NationStates Jolt Archive

The latter.

I think they were always evil, but turned good in the early 1930s, and became evil again- permanently- when politician-in-uniform Eisenhower stole the nomination from Robert Taft and became President.

The original Republican Party was great - yet now, they've been corrupted (like the Dems) by extremists

On the other hand, I think the Democratic Party was born good, but after Cleveland- and especially since Wilson became President- they've been rapidly sliding downhill further and further until they landed in a pile of pig dung, where they remain stuck to this day. Granted, there were a few good twentieth century Democrats (Martin Dies, George Wallace [NO FLAMING!!!], and Larry McDonald) in my opinion, but overall, after Cleveland, they've been mostly bad to the bone.

As far as I can tell, they turned pure evil right after Lincoln died. He would be shocked at Bush.

I think Lincoln, our first Republicon President, was also our most evil one. I'd recommend The Real Lincoln. It has its faults to be sure, and in some parts it's slanted as hell, but it's meticulously researched and still a damn good read.

Lincoln was a 'pub. That's about all I can say on the subject.

The original Republican Party was great - yet now, they've been corrupted (like the Dems) by extremists

I haven't studied the history of the parties in American politics. But
I like the general Republican platform on most issues, NOW. And dislike vehemently, the radical liberal left platform of the Democratic party NOW.

But in my view, all parties should be disbanded, and each candidate for every office with opening term should have to run on their own individual merits, voting record, and economic, political and social views. Thereby someone that is liberal in economics, conservative in politics and social issues would get my vote. And someone liberal in social issues at all, would not. Wouldn't matter to me about their politics and economic view because social issues are most important to me.

This way, in theory, there could be 6 different political parties, or even more. And not just 2 main ones and a couple minor ones, the minor ones don't get enough nominations in a state and then they are not being running equally in all 50 states. That is just plain dumb. (ie Nader isn't going to be on the Missouri ballot because he couldn't get enough signatures to get him on the ballot. I never was asked about if Nader should be on a ballot, so how fair was that? )

As far as I can tell, they turned pure evil right after Lincoln died. He would be shocked at Bush.

Why's that Nehek-Nehek?

As far as I can tell, they turned pure evil right after Lincoln died. He would be shocked at Bush.

I think they'd have been the best of friends.

I think they'd have been the best of friends.

Bush's unconstitutional and highly illegal war, the Department of Homeland Security, and the 'Patriot' Act would have been especially appealing to Lincoln.

I haven't studied the history of the parties in American politics. But
I like the general Republican platform on most issues, NOW. And dislike vehemently, the radical liberal left platform of the Democratic party NOW.

But in my view, all parties should be disbanded, and each candidate for every office with opening term should have to run on their own individual merits, voting record, and economic, political and social views. Thereby someone that is liberal in economics, conservative in politics and social issues would get my vote. And someone liberal in social issues at all, would not. Wouldn't matter to me about their politics and economic view because social issues are most important to me.

This way, in theory, there could be 6 different political parties, or even more. And not just 2 main ones and a couple minor ones, the minor ones don't get enough nominations in a state and then they are not being running equally in all 50 states. That is just plain dumb. (ie Nader isn't going to be on the Missouri ballot because he couldn't get enough signatures to get him on the ballot. I never was asked about if Nader should be on a ballot, so how fair was that? )

The Democrats? Radical Left? What the fuck have you been smoking?

The Democrats? Radical Left? What the fuck have you been smoking?

Try to cut down on profanity, please. There may be younger viewers on this forum.

The Democrats? Radical Left? What the fuck have you been smoking?

I don't smoke anything, Nehek-nehek.

I believe being Pro-Choice is a radical left viewpoint that most of the Democrats espouse. I am against abortion.

Any other questions or comments?

I don't smoke anything, Nehek-nehek.

I believe being Pro-Choice is a radical left viewpoint that most of the Democrats espouse. I am against abortion.

Any other questions or comments?

Democrats are also radical left on issues such as the environment (the pantheist known as Al Gore is an example), gay rights (Bill and Hillaroid Clinton), gun control (same as above), the economy (FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Teddy Bare, Edwards, Dean, etc.), and foreign affairs (many of them are ardent internationalists and staunch interventionists [although Republicons are guilty of this also]), etc.

the radical liberal left platform of the Democratic party NOW.
What? The Democratic Party are further to the right now than they ever have been since about 1910.

What? The Democratic Party are further to the right now than they ever have been since about 1910.

Further to the right on what issues? What have you been smoking or drinking today?

Do you know what being a liberal and conservative means, for gosh sakes?

Democrats are also radical left on issues such as the environment (the pantheist known as Al Gore is an example), gay rights (Bill and Hillaroid Clinton), gun control (same as above), the economy (FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Teddy Bare, Edwards, Dean, etc.), and foreign affairs (many of them are ardent internationalists and staunch interventionists [although Republicons are guilty of this also]), etc.
Dean isn't a member of the Radical Left by any stretch of the imagination, and neither are the Clintons, might I remind you that Clinton was a conservative (true liberal) on the economy, and both parties are staunch invertentionists.

(Shrimp is OK, but I like chicken better. Haven't had a good Chicken Alfredo in a long time, they can either get the chicken or the sauce right, but not both)

(Shrimp is OK, but I like chicken better. Haven't had a good Chicken Alfredo in a long time, they can either get the chicken or the sauce right, but not both)

You're making me hungry. :p

The democrats aren't radical and the republicans were never good. Then again, neither were the democrats.

The democrats aren't radical and the republicans were never good. Then again, neither were the democrats.

I think the Democrats started out good. There have been more good Democrats than Republicons in my opinion, but then again, as I said, the last Dem. President I liked was Cleveland. All Dem. Presidents after him (and Presidents in general) were pretty bad (with the possible exception of Coolidge).

I havnt studiest the past of party's but I thnik they both are bad both they both have thier strong points and weak points.

I don't view the republicans has good but the liberals have been bad cause then thats taken my own viewpoint of what side of the voin I belong to. I think people who view thier party has always, always been right yet the opposite party is never right doesnt see the entire picture.

Both parties has changed dramatically, some for good some for bad. So in my view both parties are at fault.

One of the worst things about the Republicons is that they are the heirs of the extinct Whig Party.

Democrats are also radical left on issues such as the environment (the pantheist known as Al Gore is an example), gay rights (Bill and Hillaroid Clinton), gun control (same as above), the economy (FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Teddy Bare, Edwards, Dean, etc.), and foreign affairs (many of them are ardent internationalists and staunch interventionists [although Republicons are guilty of this also]), etc.
If you think the Democrats' positions on those issues, what do you consider to be "moderate left" positions?

For this post I'll pretend that "left" has the double meaning of both liberal and socialist.

I reject the notion that environmental protection is a left-wing position. The condition of the environment has an impact on everyone, left and right. Also see www.rep.org

They only go as far as to endorse "civil unions" for homosexuals, stopping short of full legal marriage.

No Democrats have ever seriously suggested fully outlawing guns.

As for the economy, I agree that up to Carter they were left-wing, but only moderately so. Welfare systems are standard in western countries. It's not like they want to outlaw capitalism or private ownership. When did they ever suggest nationalising every industry? I would regard those as radical socialist positions.

Yes, since FDR they have believed in the necessity of strong international co-operation to avoid wars. It's not radical, it's sensible.

well, we certainly know which party is more popular.......

[QUOTE=CSW]Dean isn't a member of the Radical Left by any stretch of the imagination, and neither are the Clintons, might I remind you that Clinton was a conservative (true liberal) on the economy, and both parties are staunch invertentionists.
[QUOTE]

Do you know what a conservative economist is?
Do you know what conservative and liberal mean? You cannot be a conservative liberal. That's an oxymoron?


A Conservative cherishes and defends the founding documents of the American Republic – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Accordingly, a Conservative defends free expression – in speech, the press, assembly – as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Additionally, a Conservative insists upon due process and protection of the individual from excesses and abuses of law enforcement. In particular, the Conservative opposes “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment), double jeopardy, and self incrimination (Fifth Amendment), and “cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment). In addition, the Conservative affirms “the right to a speedy and public trial” and the right to confront accusers and “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” (Sixth Amendment).

While respecting the doctrinal differences amongst religions, the Conservative endorses “traditional values” that are taught by all the great world religions: tolerance, mercy, charity, compassion, moderation, peacemaking.

A Conservative believes in maximum personal liberty, consistent with “like liberty” for all. (John Stuart Mill). The right wing fails to appreciate that “maximum liberty” for the wealthy, privileged and powerful, often infringes upon the liberties of the less fortunate. Once again, “like liberty” is protected by the rule of law, the right to vote (“consent of the governed”), and by legitimate popular government.

A Conservative is suspicious of “big government,” and thus insists upon a separation of powers, a legislature that represents the interests of the public rather than campaign contributors, and restraint of government assaults upon personal liberties along the lines prescribed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Accordingly, a Conservative insists that it is not the business of government to promote particular religions, or to interfere in the private lives of citizens.

A conservative believes that it is the function of the courts to interpret established law with due regard for legal precedent (stare decisis). Nowhere in the Constitution or in the body of law is the Supreme Court entitled to appoint the President of the United States, nor is it permitted to make law from the bench and then announce arbitrarily that the decision of the Court "limited to the present circumstances," as was the case in Bush v. Gore (December 12, 2000).

A Conservative demands responsibility and accountability – of persons, of corporations, of institutions, and of government. There are no exceptions allowed for “well-placed individuals” (e.g., Ken Lay, Dick Cheney), or firms (Enron and Global Crossing), or governing administrations (regarding, for example, access to information, fiscal responsibility, etc).

I said they were and always have been good. :)

The Republicans were generally benevolent until the parties flip-flopped on their views on racial equality. Until that time, the Democrats were the malefactors.
However, the conservatives have always been bad, whereas the liberals are not. They merely swapped masks at one point.

well, we certainly know which party is more popular.......
Yep. We sure do. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm)
An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered.

Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats.

About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a "No Party" designation.

The Republicans were generally benevolent until the parties flip-flopped on their views on racial equality. Until that time, the Democrats were the malefactors.
However, the conservatives have always been bad, whereas the liberals are not. They merely swapped masks at one point.
Actually, the parties didn't "swap masks". People like Strom Thurmond moved from the Democratic to Republicans so they wouldn't be thought of as racists, not because they were angry at the Democrats - he subsequently became the first Southern Senator to have an integrated staff.

Actually, the parties didn't "swap masks". People like Strom Thurmond moved from the Democratic to Republicans so they wouldn't be thought of as racists, not because they were angry at the Democrats - he subsequently became the first Southern Senator to have an integrated staff.
And the last one to advocate segregation. One hopes.

[QUOTE=CSW]Dean isn't a member of the Radical Left by any stretch of the imagination, and neither are the Clintons, might I remind you that Clinton was a conservative (true liberal) on the economy, and both parties are staunch invertentionists.
[QUOTE]

Do you know what a conservative economist is?
Do you know what conservative and liberal mean? You cannot be a conservative liberal. That's an oxymoron?


A Conservative cherishes and defends the founding documents of the American Republic – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Accordingly, a Conservative defends free expression – in speech, the press, assembly – as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Additionally, a Conservative insists upon due process and protection of the individual from excesses and abuses of law enforcement. In particular, the Conservative opposes “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment), double jeopardy, and self incrimination (Fifth Amendment), and “cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment). In addition, the Conservative affirms “the right to a speedy and public trial” and the right to confront accusers and “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” (Sixth Amendment).

While respecting the doctrinal differences amongst religions, the Conservative endorses “traditional values” that are taught by all the great world religions: tolerance, mercy, charity, compassion, moderation, peacemaking.

A Conservative believes in maximum personal liberty, consistent with “like liberty” for all. (John Stuart Mill). The right wing fails to appreciate that “maximum liberty” for the wealthy, privileged and powerful, often infringes upon the liberties of the less fortunate. Once again, “like liberty” is protected by the rule of law, the right to vote (“consent of the governed”), and by legitimate popular government.

A Conservative is suspicious of “big government,” and thus insists upon a separation of powers, a legislature that represents the interests of the public rather than campaign contributors, and restraint of government assaults upon personal liberties along the lines prescribed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Accordingly, a Conservative insists that it is not the business of government to promote particular religions, or to interfere in the private lives of citizens.

A conservative believes that it is the function of the courts to interpret established law with due regard for legal precedent (stare decisis). Nowhere in the Constitution or in the body of law is the Supreme Court entitled to appoint the President of the United States, nor is it permitted to make law from the bench and then announce arbitrarily that the decision of the Court "limited to the present circumstances," as was the case in Bush v. Gore (December 12, 2000).

A Conservative demands responsibility and accountability – of persons, of corporations, of institutions, and of government. There are no exceptions allowed for “well-placed individuals” (e.g., Ken Lay, Dick Cheney), or firms (Enron and Global Crossing), or governing administrations (regarding, for example, access to information, fiscal responsibility, etc).


Sigh...

Conservatives are liberal as far as economics go (free market).

Quite simply (according to what I have heard and read)

Left - Belief that society has a responsibility to look after its less able members, and usually implements this through progressive taxation of everyone to fund common public services. Can be summed up as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Right - Everyone has the right to keep their own money, taxation should be kept to a bare minimum. Capitalism.

Abortion, gay marriage, gun control etc are irrelevent, Left and Right are merely economic markers. Oh, and in Britain, the Liberal Party were the Capitalist Pigs of the time ;)

Neither party is better then the other they are both good parties however as someone pointed out the democrats have been hijacked by the extremme liberals which independents do not want running and want someone that is a true moderator one that does not say one thing to get elected and afterwards vote along party lines.

I don't get how the Democrats have become "extreme liberals". John Kerry is moderate.

Oh, and in Britain, the Liberal Party were the Capitalist Pigs of the time ;)
Your post is correct! Yeah, the Liberal Party in Britain were like American's current Libertarians. The Liberals pretty much disappeared after WW1. After that the Tories' main opposition came from the Labour Party, who believe it or not, were once socialist. ;)

Do you know what being a liberal and conservative means, for gosh sakes?

I know what you mean, so many people that post here have no idea how the political spectrum works. Like for example a lot of people think/believe that being a liberal means you're also a "leftist" which is not true and any one who took the time to look at the political spectrum would know this. People just like to label people what they think will insult. Sadly it's a reality of NS and IRL too.

I don't get how the Democrats have become "extreme liberals". John Kerry is moderate.
;)

His senate record does not say so.

I firmly believe that political parties in the US, however one might claim them to be evil, started out with the intent to free the US and spread democracy... now, that's changed, and that's how life goes...

His senate record does not say so.
I'm not saying he's a conservative, but I don't see anything in there that could be classified as extreme.

I am saying he is trying to run as a moderate when he is really liberal