Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Cherlie on September 21, 2002, 03:44:10 PM
-
Replublics vrs Democrats.................
(this is not a bait, I mean it, whats the difference???? I jsut moved here and I just want to know, so when ya'll talk smack about each other, I know what you mean)
CB
-
it's like Conservatives vs. Labour only with more guns and bigger cars.
Oh and people over here actually seem to take politics seriously!
-
OK plz expalin their policies.
CB
-
Democrats think all criminals should be rehabilitated, then given a puppy and an electric car. A made for TV movie should then be made.
Republicans think all criminals should be turned upside down, shaken for loose change, drawn and quartered, and their remains melted down to extract any petroleum.
At least I think those are the main differences...
-
Then I am a Republican then!!!!!
LOL
CB
-
There is no difference.
They are all crooks and the major goal for both of them is to steal your money and then kick you in the face!!
Welcome to America!!
-
Coke and Pepsi.
-
Coke and Pepsi.
Don't like either :D
Gatso
-
another important distinction of the political parties here in the US.. is that they don't wield any governmental authority.. they have as much legal authority as the girl scouts or the Elks Club.. they HAVE members that have authority, but the groups do not.
-
Here's one of the main differences..
(http://www.ilhawaii.net/~bear1/art/def802.jpg)
-
Bush family is excellent at downsizing US economy :>
-
here's the basic issues, and they've devided them up so each party sux in it's own special way.
republicans-
1. anti-union
2. anti abortion
3. suported by most christian organisations.
4. against help for the poor
5. against publicly funded health care
6. suports the right to own guns
7. for tax cuts (mostly these cuts target the rich)
8. suports pesonal freedom (right to own guns, right to infringe on others rights)
9. against assisted suicide
democrats-
1. pro-abortion
2. pro-labor
3. suports personal freedom (right to get high, be queer, womens rights, freedom of speech, abortion)
4. more gov't control
5. anti-gun
6. aginst death penalty
7. for asisted suicide
so there's the basics.
some i find really ironic.
like the repub's call themself pro-life. they believe in the death penalty, but are against abortion and assisted suicide. they seem to be ok with you losing your life but only when the gov't aproves of it (death penalty), on the other hand the say they want less gov't control.
mostly they are both just suportive of whoever will contibute the most votes/contibutions to their people.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Here's one of the main differences..
(http://www.ilhawaii.net/~bear1/art/def802.jpg)
an excerpt from the Constitution of the United States of America:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
The rules of the game is that Congress taxes and spends, therefore, the balance of the USA budget is in the hands of congress.
From 1994 to present, the House of Representatives was in the Control of the Republicans, prior to that you must go back to the 1950's.
The senate was under the conrtol of Republicans from 1995 to 2001.
This 1995 - 2001 period was the first time since the 50's that Republicans held the Senate and the House.
If you believe that the government and not the outstanding growth in the US economy was the ultimate power to balance the budget, then read 10Bears post with this in mind.
-
/\ Bravo.
-
however the surplus/deficit chart seems to follow the presidential years and the fact that both the house and senate went republican in '95 had little or no effect. as the recovery had already began (must be purely coinsidental that it was after clinton was elected :rolleyes: ) and the '95 events didn't seem to have much impact. also the down turn seemed to happen at the end of his term (another coinsedence??) inspite of the fact that the republicans still held the house.
-
Hey Captain...
All I did was point out some rules and facts. You can (and probably will) interpret them the way you see fit.
I believe that the cycle of the economy is the larger reason for the budget being balanced in the nineties, and I know that the congress is constitutionally mandated to tax and spend.
According to the supreme law of the land, the president just administers the programs that congress mandates.
-
Originally posted by Cherlie
Replublics vrs Democrats.................
(this is not a bait, I mean it, whats the difference???? I jsut moved here and I just want to know, so when ya'll talk smack about each other, I know what you mean)
CB
Easy...
Republicans = Liberal
Democrats = Labour
Tronsky
-
I thot republicans were right and liberals were left?
-
Urm... Holden.... Does the President need to barrow a pen?.. I know the Republicans don’t like to buy a lot of office supplies.. I’ll be happy to send the President a pack of pens I have sitting here.
I believe that the cycle of the economy is the larger reason for the budget being balanced in the nineties, and I know that the congress is constitutionally mandated to tax and spend.
Ahhh I see it just happens in a vacuum. It’s kind of you to clear that up!
-
10Bears: You really think that the president has omnipotent power to control the economy?
The societies of the world that were government controlled economies have universally failed. The US economy is market driven. The government generally reacts to the economic conditions.
The government can positively influence the economy by tax cuts (like John Kennedy advocated)
Alan Greenspan has much greater power to influence the economy than the president or congress does; all he has to say is irrational exuberance, and the stock market takes a dive. Add or subtract a 1/4 point, and see what happens.
And yes, the president has a pen that he can use to sign or veto the laws that congress writes[/i]
I thought most Americans knew at least these basics.
-
Winston Churchill sums it up quite nicely:
"Anyone who is not a liberal by the time they are 20, has no heart.
Anyone who is not a conservative by the time they are 30 has no brain"
- Winston Churchill
-
Errrr....didnt the economy grow at a unreal rate due to the techno industries? Fiber optics/telcom, .com's etc these ALL contibuted to a unreal economic boom. Then... all the mis management, greed and such hit the fan.
xBAT
-
Democrats = Think that they should get everything for free
Republicans = Think you should work for what you get.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Democrats = Think that they should get everything for free
Republicans = Think you should work for what you get.
Hehe, another to add:
Republicans = Personal responsibility
Democrats = "I'm a VICTIM!"
-
Democrats want to control your public life, Republicans want to control your private life.
-
one of my favorite simplifications-
democrats- want to take the money from the working class and distribute it to the poor.
republicans- want to take the money from the working class.
-
Republicans - SUCK
Democrats - suck
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Republicans - SUCK
Democrats - suck
Okay, considering I do vote the issues and not the party (even voted for a Democrat last election, locally!), I'll agree with this.
-
No real difference between the two, other than as a way to narrow down which candidates you get to choose during the primary elections (the elections to determine who your candidate will be for the next election for office).
Traditionally, the Republicans have been pro-business whereas the Democrats tend to be more oriented on social issues, such as welfare, education, and social services. The distinctions tend to get a little blurry, and its common for a folks registered as a Democrat to vote for a Republican candidate.
Its a lot like trying to explain the difference between a Miami Dolphins fan and a New York Jets fan. Both love football and think the other team's fans are evil.
-
democrats consist of women, effeminate men and men who think that women will like them if they pretend to be womanly.
republicans don't feel that women should be allowed to vote.
other than that.... popeye is correct.
lazs
-
democrats consist of women, effeminate men and men who think that women will like them if they pretend to be womanly.
wlak into your your nearest union meeting, goto the center of the room and repeat that statement. I bet you don't make it to the door still standing.
-
You really think that the president has omnipotent power to control the economy?
Yes, any administration can greatly effect the economy. Reagan wasn’t lying back in the 80’s when he said his administration created 10 million new jobs. Research and development funding, trade missions, loans for small business startups, keeping interest percentages low all have an effect.
The government can positively influence the economy by tax cuts (like John Kennedy advocated)
It sure can! especially tax cuts targeted to the greatest number of tax payers. Unfortunately the current administration was able to get passed tax cuts that benefit the top tire of tax payers. For the majority of Americans a $90 to $150 a year tax cut doesn’t do much to stimulate the economy.
Alan Greenspan has much greater power to influence the economy than the president or congress does; all he has to say is irrational exuberance, and the stock market takes a dive. Add or subtract a 1/4 point, and see what happens.
You must be referring to what Greenspan said back in ’96, luckily we had four more years of what he calls “irrational exuberance” As it is now, with a deficit of 165 billion and rising, if the Fed cuts interest rates any more you’ll have deflation. It can only go up. Are you old enough to have bought a new car back in the 80s like I did?.
And yes, the president has a pen that he can use to sign or veto the laws that congress writes
And so the question remains --- why didn’t he veto this over bloated budget? His own party sent over a budget for him to either veto or sign-- who in the end of the day takes responsibility?
Republicans = Personal responsibility
Yes this is one of the great Republican mantras. Can you point out an example of these Republicans taking responsibility for anything?
300 billion surplus turns to 165 billion deficit in one year.. Um sorry, Clinton’s fault, the economy started to falter on his watch.
911 could have be prevented if the FBI and CIA hadn’t dropped the ball or anti terrorism proposals shelved. Urm.. so sorry.. Clinton’s fault.. He had a chance to get Bin Ladin back in ’94..
Enron, Duke, Reliant, Worldcom, some of the current President’s financial backers are up to their neck in fraud and corruption. An example is the phony energy crisis in California in which the administration conspired with these thieves. Er not our responsibility Clinton’s fault.. He set the tone back in the ’90s with his dandelions with Lewinsky.
-
Lets not forget what Daschel was doing with his "Corporate America" while your posting about corruption, 10bears ;)
-
"wlak into your your nearest union meeting, goto the center of the room and repeat that statement. I bet you don't make it to the door still standing."
I wouldn't repeat that statement in the middle of a breast cancer convention either. I have no illusions of just how mean either group could be when they have the numbers. Besides... these days.... union meetings have a population of about 50% women anyhow... the remaining "men" are either in touch with their feminine side or are one issue voters.... Like the teachers union... they vote for who they are told to vote for and have no idea why.
lazs
-
what union meetings have you been to? not many people like you decribe at my unions meetings.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Like the teachers union... they vote for who they are told to vote for and have no idea why.
lazs
This I can confirm.
-
Politics does not work that way. There is no way for a politician to take credit for preventing something - unless he prevents absolutely everything that can be conceived but since many requirements are mutually exclusive, that is even theoretically impossible.
On the other hand if bad thing happens, he cannot be held responcible except not be reelected. Even that is arguable since he can always blame his predecessor, interference of the opposing party in congress/senate or incompetent underlings.
Politicians get much more mileage from fighting bad things that are already there than from preventing them.
Imagine Bush learning about 911 in advance, disrupting it and doing what he did - invading Afghanistan and going after Iraq. How much approval would he have gotten?
Bush senior father lost election to Clinton even though he prevented terrorist acts against US - but he did not prevent slight recession, or ozone hole or myriad other things.
When you hire a processional - say to manage your network, and you know him to be good and networks to be pain to administer - and if nothing major happens in a year, you are sure he did a great job and pay him a bonus - even if he seemed to do little. But of course you have brains if you are in a position to hire a network administrator.
You do not need brains to vote for a politician.
In electing a politician it' more like a stupid guy posting an impossible job and collecting bids to do it. He is guaranteed to get only crooks who will assure him they can do it well even though they know they can't.
miko
-
Alot of the political agendas are getting old and wearing thin, no matter how hard the polititions try to resurface them as agendas. In the end they never tie the knot on these ideas as they are tools. I think America needs to reaffirm itself and start making some political progress again. IMHO, alot of these ideas and subjects should really have been rather settled and made firm somehow, allowing the generations to adopt them naturally rather than choose. Need to make progress, move forward otherwise the problems just keep dividing themselves and get worse, same dumb basic agendas in 50 years from now. I hope not. The human race can handle its societal problems quite well so far, Im not sure if we can adapt as fast as the problem might grow in the long run? If people dont adapt, alot will be left out. I sound sorta like a Rep but I also believe in some lib ideas of course. Collen Powell for presidente!
-
An example of stereotyping: Republicans tax cuts go to the rich.
I benefitted from last year's tax cut...and I am quite a distance removed from being "rich."
Various government taxes take 1/3 of everything I earn...and I don't earn very much. Any political group that gives part of it back to me has my support.
That's why I haven't voted Democratic in a single election during the last 20 years.
If my sons had not qualified for scholarships, I would have had to have gone deeply into debt to send them to college.
I could use another tax cut. Right now, there is only one political party in the United States that will seriously consider giving me one. I'll vote for their candidates, thank you! The other party will continue to spend my tax dollars to fund government programs that buy the votes of those addicted to government largesse. I will not vote for that party, thank you very much!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
An example of stereotyping: Republicans tax cuts go to the rich.
Which is true. With our progressive system - and even with a flat tax system, people who make more money pay more taxes. The same people benefit more when taxes are cut.
When you buy a service or hire a bodyguard, they do not charge you based on what you make but on what you use - how much service you use or how many persons to guard.
If you make a lot of money, you either earned it or provided jobs through business. And money are only good if you spend them (providing more jobs, etc), otherwise it's just paper.
With government, you get charged for services like monetary policy or military protection not based on what you use but on how much you make.
It used to be people needed to organise in groups to overwhelm someone by strength of numbers and take their posessions.
Civilisation just made it legal by introducing that "democracy" concept. Saves a lot of effort for all concerned - no need to form mobs and loot, just vote to have people taxed and proceeds distributed.
miko
-
Democrats = 14 sheep and one wolf in sheep's clothing voting on what's for lunch.
Republicans = 14 wolves and one sheep voting on what's for lunch.
Neither vote makes one iota of difference on what's for lunch.
-
the sad thing about the democratic party is that while it was intended to represent (and most of it's members are) working people. we are mostly at work. busy lifes and whatnot so the people who are also in the same party (welfare types, activists) seem to have more time to devote to having a louder voice.
-
lazs liberitarian all the way woohoo.
I am fairly middle of the isle on many issues I am against abortion with exceptions, for the death penalty (the person will never murder again will he/she). All for right to bear arms, but must have responsibility. Stop taxing me, get rid of the bloated government for something leaner and meaner. I don't blame America first, I believe in common sense, all politicians are scum. etc.
-
Yep, I think most of the generalizations here work :)
I dislike both equally. When the general election comes along, I will vote for Mr. Bu Laia for governor. He is a local comedian who a few years ago liked to walk around with rubber slippers, surf shorts and a tank top, false gap in his teeth, and a natty lookin hairdo. One of his favorite words was "edumacation." Tried to run for governor before but was too young and thus disqualified. Last time I heard he was trying again - and will be under one of the other "independent" parties. Btw, his name is a play on words and eventually translates to "Bull Sh$%@er" I think. When he loses and the status quo in Hawaii remains due to whoever assumes power, I'll get that bumper sticker I saw from years ago before saying "No blame me, I voted for Bu."
:D
mauser
-
OH... you really have a choice? :)
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the sad thing about the democratic party is that while it was intended to represent (and most of it's members are) working people. we are mostly at work. busy lifes and whatnot so the people who are also in the same party (welfare types, activists) seem to have more time to devote to having a louder voice.
They are compensating for being a "pro-slavery" party?
miko
-
More Politics. How do you Americans propogate the species?
A glass of wine, some candlelight mood music, a box full of chocolates and the annual government budget report at your side?
Do your females hold this bizarre fascination as well?
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
More Politics. How do you Americans propogate the species?
A glass of wine, some candlelight mood music, a box full of chocolates and the annual government budget report at your side?
Do your females hold this bizarre fascination as well?
Oh, you are making me nostalgic. I remember living in a socialist country myself...
No concerns or choices to make. Just stand in line or procreate...
P.S. When it comes to politicians spending our hard-earned tax money, the process has some things in common with initial procreation - at least the initial stage.
miko
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
You really think that the president has omnipotent power to control the economy?
Yes, any administration can greatly effect the economy. Reagan wasn’t lying back in the 80’s when he said his administration created 10 million new jobs. Research and development funding, trade missions, loans for small business startups, keeping interest percentages low all have an effect.
The government can positively influence the economy by tax cuts (like John Kennedy advocated)
It sure can! especially tax cuts targeted to the greatest number of tax payers. Unfortunately the current administration was able to get passed tax cuts that benefit the top tire of tax payers. For the majority of Americans a $90 to $150 a year tax cut doesn’t do much to stimulate the economy.
Alan Greenspan has much greater power to influence the economy than the president or congress does; all he has to say is irrational exuberance, and the stock market takes a dive. Add or subtract a 1/4 point, and see what happens.
You must be referring to what Greenspan said back in ’96, luckily we had four more years of what he calls “irrational exuberance” As it is now, with a deficit of 165 billion and rising, if the Fed cuts interest rates any more you’ll have deflation. It can only go up. Are you old enough to have bought a new car back in the 80s like I did?.
And yes, the president has a pen that he can use to sign or veto the laws that congress writes
And so the question remains --- why didn’t he veto this over bloated budget? His own party sent over a budget for him to either veto or sign-- who in the end of the day takes responsibility?
Republicans = Personal responsibility
Yes this is one of the great Republican mantras. Can you point out an example of these Republicans taking responsibility for anything?
300 billion surplus turns to 165 billion deficit in one year.. Um sorry, Clinton’s fault, the economy started to falter on his watch.
911 could have be prevented if the FBI and CIA hadn’t dropped the ball or anti terrorism proposals shelved. Urm.. so sorry.. Clinton’s fault.. He had a chance to get Bin Ladin back in ’94..
Enron, Duke, Reliant, Worldcom, some of the current President’s financial backers are up to their neck in fraud and corruption. An example is the phony energy crisis in California in which the administration conspired with these thieves. Er not our responsibility Clinton’s fault.. He set the tone back in the ’90s with his dandelions with Lewinsky.
Enron sent money to the Demos too.
It's amazing that you swallow the propoganda that the National Democratic Party shovels your way.
The truth is in between. You have to throw out most of what the Demos and Repubs tell you, and use whatever innate intellegence you may have left to make an informed opinion. You have much study ahead.
-
Another difference that you'll notice is that the Republicans are much better at politics than the Democrats. Notice how Iraq has become a hot issue as the November elections approach, forcing the Democrats to "support their President", instead of talking about the issues that they think favor their side.
No matter what you think about the Republican's agenda, you've got to respect their political savvy.
-
Originally posted by popeye
Another difference that you'll notice is that the Republicans are much better at politics than the Democrats. Notice how Iraq has become a hot issue as the November elections approach, forcing the Democrats to "support their President", instead of talking about the issues that they think favor their side.
No matter what you think about the Republican's agenda, you've got to respect their political savvy.
This is only true in the present. I believe there should be no argument that Clinton had little trouble focusing the Country on his agenda for most of his 8 years.
-
Newt would be offended.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is only true in the present. I believe there should be no argument that Clinton had little trouble focusing the Country on his agenda for most of his 8 years.
Sorry Midnight, but if your fishin' I have to bite;
Argument #1
Clinton proposed government administered health care. Clinton's first major policy proposal, went down to dismal failure.
Argument #2
1994 "Contract with America" successfully brings Republicans to the leadership of the house, partly as a reaction to the first two years of the Clinton presidency. The first Democrat in the white house to see the legistative branch switch sides in 50 years.
Clinton thought to be a one termer for a time, and pundits declare him (prematurely and incorrectly) obsolete. (But perception is 9/10 of politics.)
Argument #3
Even though the comeback kid recovers to win his second term, some thing else cuts his second term in half. As I remember, something about a blue dress and impeachment.
Whether you think that it was his fault or the fault of the vast right wing conspiracy, much of the second term was wasted with this issue, and he did could have handled the situation much better than he did.
I think that his skill in keeping his agenda on the table was lacking.
-
Another difference that you'll notice is that the Republicans are much better at politics than the Democrats. Notice how Iraq has become a hot issue as the November elections approach, forcing the Democrats to "support their President", instead of talking about the issues that they think favor their side.
No matter what you think about the Republican's agenda, you've got to respect their political savvy.
Hehehe isn't this a fancy way of saying "wag the dog"?
-
10 Bears,
My friend, are you serious? Are you actually saying that the threat from Iraq is contrived? That Saddam Hussein's ties to and support of Muslim terrorists isn't real? Do you believe that this murderous dictator has no interest in developing nuclear and biological weapons? Or that he wouldn't allow his terrorist friends access to these weapons so that they could use them against the U.S.? You can't possibly mean that you think the President created this threat just to make a few political points in order to influence an election? Can you?
Even if this wasn't an election year, the threat would remain, and we would have to deal with it.
Regards, Shuckins