Dem vs Rep---this should help

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mayo

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
460
For those of you who don't know the difference or which you are---from ourcrowdedplanet.org

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LIBERALS VS. CONSERVATIVES – Democrats VS. REPUBLICANS


Black vs. White? Up vs. Down? Wrong vs. Right? Evil vs. Good? NO! Of course not! Though sometimes the two camps may seem that far apart, in many ways they are closer together than either side wishes to acknowledge. The public rhetorical displays of opposition, mud-slinging, righteousness and disgust with one another are meant to define differences, and to close the gates to each camp so that believers in either cause won’t desert.

The excitable Daschle and the more restrained but cunning Gephardt, currently wield the sword of Democrats, while the resolute Orin Hatch, Phil Graham and Trent Lott spar equally well for the GOP side. The public hears the vehemence and strident words intended for it, while in private these men know the truth – that there is more gray than Black or White; more middle ground than Up or Down; more compromise than Right or Wrong; and more fair than Good or Evil.

There are, however, fundamental differences, and people who “join” either side should be intellectually honest enough to know and accept those differences. Let’s talk about some of the major differences – note that we will use the terms Liberal and Democrat interchangeably, just as we will Republican and Conservative. These are our "short-form" views of the two major political parties:

· Military issues – Democrats value safety and freedom as much as the next guy, but they tend to not want to invest in it as much as Republicans do. They wish to put their tax revenues into domestic programs. The Dems also love to pit military spending against domestic spending. In some ways that's a good thing, but only when done honestly and genuinely. Liberals want to wait until the threat is undeniable, while Conservatives believe more in the power of deterrence by strength. Republicans also tend to believe that the Federal Government’s primary role is to protect its citizens, while Democrats feel it is their duty to provide for citizens.

· Moral issues – Liberals, because of their individual rights stance, tend to fight what they perceive as invasive rulings regarding morality, while Conservatives place more value on societal morality, family values and traditional values than on individual rights. Again, Dems know that special interest groups and the selfish bone in many Americans respond positively to ideas that serve them, regardless of the effects on society as a whole.

· Economic issues – Democrats think nothing of spending more and more money of domestic issues – they see themselves as “providers” of the common good. Republicans generally oppose more programs, large government and the concept of being “providers.” See the joke, below. Its cute, and stresses this philosophic difference between the two sides. Republicans believe in the adage, "Give a man a fish, and he has but one meal; teach him to fish, and he will eat forever." Dems want to hand-feed people, making them slaves to the government's dole. Dems love to pit one American against the other on issues of taxes, social security, health issues, diversity and crime. Democrats have played the class warfare card once too often, and we believe that most Americans are wising up to that divisive game.

· Civil Rights (Race, Sex, Religion, etc.) issues – Democrats tend to represent individual rights over traditional rights. They also claim to be the voice and defender of the common man. It is in that role that they have driven a mighty wedge between the people and Republicans through a continuous barrage of "class warfare." The Democrats have courted the black and Hispanic vote, blue collar vote and labor union vote, pitting them against America's vital business and industry community. Republicans have only recently begun to take them head-on, attempting to dismantle the Democrat's house of cards. It's a hard sale, as many people respond to the Democrat message, thinking that it will "pull" them out of their troubles. It never has, and we doubt that it ever will.

· Crime & Courts issues – Hand-in-hand with the ACLU, liberals tend to side with the individual being "prosecuted." They honestly wish to guard the accused's rights, and that's a good thing, when done with common sense. Republicans tend to look to the victim's rights, and to the good of the whole (society) over that of the individual. Liberals want to make everything right through the courts, using liberal federal judges to accomplish their agenda. We laud the Democrats for some of the social reforms they have garnered, but we also condemn them for the many harms they have done to society as a whole.

· Foreign Aid issues – Let’s begin by accepting reality – every administration has doled out money to foreign nations in reckless, self-serving, poorly controlled and questionable ways. What adds to the problem is that foreign regimes evolve, some for the worse, and times change. What made sense in 1995 may make no sense in 1996. Heads of State that served our needs one decade may evolve into nasty problems for us down the road, as with Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc. Our alliances and our foreign aid are tied to what serves us best at the time. Democrats know that, as do Republicans, though both parties ignore that truth when they think they can malign the other party successfully. The United States of America defeated world communism and fascism, not always with the cleanest of hands, but the end did justify the means. The Cold War is over, thanks largely to President Ronald Reagan and his "bankrupt the Soviets" policies.

· Taxation issues – Conservatives believe that tax dollars are our individual dollars, not theirs, while Democrats feel that tax dollars are everyone’s, and should be used, as needed, to provide for everyone. “Take from the rich and give to the poor,” is often applied to them in unflattering ways. The Democrats are willing to steal from wealthier Americans, not because they believe it to be fair, but because they come across as Robin Hoods, and further their class warfare campaign. They also know that they are alienating a smaller percentage of Americans (higher wage earners), while satisfying the self serving instincts and natural jealousies of the larger lower income group.

· Liberty and Rights issues – Democrats tend to support individual rights regardless of their impact on society’s rights. Conservatives tend to vote in favor of protecting the majority interests over individual interests, especially when the individual interest seems petty, biased, an assault of basic values, or a threat to American values. It often seems that Liberals support intellectual arguments, while Conservatives apply more common sense. Burning of the American flag was supported by Liberals as a free speech issue, but opposed vehemently by Conservatives on a common sense, traditional and patriotic basis.

A LITTLE HUMOR FROM THE RIGHT:


A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they
came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then
took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another
homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless
person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached
into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15
for administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats
 
Moral issues – Liberals, because of their individual rights stance, tend to fight what they perceive as invasive rulings regarding morality, while Conservatives place more value on societal morality, family values and traditional values than on individual rights. Again, Dems know that special interest groups and the selfish bone in many Americans respond positively to ideas that serve them, regardless of the effects on society as a whole.

This popular view of the difference between conservatives and liberals tends to gloss over two issues:

1. Federal Environmental law - which is extremely invasive and much is based on beliefs approaching the level of a religion.
2. The fact that the "selfish bone" pays off for advocates of liberal policies through increased taxes, political appointments and trial lawyers - all of which tend to "move the value around" rather than creating any intrinsic value like the oil company, electric utility or automobile manufacturer upon which they all seem to feed.
 
The checkered-pants, country-club Republican and the limousine liberal Democrat are both our enemy. They both tend to like "subjects" and dislike citizens who do not join their club.

That's why the gun control issue is the best litmus test - especially for Repubs. The Dems are just lost at this point.

Took me a lot of years to figure that one out.
 
Mayo said:
· Liberty and Rights issues – Democrats tend to support individual rights regardless of their impact on society’s rights. Conservatives tend to vote in favor of protecting the majority interests over individual interests, especially when the individual interest seems petty, biased, an assault of basic values, or a threat to American values. It often seems that Liberals support intellectual arguments, while Conservatives apply more common sense. Burning of the American flag was supported by Liberals as a free speech issue, but opposed vehemently by Conservatives on a common sense, traditional and patriotic basis.
A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular. Many conservatives (most I know) don't give a rat's ass about protecting unpopular positions.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H.L. Menken.

Mayo said:
· Crime & Courts issues – Hand-in-hand with the ACLU, liberals tend to side with the individual being "prosecuted." They honestly wish to guard the accused's rights, and that's a good thing, when done with common sense. Republicans tend to look to the victim's rights, and to the good of the whole (society) over that of the individual. Liberals want to make everything right through the courts, using liberal federal judges to accomplish their agenda. We laud the Democrats for some of the social reforms they have garnered, but we also condemn them for the many harms they have done to society as a whole.

Except that the ACLU takes a much more common sense approach to justice than 'Sorry, it's what the book says.'

ReadyontheRight said:
This popular view of the difference between conservatives and liberals tends to gloss over two issues:

1. Federal Environmental law - which is extremely invasive and much is based on beliefs approaching the level of a religion.
2. The fact that the "selfish bone" pays off for advocates of liberal policies through increased taxes, political appointments and trial lawyers - all of which tend to "move the value around" rather than creating any intrinsic value like the oil company, electric utility or automobile manufacturer upon which they all seem to feed.

Then should 'the environment' as a whole not recieve protection under the first amendment as more traditional religeous establishments?
 
Howdy,

I just wandered into this thread. Let's chat ;)

"A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular. Many conservatives (most I know) don't give a rat's ass about protecting unpopular positions.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H.L. Menken."


1. It was the Hippy left who developed the theory of "political correctness (cleansing)". How exactly does that protect the right to disagree with the masses? In fact it brands anyone who does not comply as an '"ist" (racist, sexist, etc..)

2. This Menken fellow should spend some quality time "communicating his feelings in a meaningful way" with the collective works of Thomas Jefferson.


Except that the ACLU takes a much more common sense approach to justice than 'Sorry, it's what the book says.'

1. By ignoring the 2nd Amendment to the constitution?

2. By compelling Hippy judges to legislate from the bench and bypass the entire legislative wing of government and our abilty to elect those who make decisions?

3. By defending hardcore violent criminals as "victims of society"?

Then should 'the environment' as a whole not recieve protection under the first amendment as more traditional religeous establishments?

1. According to the Hippy theory of "Separation of church and state", the "Enviro-commies Religion" should receive $0 government dollars.
- Somewhere along the lines, naturalists who sought to protect wildlife and wildlands evolved into Enviro-commies.
- Note: during the early 90's Mikhail Gorbachev was a key, visible part of the movement.
- Is it just me or does it seem strange that everytime something dies, melts, or forms a storm cloud .... the real blame goes to Capitalism?

No offense intended Chrontius but exactly how would expect the Hippys to treat you if they knew you hung out here?

Station!
:scrutiny:
 
Chrontius---Except that the ACLU takes a much more common sense approach to justice than 'Sorry, it's what the book says.'



LOL----Like defending NAMBLA?
 
Classified00 said:
Howdy,

I just wandered into this thread. Let's chat ;)

"A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular. Many conservatives (most I know) don't give a rat's ass about protecting unpopular positions.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H.L. Menken."


1. It was the Hippy left who developed the theory of "political correctness (cleansing)". How exactly does that protect the right to disagree with the masses? In fact it brands anyone who does not comply as an '"ist" (racist, sexist, etc..)

2. This Menken fellow should spend some quality time "communicating his feelings in a meaningful way" with the collective works of Thomas Jefferson.
First, hippie is the correct spelling. Second, a very little political correctness is a good thing; anything more than a very little causes the system to break. However, a little bit of 'not being an ???????' will substitute quite easily for the PCness. I choose the 'not being an ???????' personally in the hope that none will need to bring the wrath of PCness to bear on me. When dealing with ???????s without rules prohibiting being an ??????? you will have to put up with a lot, otherwise. See the end of Team America for more details.

Except that the ACLU takes a much more common sense approach to justice than 'Sorry, it's what the book says.'

1. By ignoring the 2nd Amendment to the constitution?

2. By compelling Hippy judges to legislate from the bench and bypass the entire legislative wing of government and our abilty to elect those who make decisions?

3. By defending hardcore violent criminals as "victims of society"?
Not quite. I was thinking of the places where they tell the judiciary to get bent. Besides, their primary focus is on the first amendment based on cases I've read, just as we don't bash the NRA for not splitting its efforts equally between the first and second amendments we should not condemn the ACLU for specializing.

I don't think the ACLU asked the Florida judges say that a manual recount of the votes was a violation of equal protection, and I recall that the floridian left was *livid* after that. Legislating from the bench is an equal-opportunity corruption.

Then should 'the environment' as a whole not recieve protection under the first amendment as more traditional religeous establishments?

1. According to the Hippy theory of "Separation of church and state", the "Enviro-commies Religion" should receive $0 government dollars.
- Somewhere along the lines, naturalists who sought to protect wildlife and wildlands evolved into Enviro-commies.
- Note: during the early 90's Mikhail Gorbachev was a key, visible part of the movement.
- Is it just me or does it seem strange that everytime something dies, melts, or forms a storm cloud .... the real blame goes to Capitalism?

First, that's playing by a set of rules which the other team does not play by. A major liberal 'thing' is making the rules fair for everyone.

Second off, every American citizen produces 5.4 metric tons of CO2 per year, the average human being 1.13 per year. Each hectare of rainforest takes in between 1 and 1.5 tons of CO2 per year. If 'the environment' is removed from the equation, there is a short, finite period before which everyone and everything more complicated than archaebacteria drops dead of hypoxia. I will give you that some people go too far in the protection of the environment, however it irritates the hell out of me when I see explicit anti-environment views espoused, or even merely shortsighted ones. Environmental damage occurs much like a nuclear chain reaction. That first neutron (or extinct species, as the case may be) may not seem like much, but when the energy of the resulting neutrons reaches 4.184e12 joules and you notice something wonky, it's already too late to stop.

No offense intended Chrontius but exactly how would expect the Hippys to treat you if they knew you hung out here?
I'm not sure, but I don't really need to worry about anything beyond taking some crap. I'd say... 25% would no longer enjoy my company, 50% would give me crap, and 25% would ask me to take them shooting.
 
Then should 'the environment' as a whole not recieve protection under the first amendment as more traditional religeous establishments?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Perhaps you have not read it, but the above is the FIRST AMENDMENT. It's sad that it took me som many searches of "First Amendment" websites to finally find the actual text.

Read it now again please...and THINK.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment protects us all from the establishment of a government -sanctioned religion like the Church of England :barf: (which KILLED a LOT of citizens). It also protects religions that might be considered subversive.

IMHO - Any Federal Environmental Law around subjects like Global Warming and Peak Oil establish and enforce a religious-like belief. The free exercise of this BELIEF is protected, but it is constitutionally prohibited that these beliefs be established.

For example...Anyone is free to BELIEVE that the Earth Mother Gia seeks blood vengance over the waste of precious natural resources from shipping Evian water from France to Los Angeles...or in her rightous anger over the fact I my energy-wasting SUV contributes to 'global warming'.

You are NOT free to use the government or law to force me to adhere to your BELIEF.
 
Second off, every American citizen produces 5.4 metric tons of CO2 per year, the average human being 1.13 per year. Each hectare of rainforest takes in between 1 and 1.5 tons of CO2 per year. If 'the environment' is removed from the equation, there is a short, finite period before which everyone and everything more complicated than archaebacteria drops dead of hypoxia. I will give you that some people go too far in the protection of the environment, however it irritates the hell out of me when I see explicit anti-environment views espoused, or even merely shortsighted ones. Environmental damage occurs much like a nuclear chain reaction. That first neutron (or extinct species, as the case may be) may not seem like much, but when the energy of the resulting neutrons reaches 4.184e12 joules and you notice something wonky, it's already too late to stop.

Thomas Malthus forecasted us all dead much earler.

I believe that the many in the "environmental" lobby are using truly good intentions and truly BAD math to subjegate the US Constitution.

If your equations hold...what, exactly, is your solution? Kill X percent of the US population? Us US citizens are the biggest transgressors in your theory. Funny how these theories do not take production into account.

If you are right, it would only be humane to kill the weak and save the majority before "everything more complicated than archaebacteria drops dead of hypoxia."

Are you THAT sure of your calculations?

What's your date for the final solution?
 
First, hippie is the correct spelling. Second, a very little political correctness is a good thing; anything more than a very little causes the system to break. However, a little bit of 'not being an ???????' will substitute quite easily for the PCness. I choose the 'not being an ???????' personally in the hope that none will need to bring the wrath of PCness to bear on me. When dealing with ???????s without rules prohibiting being an ??????? you will have to put up with a lot, otherwise. See the end of Team America for more details.

1. I prefer "Hippy".
2. Perhaps it's the wine but I'm completely baflfed by your use of " ???????".
3. I'll watch "Team America" again and get back to you.

Not quite. I was thinking of the places where they tell the judiciary to get bent. Besides, their primary focus is on the first amendment based on cases I've read, just as we don't bash the NRA for not splitting its efforts equally between the first and second amendments we should not condemn the ACLU for specializing.

I don't think the ACLU asked the Florida judges say that a manual recount of the votes was a violation of equal protection, and I recall that the floridian left was *livid* after that. Legislating from the bench is an equal-opportunity corruption.


1. Calling an organization the "National Rifle Association" pretty much declares which amendment you plan to focus on. On the other hand, the "American Civil Liberties Union" should focus on ALL Civil Liberties (or change their name).

2. Technicalliy, the Right asked the Florida Supreme Court to enforce Florida law which required that all ballads be counted per state law (which conflicted with the Hippy theory that each precinct should be allowed to count them as they saw fit).

First, that's playing by a set of rules which the other team does not play by. A major liberal 'thing' is making the rules fair for everyone.

Second off, every American citizen produces 5.4 metric tons of CO2 per year, the average human being 1.13 per year. Each hectare of rainforest takes in between 1 and 1.5 tons of CO2 per year. If 'the environment' is removed from the equation, there is a short, finite period before which everyone and everything more complicated than archaebacteria drops dead of hypoxia. I will give you that some people go too far in the protection of the environment, however it irritates the hell out of me when I see explicit anti-environment views espoused, or even merely shortsighted ones. Environmental damage occurs much like a nuclear chain reaction. That first neutron (or extinct species, as the case may be) may not seem like much, but when the energy of the resulting neutrons reaches 4.184e12 joules and you notice something wonky, it's already too late to stop.


1. What kind of Hippy theory is that??????????????
2. You just made up the 4.184e12 joules number to scare people! :neener:
3. While reasonable conservatives support conservation, it erks me that EVERY SINGLE THING that goes wrong (an animal dies, a hurricane strikes, a tree falls over, a squirrel farts) is somehow the fault of business and industry.
4. 5.4 Metric tons of CO2, ha my truck belches that out in a day!!!!

I'm not sure, but I don't really need to worry about anything beyond taking some crap. I'd say... 25% would no longer enjoy my company, 50% would give me crap, and 25% would ask me to take them shooting.

1. Well Chrontius, your name sounds both Roman and like some bizzare cross between a chronograph and a .... Roman :neener: . If you ever make to Ft Worth, then the first round is on me (Hippy).

:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top