NationStates Jolt Archive

In what way do the democratic and republican philosophies differ from each other?

I ask, because I tried to find the answer to that question and failed. I asked people in person and all I got was "A republican votes republican" :cry: Which would appear to be rather friggin' obvious!!

It also appears to me that even though republicans and democrats are great at saying they are nothing alike, they still show little difference. Point in fact, I'd say the republican and the democratic parties would do best by merging with one another as they show themselves to be so much alike.

I mean, right now it appears the USA is run by a two party dictatorship, and since both parties seem so alike it looks like no matter which party is in power nothing really changes on the political platform.

Now, if they would stop posing as two very different parties they could merge and give another party, one whose philosophy does bear a marked difference from the rep/dem philosophy, a chance at that coveted seat in the white house. Who knows? Maybe that would bring a much needed change :)

Anyways, my question is: what is the difference between a democrat and a republican? Difference in political philosophy, that is.

The spelling.

Democrats tell you they love you and then screw you.
Republicans simply screw you.

Ah, so one goes to public schools whereas the other enjoys the quality of private schools? :lol:

Democrats tell you they love you and then screw you.
Republicans simply screw you.

Plagiarizing, are we? :wink:

I don't know but in Australia the two major parties the Liberals and Labor disagree on everything although a few years ago they were like clones.

Go CNNN!!!!!!! for the Cadman incident

Thats the republican and democratic parties now... two drones :(

Democrats tell you they love you and then screw you.
Republicans simply screw you.

Plagiarizing, are we? :wink:

Perhaps, though I would hardly call the honest truth plagiarism....

The usa is simply a corparate facist state, that is one of the many reasons I am a communist!

Democrats tell you they love you and then screw you.
Republicans simply screw you.

Plagiarizing, are we? :wink:

Perhaps, though I would hardly call the honest truth plagiarism....

You got a point there. A good one too. It just sounded remarkably alike what Michael Moore said.

Both parties, though remarkably similar in their interest to increace spending, are still different to some extent. The most practical example of their differences is that Republicans seek to promote big business, while Democrats offer aid to the homeless.

The usa is simply a corparate facist state, that is one of the many reasons I am a communist!

woah communism is still clinging on to support. What would you say if you met Mikhail Gorbachev (excuse the spelling) today??

Viva la Mikhail!!!

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that Democrats want more regulation in the boardroom, while Republicans perfer more regulation in the bedroom. The both want more regulation, though.

New-Soviet-Union,

You claim to be a communist, yet, seeing the name of your nation, you associate with a former dictatorship state who gave communism a very bad name. Why?

The difference is in the special interest groups to which each party owes fealty.

If you're talking about the moderates in the parties, then there's not a ton of difference. On the edges, however, there's a lot of difference. The crazies in the Democratic party want to feed everyone and make sure they all have good health care and a place in society. The crazies in the Republican party want to get rid of Social Security and leave the helpless to the tender mercies of the free market. It's a crude simplification, admittedly, but it's accurate up to a point.

Both parties, though remarkably similar in their interest to increace spending, are still different to some extent. The most practical example of their differences is that Republicans seek to promote big business, while Democrats offer aid to the homeless.

A difference that one should say can easily be overcome, and hence making a merger of the two parties a very reasonable and natural decision, wouldn't you say?

If you're talking about the moderates in the parties, then there's not a ton of difference. On the edges, however, there's a lot of difference. The crazies in the Democratic party want to feed everyone and make sure they all have good health care and a place in society. The crazies in the Republican party want to get rid of Social Security and leave the helpless to the tender mercies of the free market. It's a crude simplification, admittedly, but it's accurate up to a point.

Ah yes, the extremists :cry:

I completely forgot about them!

If you're talking about the moderates in the parties, then there's not a ton of difference. On the edges, however, there's a lot of difference. The crazies in the Democratic party want to feed everyone and make sure they all have good health care and a place in society. The crazies in the Republican party want to get rid of Social Security and leave the helpless to the tender mercies of the free market. It's a crude simplification, admittedly, but it's accurate up to a point.

Ah yes, the extremists :cry:

I completely forgot about them!I feel better about the extremists in the Democratic party--seeing as I could be considered one of them--than the crazies on the other side.

Both parties, though remarkably similar in their interest to increace spending, are still different to some extent. The most practical example of their differences is that Republicans seek to promote big business, while Democrats offer aid to the homeless.

A difference that one should say can easily be overcome, and hence making a merger of the two parties a very reasonable and natural decision, wouldn't you say?
It may be feasible to merge both parties, but would doing so have desirable results?

Democrats tell you they love you and then screw you.
Republicans simply screw you.


thats right, no deception from us republicans.

Both parties, though remarkably similar in their interest to increace spending, are still different to some extent. The most practical example of their differences is that Republicans seek to promote big business, while Democrats offer aid to the homeless.

A difference that one should say can easily be overcome, and hence making a merger of the two parties a very reasonable and natural decision, wouldn't you say?
It may be feasible to merge both parties, but would doing so have desirable results?

Maybe not, but at least a merger would give another party, one whose agenda does differ significantly from the demo-republican agenda, a chance to step to the foreground. Also, I doubt it would make matters worse. I mean, right now it are like two clones pretending to be different, which makes them loose quite a bit of credibility.

Who knows? Maybe that would bring a much needed change :)

Which "much needed change" is that?

Democrats tell you they love you and then screw you.
Republicans simply screw you.


thats right, no deception from us republicans.

I guess this means that Bush became a republican by default...

And if he had been a better liar he'd have been a democrat...

Fortunately, for us, he lacks the intelligent needed to be a good liar :D

Who knows? Maybe that would bring a much needed change :)

Which "much needed change" is that?

One that opens up the posibility for the people to have a choice between two thoroughly different political parties, as oppossed to having to chose between two parties that seem to barely differ at all.

Who knows? Maybe that would bring a much needed change :)

Which "much needed change" is that?

One that opens up the posibility for the people to have a choice between two thoroughly different political parties, as oppossed to having to chose between two parties that seem to barely differ at all.The sad reality is that in politics we(not only Americans, but everyone) are forced to choose the candidate we dislike least. There are no good politicians, only the lesser of two bad ones. Bringing in another party would only give obe three losers to choose from. Which party would you like to see enter into US politics, anyway?

The usa is simply a corparate facist state, that is one of the many reasons I am a communist!

woah communism is still clinging on to support. What would you say if you met Mikhail Gorbachev (excuse the spelling) today??

Viva la Mikhail!!!

There's quite a few of us still around.

Personally I'd like there to be a spectrum of political parties, not two dominant one's, especially not when they are so alike, and I much more prefer a coalition of parties to form the goverment than just one, because it helps tone down the extremists of those parties.

So, even though I do not have a personal preference for any third party, I do know that seeing how the R&D parties are so much alike it would be very refreshing to have a third party step to the foreground, one with an agenda that does bear a marked difference from both the R&D's agenda's, a sentiment that I suspect is shared by others as well.

The usa is simply a corparate facist state, that is one of the many reasons I am a communist!

woah communism is still clinging on to support. What would you say if you met Mikhail Gorbachev (excuse the spelling) today??

Viva la Mikhail!!!

There's quite a few of us still around.

You mean armchair communists who are living the capitalist lifestyle? :wink:

I hope that wasn't an accusation :twisted:

Personally I'd like there to be a spectrum of political parties, not two dominant one's, especially not when they are so alike, and I much more prefer a coalition of parties to form the goverment than just one, because it helps tone down the extremists of those parties.

So, even though I do not have a personal preference for any third party, I do know that seeing how the R&D parties are so much alike it would be very refreshing to have a third party step to the foreground, one with an agenda that does bear a marked difference from both the R&D's agenda's, a sentiment that I suspect is shared by others as well.I don't see it that way. Widely disperate parties would give power to exteremists. If a very conservative or very liberal party was in the foreground, the extremists of whichever side would stand a real chance of gaining power, I don't think that would help anyone.

Widely disparate parties would not necessarily give power to extremists, not unless the people would vote for them, and in that case its their own choice. This is, of course, overlooking the fact the the one's in power now already can be seen as extremists depending on where you stand.

I say that a wide array of political parties would give the people a real option to vote for a party who they feel is really representative of what they, the voter, stand for. It would rekindle political interest, which I suspect is currently so low because fewer and fewer people feel that there is actually someone out there looking out after their best interests.

And if several political parties can come into power by forming a coalition than this would only be possible if they would overcome their differences, which means that they have to tune down extreme opposing views if they have them, meaning that extremism would be prevented. The later would also happen if the republican and democtratic parties would merge.

I hope that wasn't an accusation :twisted:

I wouldn't dare!! No, that was not an accusation but a non-negotiable fact :)

With more parties would come a greater fracturing of the electorate. Making it easier for an extremist to gain power. Forming a coalition and moving tward a moderate position, isn't that what we have now?

It's always been my belief that both parties espouse certain ideologies in order to get votes from the target demographic. They do have genuine differences, but they are extremely similar. The Democratic Party, however, is not the Democratic Party is was in previous decades, it has become more of a socialist party than anything, though calling it such would guarantee defeat. The primary purpose of political parties is power, anyhow, they'll just change their principles in order to further their agenda, which is to gain more power. Everything else is secondary.

It is true that a fracturing of the electorate would make it easier for an extremist party to gain power, but I doubt it is something to be overly concerned about. For that to happen they would need a lot of votes, and I suspect that the majority would vote for more moderately orientated parties.

As for the current political climate being "moderate", well, that could easily be argued. Currently the USA's military spending is the largest in the world and crippling the economy, thats pretty extreme if you ask me. If Bush is elected, no, I do not say "reelected" because the people didn't elect him in the first place, a bunch of old geezers did, as I suspect he will be, than you can kiss social security goodbye, that can easily be chalked down as "extremist" as well.

The difference can be found if you speak Latin and English well:

If you do speak Latin then you will comprehend why Democrats are truly sinister politicians!!! :lol:

If you speak English well you will understand that Republicans are so righteous!!! :lol:

Not much difference, they both think they know what’s best for us. They may disagree about what they think is best for us, but they’re both completely wrong. They both have good points, unfortunately they can never seem to find a common ground. All they want to do is have it their way. That why I say that whichever party the president is in, the vice president should be in the other party. They should also have staff that are in the opposite party as well. But no, all they want to do is live in their own little world and surround themselves with yes men.

I hope that wasn't an accusation :twisted:

I wouldn't dare!! No, that was not an accusation but a non-negotiable fact :)

Well, I don't consider myself one. It's impossible not to conform to capitalism anyway, unless I want to be naked and starving.

Bill Hicks:

"I'll show you politics in America, here it is right here:

'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'
'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'
'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy in the middle holding up both puppets.'

'Shut Up! Go back to bed, America, your government is in control.'

The usa is simply a corparate facist state, that is one of the many reasons I am a communist!

That's a reason to be libertarian: Separation of Business and State.

Communism runs into the exact opposite problem. You STILL have the entire economy controlled by a single powerful organization (Yes, even in Democratic Communism. "The people" is a single large omnipowerful organization. Everyone should be allowed to do what he wants with his stuff. That's called pluralism. That's the only way democracy can survive).

Who knows? Maybe that would bring a much needed change :)

Which "much needed change" is that?

One that opens up the posibility for the people to have a choice between two thoroughly different political parties, as oppossed to having to chose between two parties that seem to barely differ at all.The sad reality is that in politics we(not only Americans, but everyone) are forced to choose the candidate we dislike least. There are no good politicians, only the lesser of two bad ones. Bringing in another party would only give obe three losers to choose from. Which party would you like to see enter into US politics, anyway?

www.russoforpresident.com
www.garynolan.com

If you do speak Latin then you will comprehend why Democrats are truly sinister politicians!!! :lol:

Lol.... that's good but i don't think too many people got that it took me a while heh.,

right now the only difference between Republican and Democrat that impacts my vote is their stances on social issues. the Republican party is supporting denial of civil and human rights to numerous groups, and i cannot support that. also, the Republican party is completely abandoning the conservative economic values that i agree with, so there's no remaining reason for me to put up with them.

plus their presidential candidate is an utter embarassment.

The usa is simply a corparate facist state, that is one of the many reasons I am a communist!

That's a reason to be libertarian: Separation of Business and State.

Communism runs into the exact opposite problem. You STILL have the entire economy controlled by a single powerful organization (Yes, even in Democratic Communism. "The people" is a single large omnipowerful organization. Everyone should be allowed to do what he wants with his stuff. That's called pluralism. That's the only way democracy can survive).

Often libertarians are mega-capitalists who want no government intervention whatsoever in their business affairs. This is insane- there will be no regulations stopping the reoccurance of the great depression, or from businesses doing unscrupulous practices (ha, they do anyway don't they? :roll:) or exploiting workers severely...

The system you have described is not Communism, but Socialism or State Capitalism. By the way, there is no clause in socialism saying that individual thought is bad. Individual gain at the expense of others is, however.

By the way, there is no clause in socialism saying that individual thought is bad. Individual gain at the expense of others is, however.
just out of curiosity, why would that be? i mean, what is inherantly wrong about individual gain at the expense of the less worthy or less capable? i'm not saying i am supporting that, just curious.

You know, you can subdivide the Democrats and Republicans into the following parties:

Democrats
Democrats
ConDemnocrats

Republicans
Republicans
Republicants

And then the Republicants can be subdivided into Republicants and Republicunts!!!

The difference? We win elections. :wink:

(Quietly waits for spam on 2000 Florida thats' been debunked before)

The difference? We win elections. :wink:

(Quietly waits for spam on 2000 Florida thats' been debunked before)
Yup win elections and destroy the economy. Then a Democrat has to come in and clean up the mess.

What do you mean by destroy. Things like having the highest quarter of growth in 20 years?

The difference? We win elections. :wink:

(Quietly waits for spam on 2000 Florida thats' been debunked before)

can't give you debunked spam on florida, but your side didn't win there. it was a tie, with some funny business going on on the side. but even without the funny business it probably still would have been a tie.

What do you mean by destroy. Things like having the highest quarter of growth in 20 years?
One quarter of growth out of 14 does not negate the fact that over 2.6 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office.

*Never mind that 125,000 jobs per month need to be created just to keep pace with NEW workers entering the workforce.

*Never mind that the Bush administration was projecting that 300,000 NEW jobs per month would be created.

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_jobcreationpace.gif

After considering all of this, you have this tidbit:

In fact, during a quarter with the strongest growth rate since 1984, total employment fell by 165,000 jobs, according to Labor Department statistics, in part because of strong productivity growth, which enables companies to get more work out of fewer workers.

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that Democrats want more regulation in the boardroom, while Republicans perfer more regulation in the bedroom. The both want more regulation, though.

Go Demos!

To put it very simply.

Take a Republican, take away all his morals, give him a case of beer, an ugly intern, and a cigar. You just made a Democrat.

It comes down to economics...

Republicans say it's your money - you decide how to spend it.

Democrats say it's everybody's money - you pay for everyone else's problems and don't get to say who gets it.

It's always been my belief that both parties espouse certain ideologies in order to get votes from the target demographic. They do have genuine differences, but they are extremely similar. The Democratic Party, however, is not the Democratic Party is was in previous decades, it has become more of a socialist party than anything, though calling it such would guarantee defeat. The primary purpose of political parties is power, anyhow, they'll just change their principles in order to further their agenda, which is to gain more power. Everything else is secondary.Not to be rude, but on what planet is the US Democratic party more liberal today than it was 30 years ago? The Democratic party has consistently more conservative since the 70s, especially on social and economic issues. Richard Nixon was more liberal politically speaking than John Kerry is today, no matter how much right-wing talk radio tries to make Kerry the second coming of Marx.

It comes down to economics...

Republicans say it's your money - you decide how to spend it.

Democrats say it's everybody's money - you pay for everyone else's problems and don't get to say who gets it.Lately, it's been more like the Republicans say "It's your money, but we're not only going to spend it, we're going to spend your kids' and grandkids' money as well."

The Democrats say "You want services like roads and a military? We've got to pay for them and we're not going to play like we don't. That means taxes."

It comes down to economics...

Republicans say it's your money - you decide how to spend it.

Democrats say it's everybody's money - you pay for everyone else's problems and don't get to say who gets it.Lately, it's been more like the Republicans say "It's your money, but we're not only going to spend it, we're going to spend your kids' and grandkids' money as well."

The Democrats say "You want services like roads and a military? We've got to pay for them and we're not going to play like we don't. That means taxes."Well put. I don't get the Republican mindset, they want everything but don't think they should have to pay for any of it. They just figure they'll run up a huge deficet and let someone else worry about it later.

It comes down to economics...

Republicans say it's your money - you decide how to spend it.

That is not true or you would have no armies, no police, no bridges, no streets, no hospitals, no schools, etc.

I was simply refering to the fact that Republicans, myself included, think that we should have lower taxes - not no taxes because that would be crazy - yes certain things have to be paid for - but there are things out there that I just don't want my money going to pay for - thats part of why I chose this party. We wouldn't have as much debt if other countries would stop crying to us to borrow money and then never give it back.

We wouldn't have as much debt if other countries would stop crying to us to borrow money and then never give it back.Do you actually believe this or have you just been cruelly deceived by some spokesperson for the party?

I believe it because its true.

the only way to tell the differences is where they stand on the issues

republicans are generally for the Iraq war and Democrats are largely against it. don't ask me why, that's just the way the two groups percieve it. the democrats view it as a war fought simply for economic gain, on faulty evidence. the republicans seem to view it as a perfectly justified war of liberation.

republicans, being heavily influenced by such groups as the Christian Coalition, are against abortion and gay rights, specifically marriage. they are also for more religion intermixed with the government, and for more government involvement in our private lives. The Democrats, not being so influenced, generally support the right of women to have abortions, gay rights, and are often fanatic about the seperation between church and state.

democrats are generally (and this is very general) more concerned about the enviroment than republicans. republicans are the party of business, and so generally favor such things as tax cuts, helping corporations etc. they used to be for a balanced budget, but this apparently is not the case in recent years.
generally republicans are for less government involvement with the economy, and democrats are for more government involvement in the economy.

this might be a bit biased though, as I would describe myself as being very left-wing.

I believe it because its true.You really believe that we're running a half a trillion dollar deficit every year and a gross debt of over 6 trillion dollars because we've loaned out a lot of money as a nation and the other countries won't pay it back?

I believe it because its true.You really believe that we're running a half a trillion dollar deficit every year and a gross debt of over 6 trillion dollars because we've loaned out a lot of money as a nation and the other countries won't pay it back?
I see a learning curve is required?

We wouldn't have as much debt if other countries would stop crying to us to borrow money and then never give it back.

I guess this 'explains' how you can go from surplus to running up the national debt by an extra $ 1.87 billion a day :roll:

*in case not obvious: sarcasm*

the only way to tell the differences is where they stand on the issues

republicans are generally for the Iraq war and Democrats are largely against it. don't ask me why, that's just the way the two groups percieve it. the democrats view it as a war fought simply for economic gain, on faulty evidence. the republicans seem to view it as a perfectly justified war of liberation.

republicans, being heavily influenced by such groups as the Christian Coalition, are against abortion and gay rights, specifically marriage. they are also for more religion intermixed with the government, and for more government involvement in our private lives. The Democrats, not being so influenced, generally support the right of women to have abortions, gay rights, and are often fanatic about the seperation between church and state.

democrats are generally (and this is very general) more concerned about the enviroment than republicans. republicans are the party of business, and so generally favor such things as tax cuts, helping corporations etc. they used to be for a balanced budget, but this apparently is not the case in recent years.
generally republicans are for less government involvement with the economy, and democrats are for more government involvement in the economy.

this might be a bit biased though, as I would describe myself as being very left-wing.

Best answer I got thus far. :)


Thanks! :)

the only way to tell the differences is where they stand on the issues

republicans are generally for the Iraq war and Democrats are largely against it. don't ask me why, that's just the way the two groups percieve it. the democrats view it as a war fought simply for economic gain, on faulty evidence. the republicans seem to view it as a perfectly justified war of liberation.

republicans, being heavily influenced by such groups as the Christian Coalition, are against abortion and gay rights, specifically marriage. they are also for more religion intermixed with the government, and for more government involvement in our private lives. The Democrats, not being so influenced, generally support the right of women to have abortions, gay rights, and are often fanatic about the seperation between church and state.

democrats are generally (and this is very general) more concerned about the enviroment than republicans. republicans are the party of business, and so generally favor such things as tax cuts, helping corporations etc. they used to be for a balanced budget, but this apparently is not the case in recent years.
generally republicans are for less government involvement with the economy, and democrats are for more government involvement in the economy.

this might be a bit biased though, as I would describe myself as being very left-wing.

Best answer I got thus far. :)


Thanks! :)

Except in reality, the need to appeal to the centrist attitudes of the electorate has brought the Democrats and Republicans closer together and now there is little distinction though they would claim otherwise....

Being a foriegner, have I got it right?

Except in reality, the need to appeal to the centrist attitudes of the electorate has brought the Democrats and Republicans closer together and now there is little distinction though they would claim otherwise....

Being a foriegner, have I got it right?It's really a matter of perspective. If you're looking at the two parties from a more extreme point of view--Green, Libertarian, Natural Law parties, for instance--then there may seem to be little difference between the two. That's exactly the argument that the Green party made with limited success in 2000.

If you're closer to the mainstream of either major party, however, you see major differences between the two of them (which accounts for some of the great hostility toward Ralph Nader in the Democratic party). There really is a large difference between the two major parties in terms of the legislative choices they make.

Here's an example or two. If Al Gore were president, would the US be in Iraq right now? Not likely. Would the so-called partial-birth abortion ban have passed if the Democratic party held a majority in the Senate? Would a President Gore have ever signed it if it had? Would the last three rounds of tax cuts for the rich have been passed or signed into law with a Democratic Congress or a President Gore? Not at all.

Sure--it's easy for the Progressives in the Democratic party (and I'm one of them) to snipe at the national party and say that they're too beholden to big business and have forgotten their roots, but if we've learned anything in the last 3 years, it's that it's better to have legislators who will at least listen to you in charge than it is to have those who are openly hostile to you in charge.

amirica is a currupt corprate state run by a jughead vote commie 8) 8)

I can sum this up...

Economy: Republicans are for allowing me to keep as much of my money as possible...I worked for it..and I should keep it.
Democrats are for allowing me to work for my money then take it and give it to someone else in the form of "gimme handouts"

Defense: Democrats would have emasculated our military, they do it everytime they are in office, either in Congress or the White House.
Republicans are for a strong defense ,normally have higher pay raises for active duty, are more inclined to increase spending on weapons programs.

just a couple reason..just woke up and my head is fuzzy stilll.

I can sum this up...

Economy: Republicans are for allowing me to keep as much of my money as possible...I worked for it..and I should keep it.
Democrats are for allowing me to work for my money then take it and give it to someone else in the form of "gimme handouts"

Defense: Democrats would have emasculated our military, they do it everytime they are in office, either in Congress or the White House.
Republicans are for a strong defense ,normally have higher pay raises for active duty, are more inclined to increase spending on weapons programs.

just a couple reason..just woke up and my head is fuzzy stilll.So is your logic, from the looks of it.

I can sum this up...

Economy: Republicans are for allowing me to keep as much of my money as possible...I worked for it..and I should keep it.
Democrats are for allowing me to work for my money then take it and give it to someone else in the form of "gimme handouts"

Defense: Democrats would have emasculated our military, they do it everytime they are in office, either in Congress or the White House.
Republicans are for a strong defense ,normally have higher pay raises for active duty, are more inclined to increase spending on weapons programs.

just a couple reason..just woke up and my head is fuzzy stilll.So is your logic, from the looks of it.

Well..then enlighten me on how my logic is incomplete eh?

By the way, there is no clause in socialism saying that individual thought is bad. Individual gain at the expense of others is, however.
just out of curiosity, why would that be? i mean, what is inherantly wrong about individual gain at the expense of the less worthy or less capable? i'm not saying i am supporting that, just curious.

You said it yourself. Capitalism views the world in aspects of worthiness and capability. But aren't we all supposed to be born equal?

How do you determine "worthiness"? Is a person that exploits others and keeps them downtrodden more worthy of living a comfortable lifestyle than someone born into poverty and struggling day to day to make ends meet? Our supposedly fair system is inherently contradictory.

You mention "Capability". The fact is, that people who may be "capable" often cannot reach their potential in capitalist society, because they are forced to be little more than indentured servants to the upper classes. That is why socialists view individual gain at the expense of others as wrong.

By the way, there is no clause in socialism saying that individual thought is bad. Individual gain at the expense of others is, however.
just out of curiosity, why would that be? i mean, what is inherantly wrong about individual gain at the expense of the less worthy or less capable? i'm not saying i am supporting that, just curious.

You said it yourself. Capitalism views the world in aspects of worthiness and capability. But aren't we all supposed to be born equal?

How do you determine "worthiness"? Is a person that exploits others and keeps them downtrodden more worthy of living a comfortable lifestyle than someone born into poverty and struggling day to day to make ends meet? Our supposedly fair system is inherently contradictory.

You mention "Capability". The fact is, that people who may be "capable" often cannot reach their potential in capitalist society, because they are forced to be little more than indentured servants to the upper classes. That is why socialists view individual gain at the expense of others as wrong.

Excuse me..but this is hogwash..I shucked corn, cut tobacco, groomed horses as a child on the family farm..worked hard, saved, got new jobs, more pay, more experience..that is how it works..my mother at one time worked 3 jobs at one time just because she refused to accept government welfare..there is my "capability" in that I wasn't going to let life, which isn't supposed to be fair btw..dictate to me what my circumstances would be. Your solution is to instill the "victim" mentality..and the "Don't worry, we'll just soak the rich to make you feel good, dont' worry..we'll take care of you"...how bout...If you give a man a fish, sure he'll heat well today, but what bout tomorrow..but teach a man to fish and he'll for a lifetime.

By the way, there is no clause in socialism saying that individual thought is bad. Individual gain at the expense of others is, however.
just out of curiosity, why would that be? i mean, what is inherantly wrong about individual gain at the expense of the less worthy or less capable? i'm not saying i am supporting that, just curious.

You said it yourself. Capitalism views the world in aspects of worthiness and capability. But aren't we all supposed to be born equal?

How do you determine "worthiness"? Is a person that exploits others and keeps them downtrodden more worthy of living a comfortable lifestyle than someone born into poverty and struggling day to day to make ends meet? Our supposedly fair system is inherently contradictory.

You mention "Capability". The fact is, that people who may be "capable" often cannot reach their potential in capitalist society, because they are forced to be little more than indentured servants to the upper classes. That is why socialists view individual gain at the expense of others as wrong.

Excuse me..but this is hogwash..I shucked corn, cut tobacco, groomed horses as a child on the family farm..worked hard, saved, got new jobs, more pay, more experience..that is how it works..my mother at one time worked 3 jobs at one time just because she refused to accept government welfare..there is my "capability" in that I wasn't going to let life, which isn't supposed to be fair btw..dictate to me what my circumstances would be. Your solution is to instill the "victim" mentality..and the "Don't worry, we'll just soak the rich to make you feel good, dont' worry..we'll take care of you"...how bout...If you give a man a fish, sure he'll heat well today, but what bout tomorrow..but teach a man to fish and he'll for a lifetime.

We'll, I'm pleased to hear of your diligence and success. But I dont see it happening to billions of people in Africa, Asia or South America no matter how hard the people in these countries work. Do you see my point? No matter how hard they struggle, the vast majority in these countries live a hopeless and terrible existence. Maybe you should tell them that "Life isn't supposed to be fair."

By the way, there is no clause in socialism saying that individual thought is bad. Individual gain at the expense of others is, however.
just out of curiosity, why would that be? i mean, what is inherantly wrong about individual gain at the expense of the less worthy or less capable? i'm not saying i am supporting that, just curious.

You said it yourself. Capitalism views the world in aspects of worthiness and capability. But aren't we all supposed to be born equal?

How do you determine "worthiness"? Is a person that exploits others and keeps them downtrodden more worthy of living a comfortable lifestyle than someone born into poverty and struggling day to day to make ends meet? Our supposedly fair system is inherently contradictory.

You mention "Capability". The fact is, that people who may be "capable" often cannot reach their potential in capitalist society, because they are forced to be little more than indentured servants to the upper classes. That is why socialists view individual gain at the expense of others as wrong.

Excuse me..but this is hogwash..I shucked corn, cut tobacco, groomed horses as a child on the family farm..worked hard, saved, got new jobs, more pay, more experience..that is how it works..my mother at one time worked 3 jobs at one time just because she refused to accept government welfare..there is my "capability" in that I wasn't going to let life, which isn't supposed to be fair btw..dictate to me what my circumstances would be. Your solution is to instill the "victim" mentality..and the "Don't worry, we'll just soak the rich to make you feel good, dont' worry..we'll take care of you"...how bout...If you give a man a fish, sure he'll heat well today, but what bout tomorrow..but teach a man to fish and he'll for a lifetime.

We'll, I'm pleased to hear of your diligence and success. But I dont see it happening to billions of people in Africa, Asia or South America no matter how hard the people in these countries work. Do you see my point? No matter how hard they struggle, the vast majority in these countries live a hopeless and terrible existence. Maybe you should tell them that "Life isn't supposed to be fair."

Sure..I've no problem with telling them that life isn't fair...and btw..they're not American citizens..seems to me that if their lifestyle isn't to their liking then perhaps they need to work on their own nation and government system..but my system works pretty well all things considered.

seems to me that if their lifestyle isn't to their liking then perhaps they need to work on their own nation and government system..

My point exactly. By kicking out the American Corporations and taking control of their own national destinies, they'll do much better for themselves.

seems to me that if their lifestyle isn't to their liking then perhaps they need to work on their own nation and government system..

My point exactly. By kicking out the American Corporations and taking control of their own national destinies, they'll do much better for themselves.

Time has obviously passed you by...Corporations these days are multinationals..and nationalizing industries has proven oh so well...not...

seems to me that if their lifestyle isn't to their liking then perhaps they need to work on their own nation and government system..

My point exactly. By kicking out the American Corporations and taking control of their own national destinies, they'll do much better for themselves.

Time has obviously passed you by...Corporations these days are multinationals..and nationalizing industries has proven oh so well...not...

My bad. I should have said "western corporations". Anyhow- How is nationalising industry going to do any more harm than the corporations that utilise these nations for cheap labour and shift profits back to the owners?

seems to me that if their lifestyle isn't to their liking then perhaps they need to work on their own nation and government system..

My point exactly. By kicking out the American Corporations and taking control of their own national destinies, they'll do much better for themselves.

Time has obviously passed you by...Corporations these days are multinationals..and nationalizing industries has proven oh so well...not...

My bad. I should have said "western corporations". Anyhow- How is nationalising industry going to do any more harm than the corporations that utilise these nations for cheap labour and shift profits back to the owners?

So now you want to penalize just Western corporations?...for what..being profitable?...that is what a business is for..that's if I recall my high school economics class..investors provide capital to ensure future profit, not to make live comfortable for the worker or to even provide that worker with a job..And there are many Eastern corportations that are just as eager for profit...some of the communications companies coming out of Beijing and certainly Tokyo has it's hand in there.

So now you want to penalize just Western corporations?...for what..being profitable?...that is what a business is for..that's if I recall my high school economics class..investors provide capital to ensure future profit, not to make live comfortable for the worker or to even provide that worker with a job..And there are many Eastern corportations that are just as eager for profit...some of the communications companies coming out of Beijing and certainly Tokyo has it's hand in there

No, not for being profitable, for being overly exploitative. See, If these corporations contributed in a positive way to the societies they are exploiting, i wouldnt be against them so much. But they don't. They suck them dry and leave nothing in return. Just because you say that "they're there to make a profit, not make life comfortable for the workers" doesn't mean it is right.

By the way, Chinese owned companies are nationalised, or at least, hugely subsidised. And Tokyo is a capitalist society that I would regard as being more west than east, and just as much at fault as other western nations.

double post

So now you want to penalize just Western corporations?...for what..being profitable?...that is what a business is for..that's if I recall my high school economics class..investors provide capital to ensure future profit, not to make live comfortable for the worker or to even provide that worker with a job..And there are many Eastern corportations that are just as eager for profit...some of the communications companies coming out of Beijing and certainly Tokyo has it's hand in there

No, not for being profitable, for being overly exploitative. See, If these corporations contributed in a positive way to the societies they are exploiting, i wouldnt be against them so much. But they don't. They suck them dry and leave nothing in return. Just because you say that "they're there to make a profit, not make life comfortable for the workers" doesn't mean it is right.

By the way, Chinese owned companies are nationalised, or at least, hugely subsidised. And Tokyo is a capitalist society that I would regard as being more west than east, and just as much at fault as other western nations.

Wait a sec?...Why should a company contribute to society?..they're there to make a profit..is this a concept foreign to you?

So now you want to penalize just Western corporations?...for what..being profitable?...that is what a business is for..that's if I recall my high school economics class..investors provide capital to ensure future profit, not to make live comfortable for the worker or to even provide that worker with a job..And there are many Eastern corportations that are just as eager for profit...some of the communications companies coming out of Beijing and certainly Tokyo has it's hand in there

No, not for being profitable, for being overly exploitative. See, If these corporations contributed in a positive way to the societies they are exploiting, i wouldnt be against them so much. But they don't. They suck them dry and leave nothing in return. Just because you say that "they're there to make a profit, not make life comfortable for the workers" doesn't mean it is right.

By the way, Chinese owned companies are nationalised, or at least, hugely subsidised. And Tokyo is a capitalist society that I would regard as being more west than east, and just as much at fault as other western nations.

Wait a sec?...Why should a company contribute to society?..they're there to make a profit..is this a concept foreign to you?

No it isn't, but it is a concept inherently wrong to me. They simply should contribute to society, rather than foster inequality and keep the poor of the world starving and unhappy. Is simple compassion towards fellow human beings and letting them reach their true potential a concept foreign to you?

I'm going to bed. If you want to continue this, please do so via TM or start a new thread. I'm up for it.

So now you want to penalize just Western corporations?...for what..being profitable?...that is what a business is for..that's if I recall my high school economics class..investors provide capital to ensure future profit, not to make live comfortable for the worker or to even provide that worker with a job..And there are many Eastern corportations that are just as eager for profit...some of the communications companies coming out of Beijing and certainly Tokyo has it's hand in there

No, not for being profitable, for being overly exploitative. See, If these corporations contributed in a positive way to the societies they are exploiting, i wouldnt be against them so much. But they don't. They suck them dry and leave nothing in return. Just because you say that "they're there to make a profit, not make life comfortable for the workers" doesn't mean it is right.

By the way, Chinese owned companies are nationalised, or at least, hugely subsidised. And Tokyo is a capitalist society that I would regard as being more west than east, and just as much at fault as other western nations.

Wait a sec?...Why should a company contribute to society?..they're there to make a profit..is this a concept foreign to you?

No it isn't, but it is a concept inherently wrong to me. They simply should contribute to society, rather than foster inequality and keep the poor of the world starving and unhappy. Is simple compassion towards fellow human beings and letting them reach their true potential a concept foreign to you?

I'm going to bed. If you want to continue this, please do so via TM or start a new thread. I'm up for it.

Nite Kanabia....sleep well

I can sum this up...

Economy: Republicans are for allowing me to keep as much of my money as possible...I worked for it..and I should keep it.
Democrats are for allowing me to work for my money then take it and give it to someone else in the form of "gimme handouts"

Defense: Democrats would have emasculated our military, they do it everytime they are in office, either in Congress or the White House.
Republicans are for a strong defense ,normally have higher pay raises for active duty, are more inclined to increase spending on weapons programs.

just a couple reason..just woke up and my head is fuzzy stilll.So is your logic, from the looks of it.

Well..then enlighten me on how my logic is incomplete eh?

Because you want to be wealthy someday, you don't want the government to do anything to the wealthy, thus allowing them to keep you from becoming wealthy. The fact that you want the government not to take anything from the wealthy allows them to further ensure that people like me and you do not become wealthy. Contrary to popular myth, the wealth of the people at the top does not "trickle down" to those below. The wealthy use their riches to move their manufacturing overseas so they only have to pay for sweatshop labor and for expensive mergers that fuel both their egos and their pockets. Thousands of Americans are put out of work by this process, and the tax breaks seem to go to those who need the relief the least.

I am for lowering taxes for the middle and lower class, but hiking them up well above 50% for the wealthiest citizens. They only really use a fraction of their untold millions anyway, but we need every penny.

It's always been my belief that both parties espouse certain ideologies in order to get votes from the target demographic. They do have genuine differences, but they are extremely similar. The Democratic Party, however, is not the Democratic Party is was in previous decades, it has become more of a socialist party than anything, though calling it such would guarantee defeat. The primary purpose of political parties is power, anyhow, they'll just change their principles in order to further their agenda, which is to gain more power. Everything else is secondary.Not to be rude, but on what planet is the US Democratic party more liberal today than it was 30 years ago? The Democratic party has consistently more conservative since the 70s, especially on social and economic issues. Richard Nixon was more liberal politically speaking than John Kerry is today, no matter how much right-wing talk radio tries to make Kerry the second coming of Marx.

I was primarily speaking of foreign policy. Democrats such as Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy obviously had better foreign policy than weakling neo-hippies of the "bend over and appease them" brand of Democrats epitomized by Carter and Clinton. Democrats now seem to think that the world today is a happy, benign place in which we can assist our enemies and thus make them our friends. That belief is far from reality, but yet many neo-hippy liberal scumbags cling to it.

I was simply refering to the fact that Republicans, myself included, think that we should have lower taxes - not no taxes because that would be crazy - yes certain things have to be paid for - but there are things out there that I just don't want my money going to pay for - thats part of why I chose this party. We wouldn't have as much debt if other countries would stop crying to us to borrow money and then never give it back.

Well, in cases such as that, I am all in favor of seizing the assets of the debtor nations.

Well, in cases such as that, I am all in favor of seizing the assets of the debtor nations.

because the people in those nations are obviously responsible for the poor lending decisions of western banks and governments and the mismanagement and embezelment of funds by their former military dictatorships...

dude, u dont have to use a billion words to describe them, you just have to say one is stupid and the other isn't

It's a mistake to believe there's really that much difference between the parties, as stated regarding political platforms, or rather as actually carried out in practice. The nature of American politics is to find some kind of consensual middle ground, which probably suits the left more than the right, socially. The left can rely on the federal and state courts to impose its rather unpopular liberal social agenda on the country while the right doesn't have any such power.

Regarding Kerry and Bush, Kerry supported America's invasion of Iraq, and even if he becomes president, will likely keep American troops in the country for some time. He doesn't have much of a choice there. Bush opposes "gay" marriage; Kerry does too, but doesn't approve of an amendment that will ban them. (Actally Kerry probably approves of "gay" marriage, but the polls are not supportive of this, and this is an election year. The courts will do the job for him in the end anyway. So much for Kerry's Catholicism.)

Bush is supposed to oppose racial quotas, but makes little effort to stop them, beyond lipservice; Kerry supports them - same result in the end. Both Kerry and Bush privately oppose abortion; neither does anything tangible to stop them publicly, unless you look at Bush's signing of a bill to stop partial-birth abortion, which only affects a tiny proportion of abortions anyway.

Kerry makes vague noises about stopping corporate America's abuses; Kerry is really a part of corporate America and if elected will do nothing to change the system beyond some minor reforms. Bush is wedded to corporate America. Again, same result.

Immigration: both Bush and Kerry support a radical transformation of the immigration system that would enable illegals to gain legal status and would open the door to millions more migrants. Both are courting the huge Latino voting block (or potentially huge, after naturalization). Both are hypocrites, in the sense that stating that what is in fact capitulation regarding immigration is beneficial to America when in fact it is culturally and economically destructive. I can understand Bush's stance, so deep in the pockets of big business is he (corporations love a large supply of cheap labor) but as for Kerry, quite how he can justify to the poor that having an even bigger influx of the unskilled/semi-skilled is beneficial to them in an increasingly competitive labor market is beyond me. I guess he has to rely on his liberal multicultural lackies in the media to push the tired story of how America is a nation of migrants and no matter how many we have, the better it is - in complete disregard of economic realities.

Really, I don't see a great difference overall between the two parties. Whichever of them you vote for you won't see a real change. Kerry will be forced by political expediency to limit his undoubted liberalism, as all Democrats are when they become president, and Bush really isn't that much of a conservative anyway and has done little, in nearly four years, to further a conservative agenda. Now, if only Howard Dean and Pat Buchanan were the candidates, there might be something interesting out there.... At the moment who really cares who's elected.

I was primarily speaking of foreign policy. Democrats such as Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy obviously had better foreign policy than weakling neo-hippies of the "bend over and appease them" brand of Democrats epitomized by Carter and Clinton. Democrats now seem to think that the world today is a happy, benign place in which we can assist our enemies and thus make them our friends. That belief is far from reality, but yet many neo-hippy liberal scumbags cling to it.With all due respect, that's a pretty retarded way to look at it. There's no way to legitimately call Clinton an appeaser. I know that may come as a shock to your limited worldview, but Clinton was quite active in his use of the military to achieve results, and the main instance where he legitimately failed was in Somalia, a mess left him by his predecessor. If you have a legitimate example of appeasement, I'd love to see it.

I was primarily speaking of foreign policy. Democrats such as Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy obviously had better foreign policy than weakling neo-hippies of the "bend over and appease them" brand of Democrats epitomized by Carter and Clinton. Democrats now seem to think that the world today is a happy, benign place in which we can assist our enemies and thus make them our friends. That belief is far from reality, but yet many neo-hippy liberal scumbags cling to it.With all due respect, that's a pretty retarded way to look at it. There's no way to legitimately call Clinton an appeaser. I know that may come as a shock to your limited worldview, but Clinton was quite active in his use of the military to achieve results, and the main instance where he legitimately failed was in Somalia, a mess left him by his predecessor. If you have a legitimate example of appeasement, I'd love to see it.
My worldview is limited eh? Why, because you disagree with me? I think it is you who has the limited, retarded worldview. Clinton's handling of North Korea and terrorists could be called either appeasement or simple indecisiveness. Clinton's handling of North Korea would have been fine if he hadn't allowed them to slowly start screwing us over the fuel-oil deal. After they started getting up to their old tricks, he simply ignored them. Clinton failed time and again to act when terrorists attacked American interests. Sure, Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at people, but without ground forces aerial bombardment can only accomplish so much. As for Clinton, he certainly isn't the worst Democrat when it comes to foreign policy, but in general his policy is weak in this area.

Down with capitalism. Viva la socialism.

My worldview is limited eh? Why, because you disagree with me? I think it is you who has the limited, retarded worldview. Clinton's handling of North Korea and terrorists could be called either appeasement or simple indecisiveness. Clinton's handling of North Korea would have been fine if he hadn't allowed them to slowly start screwing us over the fuel-oil deal. After they started getting up to their old tricks, he simply ignored them. Clinton failed time and again to act when terrorists attacked American interests. Sure, Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at people, but without ground forces aerial bombardment can only accomplish so much. As for Clinton, he certainly isn't the worst Democrat when it comes to foreign policy, but in general his policy is weak in this area.
North Korea was stable, which is about all that can be expected when you're dealing with a psychotic dictator who has access to nuclear technology despite all attempts to deny him that (thanks, Pakistan). Clinton's options with North Korea were limited just as Bush's are simply by the fact that China is so close and will brook no military interference so close to its own border, and the simple fact is that we cannot win a war with China without going nuclear, plain and simple. If Bush is so freaking tough, why did we go after a pathetic regime like Iraq when North Korea was so much more of a threat? Simple answer--there's nothing we can do about North Korea, period. Get used to it. Until China wants to do something, North Korea will act with relative impunity.

As far as your assertion for Clinton's lack of action toward terrorists, I suggest you look at history again. Clinton was the first president in recent years to respond to terrorism. Reagan walked away from 273 Marines killed in Lebanon. Bush I walked away from the Lockerbie bombing and from bombings of Marines in Germany. Clinton responded vigorously and on more than one occasion. He had a plan to go after Bin Laden into Afghanistan and couldn't implement it because 1) he would be further accused of wagging the dog as he was when he launched cruise missiles in 1998 and 2) because he didn't want to leave the next president saddled with a foreign policy nightmare like Bush I had left him.

So yes, I think your worldview is limited on this issue because you refuse to examine history when making your broad, sweeping, generalized statements that bear little resemblance to reality.

The differences between modern-day Republicans and Democrats can be best expressed through the characters of The Simpsons.

Mr. Burns represents Republicans.
The Crazy Cat Lady represents Democrats.