004).

RealGun
June 30, 2005, 11:10 PM
javafriend, if I wanted to read DU, I would go over there.

javafiend
July 1, 2005, 12:12 AM
javafriend, if I wanted to read DU, I would go over there.

Your failure to articulate an intelligent argument is noted.

I love it when people quote the CIA when it suits their argument and claim they are an incompetent and rogue agency when it goes against their argument.

I have never claimed that the CIA was "incompetent" or a "rogue agency." The historical record shows that the covert action arm of the CIA has essentially acted according to the wishes of the president. I can think of no covert operation described in the scholarship that contradicts this thesis.

As far as competency goes, it appears to me that CIA's forte is analysis, not intel gathering. Case in point, as the US government became more deeply enmeshed in Indochina after 1948, the professional intelligence analysts inside the Agency offered the president the most consistently pessimistic outlooks regarding the longterm prospects of US intervention. We know this from the Pentagon Papers, the top secret study of the history commissioned by MacNamara and than leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. See Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0142003425/qid=1120186404/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/103-8288071-5828630?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Daniel Ellsberg (Penguin Books: 2003).

Of course! I knew it! It's those pesky Jews again. Uhh... you did know that "NeoCon" is Lefty code for "Jews that aren't Socialists" right?

Wrong. Neocon (short for "neoconservative") is a word that they themselves came up with. Some neocons are Jews while others are not. http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/

We are somewhat off the topic, but Saddam had to go despite what John Kerry ... said.

Did you know that John Kerry voted in favor of the war?

I believe that Saddam was the "Big Bad" and once you drop him life becomes much easier on the terrorism front. I am yet to be proven wrong.

Except for the daily acts of terrorism that now befall Iraq. But hey, aside from that, Iraq is a peaceful democracy....they've greeted us as liberators...it was a cakewalk...we're turned a corner...the insurgency is in its last throes...there's light at the end of the tunnel. ("Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?")

petrel800
July 1, 2005, 12:33 AM
To mischaracterize a desire for God-fearing citizens to be able to send their children to school without having their religion actively attacked, to be able to pray before football games and at graduations, to be able to display the Ten Commandments, the root of our law system, at courts, and to cease having a clear prohibition against "establishing a relgion" twisted into an active government opposition to specifically Judeo-Christian religions, whilst seeking the same treatment under the following "or prohibiting the free expression thereof" as Wiccans, Satanists, and Scientologists are currently afforded, into "establishing a theocracy" is indicative of either a desire to mislead or a profound ignorance of the beleifs and principles of the men who founded this country and wrote the Constitution.

Then send your kid to a christian school, there are plenty of them providing those services. The founders never intended for courts to make decisions based on the bible or the 10 commandments. If they had they would have included them in constitution.

Private accounts are an affort to GRANT some rights to individuals, in lieu of what SHOULD happen, the abolition of the illegal, extra-constitutional Ponzi scheme masquerading as the government retirement program, Social Security.

Because just up and getting rid of SS is going to happen in one term of government.

Face it the Repubs curled up in the fetal position on this issue.

...I do beleive 'tis the Repubs pushing this, again in lieu of abolition., (for which the Yellow Dog Democrats will never support)

I believe Bush originally talked of completely replacing the tax system. Now we are just going to tweak it.

The repubs are in the process of curling up into the fetal position on this.

The boarders -- nothing. Bush even threw the idea out there that the Minute men were acting illegally, and were somehow violating human rights.

Right to Die / Abortion -- lets have a special session to save a brain dead women (medically proven), and when we are proven wrong we will smear an American Citizen with unsubstantiated claims of abuse. SS is broke, the tax system is broke, we have huge defecits, lets focus on the real issues like abortion.

Socialism scares the hell out of me to, but it tends to be a stable form of government. Theocracies are hell on earth - Iran, Afganistan, Seria, . . . I will fight either form politically or forcefully if necessary. Both forms of government are completly illegal under the constitution.

Face it religion is responsible for most of the armed conflicts around the world. People forcing their beliefs on other people.

As previously stated, I am done with republicans. They buy just as many votes with their vote buying scemes as the democrats do. Neither party gives a damn about the constitution.

RevDisk
July 1, 2005, 01:08 AM
"Milo, do you know the difference between a Democrat of today and a Republican of today?"

Just about none. They both put up issues to distract the masses, and then use the smoke screen to steal a few liberties and up taxes a little bit more. One slice at a time.

Jeff
July 1, 2005, 03:35 AM
Both parties try to legislate peoples' behavior. It's that simple. The cons typically do it for "morality" (although the libs also do it for morality with political correctness [the three-headed monster of forced equality, fear of organized religion, and the bizarre belief there is some unalienable right not to be offended]), and the libs typically do it for "health and safety."

I've always found it odd that the Socialist is forever upset about the government poking its nose in our bedrooms, but feels it is appropriate that the same force poke its head in our backyards, wallets, and professional businesses.

And of course, the reverse could be said in regards to the neo-con.

Burt Blade
July 1, 2005, 08:31 AM
Democrat: "You are stupid. We have to restrain you, for the collective good."

Republican: "You are evil. We have to restrain you, for the collective good."

Libertarian: "You are free. Restrain yourself from harming others, or suffer the consequences in restitution or fatal gunshot wounds."

BigG
July 1, 2005, 09:07 AM
Burt Blade: You forgot on Libertarian - "we surrender to the foreign power who occupies our free country while we are busy trying to sue each other out of existence." ;)

RealGun
July 1, 2005, 09:18 AM
Just about none. They both put up issues to distract the masses, and then use the smoke screen to steal a few liberties and up taxes a little bit more. One slice at a time. - RevDisk

I think you know better. Fashionable sentiments, I know, but this sounds like another dumb, desparate LP thread. Either that or DU trolling, which I know doesn't include you.

A simple awareness of GOA ratings will point out the difference in parties that should concern us a lot here. Yes, the bigger picture may be a different matter. I am not happy either.

It will be a long time before I forget how partisan the voting was in early 2004, while the Senate was entertaining all the gun control amendments to the gun manufacturers lawsuit protection bill. How does one forget the frothing rants of Ted Kennedy trying to outlaw rifle ammo, anything capable of peircing body armor? He was serious!

GT
July 1, 2005, 11:57 AM
RealGun +1

I seriously don't understand how you could be pro gun and vote Democrat.


G

richyoung
July 1, 2005, 11:59 AM
Then send your kid to a christian school, there are plenty of them providing those services.

I am compelled to fund the PUBLIC school, and I expect, at a minimum, the same consideration given a Wiccan or Muslim in the same circumstances. Or else fully fund my school choice with vouchers, (and see how fast public schools change their stripes!)

The founders never intended for courts to make decisions based on the bible or the 10 commandments. If they had they would have included them in constitution.

Yes, they did. Both the House and Senate have chaplains, (as do the Armed Forces), and open their sessions with prayer - Christian prayer. The Supreme Court opens it sessions with "God bless this court" - AND they have Moses holding the Ten Commandments in a frieze that decorates their building. The President is sworm in with a Christian Bible, as are court witnesses. Even our money has "In God We Trust" on it -( might as well, they took the gold out of it!). True, no mention of it is in the Constitution - but it sure is in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers would look at you as if you were from Mars if you were to tell them to their faces that the U.S. WASN'T established as a Christian country, and that the Ten Commanndments AREN'T the basis of law.


Quote:
Private accounts are an affort to GRANT some rights to individuals, in lieu of what SHOULD happen, the abolition of the illegal, extra-constitutional Ponzi scheme masquerading as the government retirement program, Social Security.



Because just up and getting rid of SS is going to happen in one term of government.

Face it the Repubs curled up in the fetal position on this issue.

At least they tried - a war happens to have got them sidetracked a little. How have the Dems hekped on this issue? They won't even admit there is a problem!

Quote:
...I do beleive 'tis the Repubs pushing this, again in lieu of abolition., (for which the Yellow Dog Democrats will never support)

I believe Bush originally talked of completely replacing the tax system. Now we are just going to tweak it.

The repubs are in the process of curling up into the fetal position on this.


again, the Dem position? (Other than the Jedi Mind Trick - "There IS no problem - these aren't the droids you're looking for...")

The boarders -- nothing. Bush even threw the idea out there that the Minute men were acting illegally, and were somehow violating human rights.

Yeah - he paid lip service to the race hustling mau-maus - but he DID nothing, just like the AWB sunset. Bet your ass a Dem prez would have arrested them at least, or Waco'ed them...

Right to Die / Abortion -- lets have a special session to save a brain dead women (medically proven),

NOT medically proven - she had cerbral damage, but numerous cases of injury or tumor more severe in people with full function....

and when we are proven wrong we will smear an American Citizen with unsubstantiated claims of abuse.

..her A-hole husband let her teeth rot out of her gums and canceled the rehab that the trust fund was supposed to pay for, plus we STILL don't know how she got injured in the first place - we DO know she didn't have bulimia and a heart attack, as we were told...

SS is broke, the tax system is broke, we have huge defecits, lets focus on the real issues like abortion.

...because the death of millions of innocent lives can wait, right? If they were doing to ANIMALS what they do those BABIES, the SPCA would have them up on charges...

Socialism scares the hell out of me to, but it tends to be a stable form of government.

Stable BAD!

Theocracies are hell on earth - Iran, Afganistan, Seria, . . .

...Israel, (which would be a nice place but for the Palestinian terrorism), Vatican City, Tibet (before the Red Chinese came)...you pick out only the worst-case examples, almost all of them Muslim. I don't see an ayatollah in our future.

I will fight either form politically or forcefully if necessary. Both forms of government are completly illegal under the constitution.

So's the one we got now, or didn't you notice? When you bustin' a cap off in a Supreme Court justice, Rambo?

Face it religion is responsible for most of the armed conflicts around the world. People forcing their beliefs on other people.

REALLY? - see, cuz I thought the Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, GWI and GWII had LITTLE to NOTHING to do with religion. There's beleifs OTHER than religion to force, ask any of the realatives of Pol Pot's, Mao's, Lenin's, Stalin's, Kruschev's, Kim Il Sung's, Ho's, or Castro's victims - all at the hands of a philosphy that DENIES religion. You also fail to give credit for the good things that religios beliefs have brought - the end to slavery, international emergency relief, support for abused spouses and recovering substance abusers, etc.


As previously stated, I am done with republicans. They buy just as many votes with their vote buying scemes as the democrats do. Neither party gives a damn about the constitution.

I still submit that given even your own examples, the Dems are worse - just look at the Supreme Court decisions lately, and who appointed the minority opposition. You need to chill - we didn't get in this mess overnight, and it will take time to get the pendulum swinging back the other way. Lok at Concealed Carry, the end of the ASW, etc.

slzy
July 1, 2005, 12:12 PM
what democrats say can't be done,and the republicans don't have the guts to do what they say.

Walt Sherrill
July 1, 2005, 12:27 PM
Yes, they did. Both the House and Senate have chaplains, (as do the Armed Forces), and open their sessions with prayer - Christian prayer. The Supreme Court opens it sessions with "God bless this court" - AND they have Moses holding the Ten Commandments in a frieze that decorates their building. The President is sworm in with a Christian Bible, as are court witnesses. Even our money has "In God We Trust" on it -( might as well, they took the gold out of it!). True, no mention of it is in the Constitution - but it sure is in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers would look at you as if you were from Mars if you were to tell them to their faces that the U.S. WASN'T established as a Christian country, and that the Ten Commanndments AREN'T the basis of law.

The prayer that opens the house is not always CHRISTIAN (i.e., invoking the blessing of Jesus.) It is often Judeo-Christian, referring only to the father.

"God bless this court" is prayer, but not necessarily Christian prayer.

The Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court's frieze is one of several great lawgivers, and shown as a secular presentation, without religious content.

The Declaration of Independence is not part of our legal system or form of government. It was a pre-government document -- a justification. A propaganda tool, as well.

A number of the Founding Fathers, including some influential ones -- Jeffersons, Adams, Paine, Franklin -- were Deists. Many of the great European philosophers that shaped their political and philosophical thiking were also Deist. They all believed in God, but did not profess to follow Christ.

Read about the philosophies of the time and you'll see its not quite as clear cut as you've been led to believe.

richyoung
July 1, 2005, 01:02 PM
The prayer that opens the house is not always CHRISTIAN (i.e., invoking the blessing of Jesus.) It is often Judeo-Christian, referring only to the father.

I'll stipulate to that....

"God bless this court" is prayer, but not necessarily Christian prayer.

It is most decidedly Judeo-Christian prayer...notice it doesn't refer to Allah, Thor, Zeus, or the Dahli Llama...

The Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court's frieze is one of several great lawgivers, and shown as a secular presentation, without religious content.

To refer to the Ten COmmandments as anything BUT relgious context is a level of lawering that appraches the classic "that depends on what your definition of "is" is...". If law is not based on devine guidance, then what?


The Declaration of Independence is not part of our legal system or form of government. It was a pre-government document -- a justification. A propaganda tool, as well.

..and is commonly refered to in Supreme Court cases because it lays out the justification for establishing a new country, gives a theoretical basis for the new governement later to be codified in the Constitution, and is illuminative as to the reasoning and thought processes of the same people who wrote the Constitution. It is also what you say it is,...but much more as well. You left that out.

A number of the Founding Fathers, including some influential ones -- Jeffersons, Adams, Paine, Franklin -- were Deists.

More accurately, flirted with Deism at some point in their lives...and the majority, including some influential ones, were Christian.

Many of the great European philosophers that shaped their political and philosophical thiking were also Deist. They all believed in God, but did not profess to follow Christ.

..still beleived in God...

Read about the philosophies of the time and you'll see its not quite as clear cut as you've been led to believe.


Read em already...

RealGun
July 1, 2005, 01:04 PM
Yes, they did. Both the House and Senate have chaplains, (as do the Armed Forces), and open their sessions with prayer - Christian prayer. The Supreme Court opens it sessions with "God bless this court" - AND they have Moses holding the Ten Commandments in a frieze that decorates their building. The President is sworm in with a Christian Bible, as are court witnesses. Even our money has "In God We Trust" on it -( might as well, they took the gold out of it!). True, no mention of it is in the Constitution - but it sure is in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers would look at you as if you were from Mars if you were to tell them to their faces that the U.S. WASN'T established as a Christian country, and that the Ten Commanndments AREN'T the basis of law. - richyoung

These are the Trojan horses that Christians like to use to stake a claim to this country. They want more now, but in hindsight none of these figments of religion should have been allowed in the first place. We never seem to learn about the danger and permanence of precedent.

If we were serious about being exclusive, we should have made Christianity a condition of immigration and citizenship. We didn't. It wasn't relevant. One valid citizen is not the guest of another just because of a difference in religion, not to mention race or cultural background. If healthy, sane, marginally useful, and not known to be a criminal, you're in.

Of course, you could always walk in unconditionally from Mexico and be given a free pass on citizenship later. :rolleyes:

I thought your comment about abortion was inappropriate. We are not allowed to engage in debates on that subject. Actually, religion doesn't work either, if we start jousting over doctrine.

White Horseradish
July 1, 2005, 01:57 PM
The Ten Commandments are the basis of our laws? How's that?

Let's see. Which commandments are in our law?

'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' - no
'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image' - no
'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain' - no
'Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.' - no
'Honour thy father and thy mother' - no
'Thou shalt not kill.' - yes
'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' - no
'Thou shalt not steal.' - yes
'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' - yes
'Thou shalt not covet ... any thing that is thy neighbour's.' - no

Only three out of the ten. Hardly "the root of our law system". So, do we display only #6, #8 and #9?



As to prayer, I have yet to hear of anyone at any school being forbidden to pray privately. Public prayer belongs in church.


Richyoung, most of the evil bastards you named were Communists of one flavor or another. Communism is no less a religion than any other. They have a set of beliefs, a Holy Book (Das Kapital), A Holy Site (The mausoleum with Lenin's mummy), a religious symbol,holidays, meetings, saints, holy objects. Just because they call it Politburo instead of Synode doesn't mean it all that different in function. And the reason Communism denies religion is that it replaces it. Christianity denied the old polytheistic religions in the same way.

Granted, religion is not responsible for ALL wars, but it sure gave us some beauties. The Thirty Years War, anyone?

petrel800
July 1, 2005, 02:25 PM
I still submit that given even your own examples, the Dems are worse

I will agree with that, about the only statement you have made that I do agree with. Just because I'm not voting for a republican doesn't mean I'm voting for a democrat. The founders never intended for the government to only have two parties. There are other options out there. I don't need the satisfaction of voting for a winner. I want the satisfaction of voting for somebody who is going to follow the laws of the land, The constitution.

The only other thing I'm going to touch on because I can't add to what Realgun and White Horseradish added.

Yeah - he paid lip service to the race hustling mau-maus - but he DID nothing, just like the AWB sunset.

I'm tried of politically correct people doing nothing. Doing nothing in Washington is the equivalent of job security. The fact is every politician up there is more concerned about staying in office than doing their job. Lip service and doing nothing is weak leadership. I voted for Bush twice. He had me convinced after 9-11, but maybe it was just the strength of a unified people with one goal. Unfortunatly, in other areas, he is a weak leader which is evident in his vote buying scemes and his sell outs on SS, Tax Reform, the Boarders. I think he is a sincere man with a devout lifestyle. I don't think he lied or has done anything illegal. I just think hes a weak leader in certain areas of our government (as noted above).

Walt Sherrill
July 1, 2005, 02:35 PM
The Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court's frieze is one of several great lawgivers, and shown as a secular presentation, without religious content. To refer to the Ten COmmandments as anything BUT relgious context is a level of lawering that appraches the classic "that depends on what your definition of "is" is...". If law is not based on devine guidance, then what?
Maybe Moses made it up, and the folks back then didn't think to look behind the curtain?

Maybe his "divine" source was his own astute observation of human behavior -- the same source used by the King of Babylon, who died around 1750 BCE, when he created what is now called the Code of Hammarubi. [The Hammarubi Code is considered the oldest example of a legal system. Its also included in the Supreme Court display. ]

Arguably nothing divine about that, and it predates the Ten Commandments by at least 500 years.

mountainclmbr
July 1, 2005, 11:34 PM
The road to tyranny is paved with promises of good intentions. The Democrats have mastered this and bring bricks engraved with all the feel problems that can be easily solved by communism. Not that I respect any politicians, but to me the democrats seem to be the cheerleaders for the communist revival.

richyoung
July 7, 2005, 01:33 PM
Let's see. Which commandments are in our law?

'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' - no

A tricky point, I'll admit, but just what is that book that witnesses are sworn in with, and elected officials, such as the President, are sworn into office with. I'll give you a hint - it's NOT the Koran, Mao's Little Red Book, the collected wisom of Bhudda, or the Reader's Digest...


'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image' - no

I'll stipulate this one - you are free to build a Golden Calf and worship it if you so desire...

'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain' - no

WRONG - I don't know where you live, but using inflamatory or unsuitable language, including using the Lord's name in vain, in public WILL get you at least a warning or an arrest for "disordly conduct", especially if minor children are present.


'Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.' - no

WRONG - remember "blue laws"? - some places still have them.


'Honour thy father and thy mother' - no

WRONG - try geting married, enlisting in the military, or controlling your own finances before you are eighteen WITHOUT your paren't consent...UNLESS you have been legally "emancipated" by court action.

'Thou shalt not kill.' - yes

I'll stipulate to that...

'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' - no

WRONG - most states still have laws against adultery, as does the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where it is still routinely prosecuted.

'Thou shalt not steal.' - yes

So stipulated...

'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' - yes
...stipulated...

'Thou shalt not covet ... any thing that is thy neighbour's.' - no

Also a bit tricky, but property rights and (until recently) restrictions on "emminent domain" are there for just this reason.



Only three out of the ten.

Closer to nine out of ten...as I've pointed out - although I admit some of them aren't as well known, as prosecuted, or as prevalent as they once were, they were still the guiding influence in our legal system.

Hardly "the root of our law system". So, do we display only #6, #8 and #9?

As I've pointed out, (and as even a cursory reading of the papers of those that drafted out country's laws would reveal), you are incorrect.

Richyoung, most of the evil bastards you named were Communists of one flavor or another. Communism is no less a religion than any other.


..pretty easy, and less than intellectually honest, if you are going to defend the premise that "Religion causes (by implication, all) wars" by redefining everything that causes wars, including the DENIAL of religion, as religion.

richyoung
July 7, 2005, 01:35 PM
Arguably nothing divine about that, and it predates the Ten Commandments by at least 500 years.


Apples and oranges - Hammurabi didn't claim his code was written by the finger of God, last I checked. To declare the Ten Commandments "secular" is as ludicous as claiming baptism was just advocating bathing as part of personal hygiene.

richyoung
July 7, 2005, 01:39 PM
I'm tried of politically correct people doing nothing. Doing nothing in Washington is the equivalent of job security. The fact is every politician up there is more concerned about staying in office than doing their job. Lip service and doing nothing is weak leadership. I voted for Bush twice. He had me convinced after 9-11, but maybe it was just the strength of a unified people with one goal. Unfortunatly, in other areas, he is a weak leader which is evident in his vote buying scemes and his sell outs on SS, Tax Reform, the Boarders. I think he is a sincere man with a devout lifestyle. I don't think he lied or has done anything illegal. I just think hes a weak leader in certain areas of our government (as noted above).


Little civics lesson for you...CONGRESS, (thats the House and Senate), pass legislation. If you haven't noticed, there are no shortage of RINOs in the Senate stopping all of those initiatives you are griping about. We didn't get into these messes over-night, & it will take a while to roll them back. ALso, the Republican party is demonsstrating a severe lack of competence in being the MAJORITY party, in part because they haven't been one for quite some time.

RealGun
July 7, 2005, 02:21 PM
ALso, the Republican party is demonsstrating a severe lack of competence in being the MAJORITY party, in part because they haven't been one for quite some time. - richyoung

What is "competence in being the majority party"?

Igloodude
July 7, 2005, 02:52 PM
Richyoung, you can't have it both ways. Either your example of all elected officials swearing on the Bible and "taking the Lord's name in vain" = disorderly conduct are not applicable as they're simply popular 'traditions' separate from the law, or your examples of blue laws and adultery laws are not applicable because they're virtually ignored even where they still exist.

Officials swearing "...so help me God" on the Bible is simply tradition started by Washington (and no doubt assisted by a run of Christian presidents). One can affirm with their hand on a dictionary (or the Koran, or Torah, or whatever) and it will still be legally valid. What do you think Joseph Lieberman would do at his inauguration?

Saying "G-D it!" (using the full expression of course) in public is not illegal, period. In fact you could reasonably say pretty much anything with anti-religious content in public without being arrested. It isn't the content of the speaking, it is the conduct of the speaker.

So we're only at seven out of ten at best, and frankly the adultery and Sabbath ones are pretty weak, representing the public social mores at the time of drafting rather than legal precedent ensconced in the Constitution. Of the remaining five, I see them in criminal law systems of nearly every nation on the planet including distinctly non-Christian ones, so attributing them purely to the Ten Commandments is disenguous.

richyoung
July 7, 2005, 05:44 PM
Richyoung, you can't have it both ways. Either your example of all elected officials swearing on the Bible and "taking the Lord's name in vain" = disorderly conduct are not applicable as they're simply popular 'traditions'
The Constitution requires that the specific oath be "sworn (or affirmed0 - the only way to do that is with a Bible - otherwise, ther is no oath,just a recitiation. Traditionally, the Cheif Justic of the Supreme Court swears in the President using a family bible supplied by him,- but any Federal judge, and any Bible, are legal.

separate from the law, or your examples of blue laws and adultery laws are not applicable because they're virtually ignored even where they still exist.

They weren't always ignored, - we ARE talking about the "basis" for our laws, remember? The fact that they are there, and were once more vigorously enforced, is evidence of that basis. Current selective or non-enforcement is NOT evidence contra-wise.

Officials swearing "...so help me God" on the Bible is simply tradition started by Washington (and no doubt assisted by a run of Christian presidents). One can affirm with their hand on a dictionary (or the Koran, or Torah, or whatever) and it will still be legally valid.

Says who? Try swearing on a Koran (or anything other than a Bible) at YOUR next court case, & see where that gets you...

What do you think Joseph Lieberman would do at his inauguration?

Idunno - ask HIM - seeing as the OT is in the Bible, I don't think he'll have too much heartburn about it.

Saying "G-D it!" (using the full expression of course) in public is not illegal, period.

It is where I live - I've seen people arrested for it.

In fact you could reasonably say pretty much anything with anti-religious content in public without being arrested. It isn't the content of the speaking, it is the conduct of the speaker.


Speach IS conduct - depending on where you are when you pull this stunt, expect the stainless steel bracelets in Ok.

So we're only at seven out of ten at best,

...nine out of ten...

and frankly the adultery and Sabbath ones are pretty weak, representing the public social mores at the time of drafting rather than legal precedent ensconced in the Constitution.


..the "mores of the time" WERE the Ten Commandments...

Of the remaining five, I see them in criminal law systems of nearly every nation on the planet including distinctly non-Christian ones, so attributing them purely to the Ten Commandments is disenguous.

Perhaps they got the idea from us? Besides, t'was YOU who started counting, (badly, I might add...)

RevDisk
July 8, 2005, 04:53 AM
The Constitution requires that the specific oath be "sworn (or affirmed0 - the only way to do that is with a Bible - otherwise, ther is no oath,just a recitiation. Traditionally, the Cheif Justic of the Supreme Court swears in the President using a family bible supplied by him,- but any Federal judge, and any Bible, are legal.

I've been avoiding the thread recently because I think the religious stuff probably deserves to be on APS.

But your comment is flat out incorrect. No oath of office needs to be on a Bible. It happens to be tradition for some positions, but it is not a requirement. Otherwise, it would be an express violations of Article VI of the Constitution.

Article VI, Paragraph 3 :

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


Says who? Try swearing on a Koran (or anything other than a Bible) at YOUR next court case, & see where that gets you...

It gets me seated on the witness chair. Actually, I swear in with no book. I swear in with some quote about knowing what perjury is. I believe we have a couple lawyers around here, they could probably tell you the quote verbatim.


WRONG - I don't know where you live, but using inflamatory or unsuitable language, including using the Lord's name in vain, in public WILL get you at least a warning or an arrest for "disordly conduct", especially if minor children are present.

I'm not sure where you are from, but I would honestly like to know where you've seen people arrested for using your God's name in a derogatory manner. Court cases would be nice. As I'm sure anyone in their right mind would sue if they were arrested for using religious terms in a derogatory manner.


WRONG - remember "blue laws"? - some places still have them.

Most Blue Laws have been completely or partially repealed. If I'm not mistaken, most of them had to deal with alcohol. Aside from alcohol, what other behaviors were codified under Blue Laws?


WRONG - most states still have laws against adultery, as does the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where it is still routinely prosecuted.

Yes, some states have laws against adultry. However, usually it's more of a civil matter moreso than a criminal one.

As for the UCMJ, adultry is codified as being illegal because it is detrimental to unit morale and cohesion. In other words, it's bad for soldiers to snog other soldiers' wives because it causes issues in an environment with lots of weaponry and expensive equipment.


WRONG - try geting married, enlisting in the military, or controlling your own finances before you are eighteen WITHOUT your paren't consent...UNLESS you have been legally "emancipated" by court action.

Uh, what does "honour your father and mother" have to do with getting married, enlisting in the military or controlling your own finances? For minors, sure. But that has nothing to do with the ten commandments. It's because the minor is not legally allowed to make their own decisions on many aspects of their life.


Also a bit tricky, but property rights and (until recently) restrictions on "emminent domain" are there for just this reason.

Uh, coveting is a mental process. Sure, it leads to behavior. But saying property rights were caused by "thou shalt not covet" is a REAL leap of the imagination.



Uhm. Geesh, Richyoung. Some of your comments are correct, but a lot of them are incredible leaps of imagination that have no basis.

Igloodude
July 8, 2005, 08:59 AM
RevDisk has already responded to everything very well, but I wanted to address one specific point further:

The Constitution requires that the specific oath be "sworn (or affirmed0 - the only way to do that is with a Bible - otherwise, ther is no oath,just a recitiation. Traditionally, the Cheif Justic of the Supreme Court swears in the President using a family bible supplied by him,- but any Federal judge, and any Bible, are legal.

During a tour at a MEPS while in the military, I administered the oath of enlistment to a few hundred recruits. The oath (or affirmation) includes the phrase "do solemnly swear (or affirm)" and if swearing, appends "so help me God." There is no Bible involved, yet it is not just a recitation but an oath/affirmation. Using a Bible in civil office swearings-in is only tradition, unless you can cite law to the contrary.

Bruce H
July 8, 2005, 09:43 AM
What one swears an oath on is immaterial. A person of their word could swear on a stack of Husler magazines and still be an honest person. Teddy Kennedy. Diane Feinstein, Ken Lay, Jesse Jackson, ect could swear on a mountain of bibles and still be what they are.

The difference between republicans and democrats? Spelling

Marshall
July 8, 2005, 10:24 AM
GT +10 ;)

Rich, keep it up, I think you're doing a fine job.

Don Gwinn
July 8, 2005, 10:41 AM
The long-winded religious debate makes my eyes glaze over, but I want to point out that we've now had three pages of debate on a very contentious subject with no personal attacks, no flaming, no name-calling and no stupidity.

I wish it were always this easy!

Great job, guys. Honestly, it might be straying slightly into that religious area we normally try to avoid, but it's so darn civil.

Boss Spearman
July 8, 2005, 10:57 AM
removed

If you enjoyed reading about "The difference between Democrats and Republicans" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!