Difference between Republican and Democrat

Page 2 of 4 [ 64 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 Jun 2009, 11:34 am

phil777 wrote:

Oy AG , "I do not see why the US's power demands that it cannot generally be isolationist."

That'd be pretty much going to post world war scenarios, would it not? <.<

Umm.... I don't get it. I mean, the US didn't have to get involved in most world conflicts, and certainly has less need given the nuclear age, where any threat can have the crap bombed out of them.

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

27 Jun 2009, 11:50 am

Hrm... I doubt "any" threat could have the crap bombed out of it when it implies (unwilling) citizens. <.< And pulling out of actual conflicts would be pretty hard, seeing as you're already knee deep in them due to your engagements. o.O

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

27 Jun 2009, 1:14 pm

Obres wrote:

Should adequate health care be a right regardless of financial situation? We do have that in the US actually, but only in some ("emergency") situations.

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/in ... althcareed

Quote:

America has the best health care system in the world, said Bob Dole and the other executioners of health care reform. Once upon a time that claim was true. Now what America has is the most expensive health care system in the world, in spite of the fact that it leaves one-third of its citizens un- or under-insured and ranks 17th of the 24 industrialized nations in life expectancy.

The major reason for the high expense and poor performance is that we are moving rapidly toward an unholy combination of government and corporate health care management. That trend is well documented by Robert Sherrill in the January 9/16 issue of The Nation. Sherrill draws together 11 recent books and articles on drug companies, insurers, hospitals, and doctors. He shows a system that views patients as consumers to be manipulated, health workers as costs to be minimized, and taxpayer support as gold to be mined.

America is actually losing financially because of the lack of free health care.

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

cognito
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

27 Jun 2009, 1:15 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

phil777 wrote:

Oy AG , "I do not see why the US's power demands that it cannot generally be isolationist."

That'd be pretty much going to post world war scenarios, would it not? <.<

Umm.... I don't get it. I mean, the US didn't have to get involved in most world conflicts, and certainly has less need given the nuclear age, where any threat can have the crap bombed out of them.

May I remind you of the MAD concept or mutually assured destruction? Besides the fact the US market relies on mostly import/export, the fact is if we isolate ourselves, we become weaker. Second, if we drop nukes on people we don't like, a lot of countries are gonna shoot back because that is how the game is played, the only time the nuclear option would ever be played is direct nuclear threat, even after 9/11 Bush didn't the middle east, which is very surprising.

_________________
I am a freak, want to hold my leash?

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

27 Jun 2009, 1:40 pm

To answer the OP:

Republicans have this logo.

Democrats have this logo.

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

27 Jun 2009, 1:46 pm

I really like the word logo. What happened, did the democrats forget to copyright?

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

27 Jun 2009, 6:16 pm

Besides the libertarian party any other party here in america actually practice what they say in campaigns. Gerrymanerind, the Federal Reserve and so on.

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

27 Jun 2009, 6:26 pm

cognito wrote:

well, I know this much, Obama is gonna face a very tough crowd of gays come 2012 if he doesn't act on his promises, I would vote conservative except for the fact they have married themeselves to the Christian right. So that means they are using religion to deny me my right to marry and the like. second, contrary to NRA proganda, banning private citzens from owning street sweeper shotguns will not lead to banning hunting rifles, it will cut down on the death toll of school shootings and the like. I consider the libertain party a joke, its xenophobic and aganist gay rights

I agree, Obama is not doing anything for gay-rights. Hell Goldwater done more back in the 1950's and 60's while in senate. i would be conservatively republican too if it wasn't for christian right-winged duschbags like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Dubya. I believe in a lot of what they are doing besides stuff following abortions and civil-rights. i also don't like all the violations pf the constitution and all the lying, secrecy and the down-right "lets just help our rich buddies and us" part of the party.

knowledgeiskey
Blue Jay

Joined: 6 Apr 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 96

27 Jun 2009, 6:32 pm

There is a huge difference between both parties in the realms of policies. Our country has always seen a difference within a couple of years after a party change.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 Jun 2009, 6:36 pm

phil777 wrote:

I am merely giving the "threat" issue because conventional foes can be fought, while unconventional foes can't be anyway. So, MAD is all that is necessary with conventional foes.

Yeah, I didn't say that it isn't difficult, but that still does not undermine the ideal.

cognito wrote:

I know about MAD, that's the very principle I am invoking, and I invoked it for all nuke-holding nations, not the US, so I am not saying something normative, but rather something positive. If someone tries to mess with us, we have nukes. All that is necessary is that the threat is credibly made.

Libertarians are for the removal of tariffs and quotas.

That's why we DON'T drop nukes! After 9/11, there weren't any outright oppositional governments. The closest was Afghanistan, but frankly, the "war on terror" is an unconventional war that mainstream military forces cannot feasibly fight anyway, so invoking it seems rather pointless.

Look, I am not saying anything inherently ridiculous, but rather just bringing up the idea that US defense only requires nuclear deterrence, rather than the bloated defense budget and huge international scope that we operate on today. This does not seem like a very problematic statement given that many nations have nukes and many nations spend less on their military than the US.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Jun 2009, 6:39 pm

gamefreak wrote:

Besides the libertarian party any other party here in america actually practice what they say in campaigns. Gerrymanerind, the Federal Reserve and so on.

The Libertarian party has never practiced anything, as they've never been in power. And they never will be.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

27 Jun 2009, 6:55 pm

Orwell wrote:

gamefreak wrote:

Besides the libertarian party any other party here in america actually practice what they say in campaigns. Gerrymanerind, the Federal Reserve and so on.

The Libertarian party has never practiced anything, as they've never been in power. And they never will be.

True, but there is a few libertarian senators in senate that are trying to do what they can. Though you are right!! Oh I would also like to ask in your opinion what party done more for the american people and did it right.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Jun 2009, 7:27 pm

gamefreak wrote:

True, but there is a few libertarian senators in senate that are trying to do what they can.

When you're one guy with no power to actually do anything, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a man of principle.

Quote:

Oh I would also like to ask in your opinion what party done more for the american people and did it right.

Hm. I'd be more likely to point to individual Presidents. So, counting backwards in recent history... Clinton wasn't horrible, Nixon was pretty good until the scandals started hitting, and Eisenhower was pretty good, overall. Either party taken as a whole has more than enough bad apples to spoil the bunch. Right now in particular either party has too many problems.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

27 Jun 2009, 7:45 pm

Orwell wrote:

gamefreak wrote:

True, but there is a few libertarian senators in senate that are trying to do what they can.

When you're one guy with no power to actually do anything, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a man of principle.

Quote:

Oh I would also like to ask in your opinion what party done more for the american people and did it right.

I have to admit the only politicians that really screwed up were the liberal democrats and the religious right. Most moderate politicians like Nixon and Eisenhower did very well for this country.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

27 Jun 2009, 7:48 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Dussel wrote:

To maintain such a power you need allies. One on the teachings since the development of the modern state in 16th century is that most powerful state had always the most enemies. This first was true for Spain, than for France, than for Germany. Otherwise your trade routes will cut. But maintaining allies means also fighting their wars.

Maintaining an empire, like the USA, is a costly game. Or why do think the EU maintains such a low level outside Europe?

Umm.... why care??? The libertarian ideal is to basically have a government that does almost nothing, or even does not exist. So, the hope is that this will eliminate enemies due to the irrationality in these enemies trying to provoke a power that doesn't care. Ron Paul doesn't want allies, he doesn't want enemies,

You will have enemies - you will have interest outside your borders, just to keep trade lines open.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well, the high cost is exactly why libertarians don't want to maintain it. They want to be an economic power, and they want to have sufficient power to protect their nation from direct threats, but anything beyond that is pointless in their perspective, as to them the government is merely meant as a way to allow people to freely express their interests.

You just can be a economic power without a political and military one - this is precisely the process the EU is currently experiencing.

MattShizzle
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

27 Jun 2009, 7:51 pm

The main problem for me is there aren't really any Liberal politicians that can win - it's always between a moderate Democrat and a Right-wing extremist Republican.

Page 2 of 4 [ 64 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Difference between Republican and Democrat Post Reply New Topic

Difference between Republican and Democrat