PDA

View Full Version : Difference Between Republicans and Democrats


Duzza
07-26-2006, 03:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O7S689XUBk&search=difference%20between%20democrats

Nike Man
07-26-2006, 04:11 AM
Okaaaaaaaaaay then:confused:

Duzza
07-26-2006, 04:12 AM
Okaaaaaaaaaay then:confused:
Yeah only Americans will probably get it :D.

Jim Hendricks
07-26-2006, 04:38 AM
Frank Zappa use to say the difference is, if you prefer kneeling down or bending over.

zhan
07-26-2006, 06:54 AM
Yeah only Americans will probably get it :D.

i think the moral of the story is ...
reps and dems are the samething... so it doesnt matter who u vote... they are all money hungry, corrupt, politicians who only care about themselves...
...

MonkeyPox
07-26-2006, 09:41 AM
That sort of attitude is what kept Bush in the White House and I'd have to say I disagree completely. We'd probably not be a war for one thing and have an extra 500 billion in the treasury. I could buy a lot of Yonex racquets with that. I'm just sayin'.

alienhamster
07-26-2006, 12:11 PM
There are differences between the parties, not a lot in terms of the powers they support, but enough to make a difference in terms of some major international and domestic political decisions. You see this most with the environment and war policy.

I'm pretty positive we wouldn't be in Iraq if a Democrat had been in office--or at least not this (seemingly) illegally.

And I don't think we would have busted the budget so much, and given MORE tax breaks to wealthy folks, if a Democrat had been in office.

But yeah, they both get lobbied by a lot of the same crappy corporations and special interests.

simi
07-26-2006, 02:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O7S689XUBk&search=difference%20between%20democrats

That's pretty good, Duzza. Thanks for posting. More truth to it than most people realize.

zhan
07-26-2006, 08:20 PM
There are differences between the parties, not a lot in terms of the powers they support, but enough to make a difference in terms of some major international and domestic political decisions. You see this most with the environment and war policy.

I'm pretty positive we wouldn't be in Iraq if a Democrat had been in office--or at least not this (seemingly) illegally.

And I don't think we would have busted the budget so much, and given MORE tax breaks to wealthy folks, if a Democrat had been in office.

But yeah, they both get lobbied by a lot of the same crappy corporations and special interests.

i agree
but here is my reason
immediately after 9-11 bush pointed at a country (afghan) and said... "ATTTTTAAACCCKKK"...
I AM very sure that Al-Gore can do the same...
If bush can do it (bush is not very bright) then Al Gore can do it as well
...
Now Kerry...
Kerry is obviously a much brighter man than both Al Gore and Bush
but he cant express his intellectual ability FULLY just because half the country (red states) dont care, ignorant etc...
...
I voted for Kerry... just because he is a smart individual... i'd rather have my country in the hands of technocrats instead of religious fanatics...

Duzza
07-27-2006, 12:00 AM
i think the moral of the story is ...
reps and dems are the samething... so it doesnt matter who u vote... they are all money hungry, corrupt, politicians who only care about themselves...
...
Yay someone got it.

Caswell
07-27-2006, 04:43 AM
.And I don't think we would have busted the budget so much, and given MORE tax breaks to wealthy folks, if a Democrat had been in office.

Read info from some nonpartisan advocacy groups - Cato, CAGW, etc.

The budget is "busted" because spending is through the roof. Tax revenues are actually increasing.

Even if you take out the spending for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush has outspent every President since LBJ, who waged an extremely expensive "war on poverty".

The problem is that both parties are now the party of big government. With either party in control of Congress and the White House, you're now going to see massive levels of spending as the party tries to form the country in its image.

I long for the days of Clinton, not because of his policy, but because having the opposition party in control of Congress kept the expansion of the federal government to a minimum.

zhan
07-27-2006, 06:16 AM
Yay someone got it.
lol...
im with ya bro :mrgreen:

buder
07-27-2006, 12:04 PM
That sort of attitude is what kept Bush in the White House and I'd have to say I disagree completely. We'd probably not be a war for one thing and have an extra 500 billion in the treasury. I could buy a lot of Yonex racquets with that. I'm just sayin'.

Agreed. I blame the naive Nadarites. Nadar took advantage of the less educated segment of the left and peeled enough votes from Gore to give Bush the Whitehouse. Nadar propogandized their similarities, of which there are many, and lied about their differences, which have turned out to be bigger than anyone could have imagined.

alienhamster
07-27-2006, 01:37 PM
Read info from some nonpartisan advocacy groups - Cato, CAGW, etc.

The budget is "busted" because spending is through the roof. Tax revenues are actually increasing.

Even if you take out the spending for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush has outspent every President since LBJ, who waged an extremely expensive "war on poverty".

The problem is that both parties are now the party of big government. With either party in control of Congress and the White House, you're now going to see massive levels of spending as the party tries to form the country in its image.

I long for the days of Clinton, not because of his policy, but because having the opposition party in control of Congress kept the expansion of the federal government to a minimum. You know, THIS is a healthy, honest libertarian response. Where are you guys during election cycles, when Republicans CONTINUE to get away with big spending but somehow always pin the blame on the Democrats? I have to admit that I was the most disappointed with libertarians in this country in 2004 for either (1) not voting, or worse (2) voting for Bush. This whole administration has been nothing but violations of civil liberties and ridiculous expenditures that don't have any clear benefit for us down the road. (Not to mention human lives lost.)

BTW, are you sure CATO is non-partisan?

alienhamster
07-27-2006, 01:42 PM
Agreed. I blame the naive Nadarites. Nadar took advantage of the less educated segment of the left and peeled enough votes from Gore to give Bush the Whitehouse. Nadar propogandized their similarities, of which there are many, and lied about their differences, which have turned out to be bigger than anyone could have imagined. But Nadar doesn't explain what happened in 2004.

As far as 2000 is concerned . . . Florida Nadar voters, in retrospect, are really kicking themselves now. Even if like 250 of them had switched their votes, the entire world would be different.

Look, I was a Nadar supporter from Tennessee that year, but I switched to Gore when the polls started to show that Bush might win the state (which he did--that was maybe the BIGGEST mistake on Gore's part.) Nadar's critiques were pretty much spot on, and Gore shot himself in the foot for not embracing the parts of the Clinton adminstration people liked, and by not playing up his environmental achievements. That alone would have swung enough Green Party folks back to Gore, but he totally wimped out.

drakulie
07-27-2006, 02:33 PM
I don't think Kerry is a "bright" man at all. His speeches during the campaign did not impress me at all. The only thing that has impressed me about him, is his choice of wife---and I ain't talking about her looks.

By the way, I am not saying Bush or Gore are brighter than Kerry. I will say this though-they are ALL scumbags, and that includes Clinton.

zampano
07-27-2006, 03:28 PM
Yeah only Americans will probably get it :D.

we all got it, politicians are the same everywhere.

zampano
07-27-2006, 03:32 PM
i think the moral of the story is ...
reps and dems are the samething... so it doesnt matter who u vote... they are all money hungry, corrupt, politicians who only care about themselves...
...

yes and, there's always someboby behind them, so it's important who you vote.

El Diablo
07-27-2006, 03:42 PM
They are distinguished from each other fundamentally by the way they understand the duality of man. A Democrat believes man's good and social qualities (kindness, generosity) ultimately will prevail to solve most problems, largely through programs to redistribute income. A Republican believes man's bad and asocial qualities (greed, selfishness) ultimately are not fully controllable and need to be harnessed through a capitalist market system to solve most problems.

Caswell
07-27-2006, 06:08 PM
BTW, are you sure CATO is non-partisan?

Cato is non-partisan in the sense that they're neither Republican or Democrat. If you had to pin a label on them, it'd be Libertarian.

As for the Libertarians in 2004, they were protesting outside of the debates in designated "free speech zones" after being locked out by the Republicans and Democrats.

If any of you honestly believe there's any real difference between the two major parties, you've been had. Talk all you want about Democrats belief in the good of man or the Republicans desire to let capitalism reign in the greed inherent in all of us. At the end of the day, both of them want the same thing - more power.

hgb765
07-29-2006, 07:44 AM
hahahhaha one of the comments on youtube

EcksMC (1 month ago)
they're all black?

zhan
07-29-2006, 08:03 AM
hahahhaha one of the comments on youtube

EcksMC (1 month ago)
they're all black?

roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!
haahahahaaha
hahahahahahah
a
ahahahahah
aahhahah
ha!

DragonNeedSpank
07-29-2006, 09:16 AM
hahahhaha one of the comments on youtube

EcksMC (1 month ago)
they're all black?

lol!!! ahahahahaha that guy is a GENIUS!!!!!:eek: