NationStates Jolt Archive

Please don't take offense, Dems. and Reps. I am in no way condemning individual members or supporters of the two parties. I am, however, sick and disgusted with the parties' hypocrisy. Republicans whined about Kosovo because it was none of our business (which it wasn't), but Democrats vigorously defended it, saying it was our duty to stop the genocide being committed over there. However, Republicans have no qualms about the Iraq War, which is also none of our business, and the Democrats angrily attack this war for the same reason the Republicans attacked the last war, yet Saddam Hussein also committed genocide, but the Democrats don't feel war against him was justified. Is it just me, or does this whole thing reek of hypocrisy?

bump

bump (again)

Come on, people, I'm bored.

I've been saying that for a long time now. Both parties are corrupt and hypocritical. Although I think that genocide is enough reason for a superpower to go to war. If they're big enough to support a war, then they should be willing to help stop it.

I've been saying that for a long time now. Both parties are corrupt and hypocritical.

Agreed.

Although I think that genocide is enough reason for a superpower to go to war. If they're big enough to support a war, then they should be willing to help stop it.

I don't agree there. We were never intended to be the world's policeman. And if genocide was always enough reason to go to war, we'd be fighting wars almost nonstop.

bump

...

Good post.

I have agreed the same time, and have been waiting for somebody to say something. Good call.

Thanks. ;)

I think most people agree that the Dems and Reps (I am neither) are mainly corrupt and hypocritical. If you don't then you are closing your eyes to the facts.

Name one Govt. that isnt corrupt and has only the best interests of all its people at heart, and I will be moving there.


I also agree that genocide isnt a reason to go to war unilaterally and that we are not the police of the world. How can the US feel so morally superior with all the attrocities it has commited itself in all it's years?

We may not have agreed to be the world's policeman, but if we don't do it, who will?

Also, as for fighting wars all the time, I disagree. We would only have to fight a war once. If we went into Iraq full force and blasted the crap out of the Sadr-ite maniacs, then all the other maniacs would be too scared to try anything.

Both parties are corrupt and hypocritical.

Interesting point. Any other evidence to support this?

No, I am not saying your wrong, I just think its a good point, and, I want to see why you say this.

We may not have agreed to be the world's policeman, but if we don't do it, who will?

Well, if other nations want to pay the price in blood, tears, agony, dollars, and death, they can jump right on in, if they'd like.

We may not have agreed to be the world's policeman, but if we don't do it, who will?


Excellent, excellent point.

When is the last time you saw another nation stand up for itself? World War II? I don't think that anybody stood up the German Ligtening Warfare.

The fact is, the US is one of the few nations that has the resources to exponge these tyrants, and they are doing what other nations are dreaming of.

Nobody asked the US to be a 'policeman' nation, and we arn't. We simply are the only one with enough guts to stand up to these morons who decide to kill thousands and millions of innocent people for the sake of it.

"We would only have to fight a war once. If we went into Iraq full force and blasted the crap out of the Sadr-ite maniacs, then all the other maniacs would be too scared to try anything."

Isn't that what we said about nailing Sadam? Really, people....you can never get peace with a sword. Yes the parties are corrupt, but name a better system. At least ours has the potential for reform.

I think stopping genocide is a good reason to get involved, but if I remember correctly, saddam stopped his genocide around 10 years ago

I think stopping genocide is a good reason to get involved, but if I remember correctly, saddam stopped his genocide around 10 years ago

you do not remember correctly. Many of the bodies in the mass graves were more recent then anybody could have guessed.

I think stopping genocide is a good reason to get involved, but if I remember correctly, saddam stopped his genocide around 10 years ago

So if a murderer stopped murdering 10 years ago it's ok to let him be? Punishment is only for recent crimes?

you do not remember correctly. Many of the bodies in the mass graves were more recent then anybody could have guessed.

I thought the recently discovered graves were supposed political opponents?

So if a murderer stopped murdering 10 years ago it's ok to let him be? Punishment is only for recent crimes?

Im saying if youre gonna use genocide as a reason for attacking the country, try to actually STOP the genocide

Again, though, if our job really was to stop genocide, we'd be fighting wars almost non-stop, in dozens of countries all at once. In terms of manpower, there's no way we could afford that. Besides, the U.S. military's purpose is to defend America and its citizens. Other nations have their own armies. If they want to play the role of globocop, they can be my guest.

I cannot see how the parties have been hypocritical. The events in kosovo were far different then in Iraq. compare the scale of the fighting invloved, compare the hisotry between our nation and the one involved, look at the number of un resolutions, look at the number of poeple invloved, they are radicaly different situations. Oh, and by the way, mr. kerry and mr. bush are not hypocritical specificly. kerry and bush did support and do support both the action in kosovo and the action in iraq.

Ok, Take your neighborhood. Their is no police in your neighborhood. Wouldn't it be nice if smebody decided that they weren't going to let crime stand? Ever seen walking tall? It's a good example.

Ok, Take your neighborhood. Their is no police in your neighborhood. Wouldn't it be nice if smebody decided that they weren't going to let crime stand? Ever seen walking tall? It's a good example.

It would be nice, but I wouldn't suggest blowing the sh*t out of their house and then killing them

I cannot see how the parties have been hypocritical. The events in kosovo were far different then in Iraq. compare the scale of the fighting invloved, compare the hisotry between our nation and the one involved, look at the number of un resolutions, look at the number of poeple invloved, they are radicaly different situations. Oh, and by the way, mr. kerry and mr. bush are not hypocritical specificly. kerry and bush did support and do support both the action in kosovo and the action in iraq.

Yes, it is hypocritical. Clinton tried to justify Kosovo by saying we had to stop genocide, but the Republicans whined that it was none of our business. Bush tried to justify Iraq by reminding us, over and over again, what a genocidal tyrant Saddam was, but the Democrats whined that the war was none of our business. How is it not hypocritical?

bump

Roach-buster, absolutely the Parties are garbage, and anyone who tries to argue different has just been sufficiently media-washed Democrat or Republican both equal corporate politics.

Other nations have their own armies. If they want to play the role of globocop, they can be my guest.

Sure! Lets just let other nations do it! The history shows that other nations are MORE then willing to send over their troops for the greater good of mankind!

Okay, if you didn't pick it up, that was sarcasm...

The facts are that other nations are just to afraid to lose the lives of their people for the greater good. I am not saying that the US is just trying to lower our population by sending out troops, but I am saying that the US understands that if they don't do it, nobody else will, THATS what history has showed us.

What if the US wasn't around during Vietnam? WWI, WWII? The Gulf War? Kosovo...and I could keep going.

Sure! Lets just let other nations do it! The history shows that other nations are MORE then willing to send over their troops for the greater good of mankind!

Okay, if you didn't pick it up, that was sarcasm...

The facts are that other nations are just to afraid to lose the lives of their people for the greater good. I am not saying that the US is just trying to lower our population by sending out troops, but I am saying that the US understands that if they don't do it, nobody else will, THATS what history has showed us.

What if the US wasn't around during Vietnam? WWI, WWII? The Gulf War? Kosovo...and I could keep going.

First of all, please lose the sarcasm. Now. Second of all, for the last time, we are not the world's globocop!

Simultanious wars maybe, but few of them would last as long as Iraq did. Unfortunately genocide is a huge problem, and we can't stop it all But that doesn't mean we should just not bother either. Everybody should do what they can.

Of course both parties are completely inadequate for the situation in America now. But I think we need to change the system entirely, to allow third parties more say in our government (say, like a parliamentary system like Sweden or Italy). This would make it more democratic, since people would have more choices to vote for.

You see, when you get down to the basics, both parties are essentially the same, sharing many views on how to run the country. At election time, they capitalize on the differences between them in the "small" issues: gay marriage, abortion, etc. But when they're in power, neither act much different: Has a Republican-controlled Senate, House, and Presidency succeeded in outlawing abortion or gay marriage? No! The Democrats share the same tendency to act little different than Republicans when they were on top (quite awhile ago now, however).

For some time, I have felt that a two-party system doesn't fit the needs of Americans. When you only have two divisions, people tend to make an either-or choice. Such a (seemingly) black-and-white decision strongly divides them from those who choose other than they. And as time goes on, both sides start to strongly dislike each other, just for being a member of the other party. This is what has happened in the U.S. The country is sharply divided, each side glibly supporting everything its leaders say while tuning out on every good point the other side makes, and it's a little saddening. I think a multi-party system would ease such tensions, by allowing people to see multiple ways of dealing with issues, rather than the overly-simplified left/right way.

I believe that, if anyone in this country could be said to be committing treason, its the Democrats and Republicans, for dividing and weakening the American people. "United we stand, divided we fall".

how about this scenario:

The law says it's illegal to abuse your pets but you see your neighbor doing it daily (Saddam and his attrocities against the people of Iraq). Well they have punished the guy a few times and everytime he gets out he keeps doing it (sanctions). You and a couple other neighbors decide the law isn't doing good enough and you go beat him within an inch of his life and burn down his house, which is against the law (Iraq War). Everybody calls you a criminal but you feel justified in doing what you did because you couldn't stand to see the suffereing any longer (the Worlds position on how America waged an illegal war).

So you think you were right do do this? Going against the law and doing what you felt was right even though the law was clear and you should have gone thru the proper channels?

But I think we need to change the system entirely, to allow third parties more say in our government

Agreed!

So you think you were right do do this? Going against the law and doing what you felt was right even though the law was clear and you should have gone thru the proper channels?

That's the old civil disobedience debate. It's impossible to come up with an absolute answer on that one...

how about this scenario:

The law says it's illegal to abuse your pets but you see your neighbor doing it daily (Saddam and his attrocities against the people of Iraq). Well they have punished the guy a few times and everytime he gets out he keeps doing it (sanctions). You and a couple other neighbors decide the law isn't doing good enough and you go beat him within an inch of his life and burn down his house, which is against the law (Iraq War). Everybody calls you a criminal but you feel justified in doing what you did because you couldn't stand to see the suffereing any longer (the Worlds position on how America waged an illegal war).

So you think you were right do do this? Going against the law and doing what you felt was right even though the law was clear and you should have gone thru the proper channels?

Ahh but then we rebuilt his house and gave it to his dog whilst he is locked up in jail, getting what he deserves.

First of all, please lose the sarcasm. Now. Second of all, for the last time, we are not the world's globocop!

Ah, you arn't entertaining other opinions, I see.

Now, the sarcasm is meant in good fun in the spirit of debate...if you can't handle it, let the big boys play.

Now, I never said we were the worlds "globocop", we are just the only nation that has the guts to stand up to those who pose a threat to the US, another nations people (ahem, genocide), and to other nations.

We, as American, are given the advantage of an armed forces squad that is able to be mobilized and commanded intelligently. That is the gift that the US has to the world. We are blessed with that, and we use it when we feel it necessary.

The US shouldnt be spending billions on a war to help others when there are people suffering in their own country. We could do alot to improve America first. I am an isolationist though.

But I think we need to change the system entirely, to allow third parties more say in our government

Good point. However, there are many many different thrid parties out there. I agree with some of them, and get very mad at the others, (ahem, the "Pot Party"...don't get me started).

The fact is, there isn't enough momentum behind these parties to get them into positions of power in the US. People just don't care. Its a shame, it really is.

I would love for there to be more options out there, it'd be great! The fact it, though, I am one of, what? 300 million or so? I honestly can't make much of a difference, and don't give me none of that 'You can make a difference!' bull.

The US shouldnt be spending billions on a war to help others when there are people suffering in their own country. We could do alot to improve America first. I am an isolationist though.

That's why we have over 400 representatives in the US. They are nearby representatives whos job it is to help to local people, to be invloved. These people shop in your grocery store, and get their hair cut the same place as you.

The brilliant founding fathers made them be elected very often, so they have no time for a personal agenda, and are forced to focus on the community.

Luckily, they are a letter away.

Good point. However, there are many many different thrid parties out there. I agree with some of them, and get very mad at the others, (ahem, the "Pot Party"...don't get me started).

Hah, hah, yeah.

The fact is, there isn't enough momentum behind these parties to get them into positions of power in the US. People just don't care. Its a shame, it really is.

This is true. Perhaps the government could help with this (although that's unlikely)? I know they give money to some of the larger third parties (which is what they need most).

I would love for there to be more options out there, it'd be great! The fact it, though, I am one of, what? 300 million or so? I honestly can't make much of a difference, and don't give me none of that 'You can make a difference!' bull.

I'm glad you see things the way I do. There is only so much a single person, or a small group, can do. Kudos for being able to see things realistically.

That's why we have over 400 representatives in the US. They are nearby representatives whos job it is to help to local people, to be invloved. These people shop in your grocery store, and get their hair cut the same place as you.

The brilliant founding fathers made them be elected very often, so they have no time for a personal agenda, and are forced to focus on the community.

Luckily, they are a letter away.

yet theres no money for the programs because it's all being spent on an overbloated military and hundred million dollar bombs

It'll be 24 and a half years before any third party has a chance

yet theres no money for the programs because it's all being spent on an overbloated military and hundred million dollar bombs
Or being squandered away on social programs that have nowhere near their desired effect but sound good anyway so politicians keep them.

My congressional district has about 700,000 people.

My congressman does not shop in my grocery store or get his hair cut the same place as me. He was a millionaire attorney who bought his way up the Dem party hierarchy through years of big political donations.

I have never met him, and will never get the chance - unless you define meeting as going through his bodyguards for the "privilege" of attending a speech or fundraiser and maybe shaking his hand.

Furthermore, the only reason he is my congressman at all is because the district was gerrymandered in 2000 to remove the incumbent and ensure no Republican will ever win the district again. Essentially, noone in my district on either side has or will have any input on national elections for at least the next 6 years.

Democracy on a larger than local scale doesn't work. I would go one step further and say even if it did, it would be a poor idea.

That's why we have over 400 representatives in the US. They are nearby representatives whos job it is to help to local people, to be invloved. These people shop in your grocery store, and get their hair cut the same place as you.

The brilliant founding fathers made them be elected very often, so they have no time for a personal agenda, and are forced to focus on the community.

Luckily, they are a letter away.

My congressional district has about 700,000 people.

My congressman does not shop in my grocery store or get his hair cut the same place as me. He was a millionaire attorney who bought his way up the Dem party hierarchy through years of big political donations.

I have never met him, and will never get the chance - unless you define meeting as going through his bodyguards for the "privilege" of attending a speech or fundraiser and maybe shaking his hand.

Furthermore, the only reason he is my congressman at all is because the district was gerrymandered in 2000 to remove the incumbent and ensure no Republican will ever win the district again. Essentially, noone in my district on either side has or will have any input on national elections for at least the next 6 years.

Democracy on a larger than local scale doesn't work. I would go one step further and say even if it did, it would be a poor idea.

That's sad.

Ah, you arn't entertaining other opinions, I see.

Now, the sarcasm is meant in good fun in the spirit of debate...

Oh, okay, sorry. I thought it was intended to be mocking sarcasm, but if it's in the spirit of debate, it's okay.

My congressional district has about 700,000 people.

My congressman does not shop in my grocery store or get his hair cut the same place as me. He was a millionaire attorney who bought his way up the Dem party hierarchy through years of big political donations.

I have never met him, and will never get the chance - unless you define meeting as going through his bodyguards for the "privilege" of attending a speech or fundraiser and maybe shaking his hand.

Furthermore, the only reason he is my congressman at all is because the district was gerrymandered in 2000 to remove the incumbent and ensure no Republican will ever win the district again. Essentially, noone in my district on either side has or will have any input on national elections for at least the next 6 years.

Democracy on a larger than local scale doesn't work. I would go one step further and say even if it did, it would be a poor idea.

Brachphilia, you bring up several great points, and I appreciate your input.

Sumamba Buwhan, I am STILL not understanding your point of:

"yet theres no money for the programs because it's all being spent on an overbloated military and hundred million dollar bombs"

I said nothing about any programs, and am a bit, no, a LOT confused about your point. Please clarify.

Oh, okay, sorry. I thought it was intended to be mocking sarcasm, but if it's in the spirit of debate, it's okay.

No sir, Roarch. Unfortunantly, I live in a house ( I am 16 years old ) with my parents, brothers and sisters, and I never get a fair oppertunity to debate, rather, my parents see it as useless arguning and usually blow it off.

I love the spirit of debate, and appreciate that I have a place here on NS where I can talk to equally and more intellegent members then myself so that I can learn and share my knowledge.

I'd never mock anybody in a debate, it is against the etiquitte! I appologize if I made you upset, and I realize that I may have gone a bit to far. Thanks for keeping me in line (no sarcasm intended ;))

No sir, Roarch. Unfortunantly, I live in a house ( I am 16 years old ) with my parents, brothers and sisters, and I never get a fair oppertunity to debate, rather, my parents see it as useless arguning and usually blow it off.

I love the spirit of debate, and appreciate that I have a place here on NS where I can talk to equally and more intellegent members then myself so that I can learn and share my knowledge.

I'd never mock anybody in a debate, it is against the etiquitte! I appologize if I made you upset, and I realize that I may have gone a bit to far. Thanks for keeping me in line (no sarcasm intended ;))

No, you didn't upset me. Apology accepted. I love to debate, too. If you ever want to debate with me, just TG me and I'll be happy to (on the forums or off).

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are BOTH hypocritical
No crap.
I will vote Republican this election for a few reasons:

1) I happen to agree with more of their views at this time. Not many more, but enough.

2) All the third parties I researched were either crazy or had no chance of winning or making significant changes. Why throw my vote away?

...and most importantly...

3) To give the finger to Michael Moore, who is a jackass.

Please don't take offense, Dems. and Reps. I am in no way condemning individual members or supporters of the two parties. I am, however, sick and disgusted with the parties' hypocrisy. Republicans whined about Kosovo because it was none of our business (which it wasn't), but Democrats vigorously defended it, saying it was our duty to stop the genocide being committed over there. However, Republicans have no qualms about the Iraq War, which is also none of our business, and the Democrats angrily attack this war for the same reason the Republicans attacked the last war, yet Saddam Hussein also committed genocide, but the Democrats don't feel war against him was justified. Is it just me, or does this whole thing reek of hypocrisy?
yeah it does reek of hypocrisy on behalf of the Bush administration whose father armed him then set him up to be attacked

Excellent, excellent point.

When is the last time you saw another nation stand up for itself? World War II? I don't think that anybody stood up the German Ligtening Warfare.

The fact is, the US is one of the few nations that has the resources to exponge these tyrants, and they are doing what other nations are dreaming of.

Nobody asked the US to be a 'policeman' nation, and we arn't. We simply are the only one with enough guts to stand up to these morons who decide to kill thousands and millions of innocent people for the sake of it.but thats not the way how it works in the real world-The US govt has a history of sponsoring genocide of its own in other countries--who protects the world from US?

yeah it does reek of hypocrisy on behalf of the Bush administration whose father armed him then set him up to be attacked

Agreed.

Please don't take offense, Dems. and Reps. I am in no way condemning individual members or supporters of the two parties. I am, however, sick and disgusted with the parties' hypocrisy. Republicans whined about Kosovo because it was none of our business (which it wasn't), but Democrats vigorously defended it, saying it was our duty to stop the genocide being committed over there. However, Republicans have no qualms about the Iraq War, which is also none of our business, and the Democrats angrily attack this war for the same reason the Republicans attacked the last war, yet Saddam Hussein also committed genocide, but the Democrats don't feel war against him was justified. Is it just me, or does this whole thing reek of hypocrisy?

Why stop at just the democrats and republicans? I think we all (including myself) are hypocritical at times. It's just that we all have our blind spots, sacred cows, and unquestioned assumptions that it is, although certainly to different degrees, inevitable.

*Enters thread wearing trench coat, sunglasses, hat and phony mustache*
Be careful what you say. The Libo/Cons will be after you. And whatever you do if ever you see a gopher following you, run like hell. Those crazy Libo/Cons are notorious for using gophers as weapons.

I was not here. We did not have this conversation. Trust no one but the lazy.
*Leaves*

Why stop at just the democrats and republicans? I think we all (including myself) are hypocritical at times.

Agreed, but that's not the subject we're talking about.

but thats not the way how it works in the real world-The US govt has a history of sponsoring genocide of its own in other countries--who protects the world from US?

Right, I just heard in the news that GW killed a few people by using a 'nuclear' missle over in Kansas! (Saracastic, again)

Can you please explain how the US in using genocide on her own people?

For some time, I have felt that a two-party system doesn't fit the needs of Americans. When you only have two divisions, people tend to make an either-or choice. Such a (seemingly) black-and-white decision strongly divides them from those who choose other than they. And as time goes on, both sides start to strongly dislike each other, just for being a member of the other party. This is what has happened in the U.S. The country is sharply divided, each side glibly supporting everything its leaders say while tuning out on every good point the other side makes, and it's a little saddening. I think a multi-party system would ease such tensions, by allowing people to see multiple ways of dealing with issues, rather than the overly-simplified left/right way.

I believe that, if anyone in this country could be said to be committing treason, its the Democrats and Republicans, for dividing and weakening the American people. "United we stand, divided we fall".
I agree 170%! America seriously needs to change its two party system. Open it to third, fourth, fifith, sixth, etc, parties!

America is such a diverse country, it is strange that it has only two significant parties. You are right that the system causes sharp division. A lot of Americans are so personal about their politics, like "I can't be friends with a liberal/conservative". I am a casual observer of the US media (by the internet) and I have never seen such snide remarks, such bitching, such malicious attacks coming from both sides. It seems that more of that comes fromt he conservative side but maybe I'm just biased, too!

No crap.
I will vote Republican this election for a few reasons:

2) All the third parties I researched were either crazy or had no chance of winning or making significant changes. Why throw my vote away?

If there's a third party you agree with, vote for them. You say that they have no chance of winning or making significant changes, but maybe they will at least be noticed if enough people vote for them. It's attitudes like which make the two-party system so hard to break.

Remember, the only vote you throw away is the one you don't cast.

PS, if you agree somewhat with the Republicans, check out the Libertarians.

I agree 170%! America seriously needs to change its two party system. Open it to third, fourth, fifith, sixth, etc, parties!

America is such a diverse country, it is strange that it has only two significant parties. You are right that the system causes sharp division. A lot of Americans are so personal about their politics, like "I can't be friends with a liberal/conservative". I am a casual observer of the US media (by the internet) and I have never seen such snide remarks, such bitching, such malicious attacks coming from both sides. It seems that more of that comes fromt he conservative side but maybe I'm just biased, too!

Thanks! Good job in pointing out that the diversity of America practically begs for a multi-party system.

As for the division, believe me, liberals can get pretty nasty, too.

I take it you're not American, then? At least you're polite about it...

My Post On Party Hypocrisy

My friend wrote a huge essay for class on this.

I totally agree - you can see this so obviously with the whole abortion/death penalty debate: Dems believe it's okay to take an unborn life (well that part is still being debated), yet they are against the Death Penalty. Reps believe that it's not okay to take an unborn life, but it's ok to use the Death Penalty.