The difference between Democrats and Republicans

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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/
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
"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?
 
Saddam supported Al Qaeda?

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 by James Bamford (Doubldeday: 2004).
 
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 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?")
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top