Democrats vs Republicans

[Dog]

Followers of Ron Paul, (who is a great Congressman, but would make a poor POTUS, IMHO, [he could never win a national election anyway]), and other third party types have leveled the criticism that "both parties are the same". Sadly, there is a partial truth to their observations.

Both parties do miss lead their voters. :shock:

Since Ronald Reagan the Republicans claim to be the party of smaller Gubment, lower taxes and jurists that adhere to the Constitution.

Then the Republicans turn around and grow the Gubment. Grrrr

They actually do keep taxes a wee bit lower, (which actually increases revenues to grow more Gubment), and they do attempt to place jurists on the bench that adhere to the limits placed by the Constitution. (One of the real differences between the two parties).

Both parties have well known corruption over many years and the Democrats seem to also like openly anti American behavior. There is, however: a significant difference in how Democrat voters and Republican voters treat their corrupt pols once their corruption is widely known.

The Republicans tend to purge the corruption when the Left leaning main stream media exposes it, (sometimes it takes a long time as with Ted Stevens of very corrupt Republican leaning Alaska).

The Democrats usually institutionalize it to the point where it actually dominates their party of fools, and has for many years. Significant very powerful Democrat pols past and present, (national and local), who win elections after their corruption or in the case of Kerry: treason, are well known by their Democrat voters. (not a complete list).

Charlie Rangel
Teddy Kennedy
Dan Rostenkowski
Richard M Daley, (don't forget Richard J Daley)
Marion Barry
Rod Blagojevich
Speaker Jim Wright
Chris Dodd
Barney Frank
John Kerry
John Murtha
Alcee Hastings
William Jefferson, (not so powerful but: he won an election after the $90,000 in the freezer was well known by the voters)
Harry Reid
Maxine Waters
Jessie Jackson Jr
Laura Richardson
Alan Molohan

Another big difference: very Liberal Democrats who run for POTUS openly misslead independent voters, (Democrat voters usually know how hard Left they are), as to how Liberal/Progressive they are and the willing hard Left "main stream media" always go along with the openly false premis during Presidential campaigns.

Think about:

Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Michale Dukakous
Al Gore
John Kerry
And the mother of them all: Barack Obama, (Obamaprompter), and his hard Left Democrat House and Senate that we are currently suffering with.

This grow the Gubment borrow and control more of our lives both parties do has gone on now for many years and we are clearly reaching a tipping point which has made media sensations like Glenn Beck a powerful force in the media.

How will this play out? Hard to tell.

Let's hope the current radical Left Democrat party goes away or transforms as the so called aiding and abetting "main stream media" is in the process doing. :mrgreen:

What say you..................

 

[Deuce]

The fact that people still think President Obama is the "most liberal President we've ever had" is absolutely hysterical.

 

[Dog]

The fact that people still think President Obama is the "most liberal President we've ever had" is absolutely hysterical.

Where did you find that statement?

 

[samsmart]

Followers of Ron Paul, (who is a great Congressman, but would make a poor POTUS, IMHO, [he could never win a national election anyway]), and other third party types have leveled the criticism that "both parties are the same". Sadly, there is a partial truth to their observations.

Both parties do miss lead their voters. :shock:

Since Ronald Reagan the Republicans claim to be the party of smaller Gubment, lower taxes and jurists that adhere to the Constitution.

Then the Republicans turn around and grow the Gubment. Grrrr

They actually do keep taxes a wee bit lower, (which actually increases revenues to grow more Gubment), and they do attempt to place jurists on the bench that adhere to the limits placed by the Constitution. (One of the real differences between the two parties).

Both parties have well known corruption over many years and the Democrats seem to also like openly anti American behavior. There is, however: a significant difference in how Democrat voters and Republican voters treat their corrupt pols once their corruption is widely known.

The Republicans tend to purge the corruption when the Left leaning main stream media exposes it, (sometimes it takes a long time as with Ted Stevens of very corrupt Republican leaning Alaska).

The Democrats usually institutionalize it to the point where it actually dominates their party of fools, and has for many years. Significant very powerful Democrat pols past and present, (national and local), who win elections after their corruption or in the case of Kerry: treason, are well known by their Democrat voters. (not a complete list).

Charlie Rangel
Teddy Kennedy
Dan Rostenkowski
Richard M Daley, (don't forget Richard J Daley)
Marion Barry
Rod Blagojevich
Speaker Jim Wright
Chris Dodd
Barney Frank
John Kerry
John Murtha
Alcee Hastings
William Jefferson, (not so powerful but: he won an election after the $90,000 in the freezer was well known by the voters)
Harry Reid
Maxine Waters
Jessie Jackson Jr
Laura Richardson
Alan Molohan

Another big difference: very Liberal Democrats who run for POTUS openly misslead independent voters, (Democrat voters usually know how hard Left they are), as to how Liberal/Progressive they are and the willing hard Left "main stream media" always go along with the openly false premis during Presidential campaigns.

Think about:

Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Michale Dukakous
Al Gore
John Kerry
And the mother of them all: Barack Obama, (Obamaprompter), and his hard Left Democrat House and Senate that we are currently suffering with.

This grow the Gubment borrow and control more of our lives both parties do has gone on now for many years and we are clearly reaching a tipping point which has made media sensations like Glenn Beck a powerful force in the media.

How will this play out? Hard to tell.

Let's hope the current radical Left Democrat party goes away or transforms as the so called aiding and abetting "main stream media" is in the process doing. :mrgreen:

What say you..................

I think both the Democrats and the Republicans are statists.

Democrats are statists because they want the government to provide goods and services instead of private businesses, which takes competition away from private enterprise and has every service paid for by taxes even though not every person may take advantage of those services.

Republicans are statists because they favor business interests and try to keep taxes low so people will pay for goods and services provided for by private businesses but also give government contracts to private businesses, who provide goods and services paid for by tax revenue, but since taxes are low the government must pay for it using the government debt.

You may not trust the current Democratic president, but I wouldn't trust any Republican president either.

 

[Deuce]

Where did you find that statement?

I've heard it many times, and even you referred to our current administration as "hard left" and the President as "the mother of them all" when referring to politicians lying about how far left they are.

Edit: What's "Obamaprompter" referring to anyway?

 

[MillionsOfDeadCops]

There is no difference between the right and "left" political wings of the imperialist monstrosity that is the United States.

 

[Dog]

Samsmart opines:

I think both the Democrats and the Republicans are statists.


Hmmmmmmm.......... You do eh?

Democrats are statists because they want the government to provide goods and services instead of private businesses, which takes competition away from private enterprise and has every service paid for by taxes even though not every person may take advantage of those services.

OK...... that partially defines (or states one aspect) of a statest.

Republicans are statists because they favor business interests and try to keep taxes low so people will pay for goods and services provided for by private businesses but also give government contracts to private businesses, who provide goods and services paid for by tax revenue, but since taxes are low the government must pay for it using the government debt.

That shows convoluted thinking on your part.

You may not trust the current Democratic president, but I wouldn't trust any Republican president either.

Why do you or I need to trust any POTUS?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism]Statism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The above is not a perfect definition, I prefer Mark Levine's

 

[Dog]

Deuce; states:


I've heard it many times,

So what?

and even you referred to our current administration as "hard left"

It is. :2razz:

and the President as "the mother of them all" when referring to politicians lying about how far left they are.

He did and he is the mother of 'em all.

Edit: What's "Obamaprompter" referring to anyway?


A person named Obama who can read a tele-prompter real well. He can read it good enough that people who have weak brains or are drunk on cool aid really luv him. That said: he is terrible when he is off the prompter or if the prompter is set up improperly. Example: he recently showed that he has absolutely no clue about the basics of how insurance works, (as he gave a lame personal story of how liability auto insurance wouldn't fix the damage his car received in a rear end collision).

If a conservative or a Republican had done that we would never hear the end of it.

Yet he is soooooo arogant he thinks he can design a program to provide health insurance for 300 million plus Americans and nationalize 1/6 of the domestic economy. Do you actually think "insurance" is "insurance" if pre existing conditions are not alllowed to be taken into consideration?

 

[Dog]

There is no difference between the right and "left" political wings of the imperialist monstrosity that is the United States.

How sweet.

I take it you don't like the greatest Country the world has ever seen eh?


North Korea is for you eh?

 

[samsmart]

Hmmmmmmm.......... You do eh?

I certainly do.

OK...... that partially defines (or states one aspect) of a statest.

Yes it does, the view of liberal statism.

That shows convoluted thinking on your part.

It's not that convoluted. It's called corporatism, or corporate welfare. While the left-wing gives money to the people through public services, the right-wing gives money to the corporations, especially defense companies, through contracts. It's the same thing, it just goes to a different group.

Why do you or I need to trust any POTUS?

Because you're pointing out only Democrats in your list of politicians. Republican politicians aren't any better.

The above is not a perfect definition, I prefer Mark Levine's

Okay.

 

[Dog]

Samsmart; states:

I certainly do.

Good for you.

Yes it does, the view of liberal statism.

Statism is neither modern Liberal, (although most modern Liberals are in fact statists) or Conservative, (classic Liberal). Democrats tend to be statists much more then Republicans. That said: they both tend to be statists and have been the majority in Gubment since Teddy Roosevelt. The very worst are the Democrat POTUSes: Woodrow Willson, FDR, (thus far the mother of all statists) LBJ, Nixon, and Obama are the worst of the bunch, but all of them (D and R) have been statists to some degree since old Teddy R. kick started the deal.

Example: if the Gubment awards a contract for required services to a privately held corporation that act in and of itself is not statism. The nature of the "required services" could certainly be an act of statism.

Republicans in the Bush 43 administration did pass laws for prescription drug benifits and that was clearly an act of statism. The fact that private drug companies provide the actual drugs are not an example of statism. If Nanny Gubment produced the drugs it would be pure statism. "Tax breaks" are not statism as the money belongs to the entity that is being taxed not to the Gubment. Taxes are how statism is funded, (in the present system in this Country), not in the old USSR, North Korea, Cuber et al.

It's not that convoluted.

Yes your definition is convoluted.

It's called corporatism, or corporate welfare.

Different concept. Taxes are an act of statism, (how it is financed). Regulations can also be statist and usually are. That is why they should be kept at a minimum, (regs and taxes).

While the left-wing gives money to the people through public services,

That is very clearly PURE statism.

the right-wing gives money to the corporations, especially defense companies, through contracts.

That is not statism, (the contracts to private enities part), although defense is a huge excuse to grow the state and is also a form of statism. It would be pure statism if the Gubment also provided the actual service or product instead of a private entity.

It's the same thing, it just goes to a different group.

Not the same at all.

Because you're pointing out only Democrats in your list of politicians. Republican politicians aren't any better.

Democrats approve of corruption and or treason in their pols. It also happens in Republicans but it is not tollerated for long. Not much better but better. We need to drop kick most pols in both parties.

Okay.

10-4 :mrgreen:

 

[Dittohead not!]

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are currently in power, while Republicans want to be in power. After the next election, or perhaps the next couple of elections, the Republicans are likely to be in power, with the Democrats wanting to get back into power.

None of what either party does is about meeting the challenges facing this nation, nor about liberalism, nor about conservatism. If you ask a dozen people what those two terms mean, you will likely get a dozen different answers anyway.

The parties are all about power, not about ideology, and certainly not about limited government. That idea is gone, long gone, gone with the wind, never to return to Washington.

 

[Dog]

Dittohead not states:The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are currently in power, while Republicans want to be in power.

There is much more difference then that as my initial post points out.

After the next election,

I hope.

or perhaps the next couple of elections,

For some change.

the Republicans are likely to be in power, with the Democrats wanting to get back into power.

Hard to tell, (hope you are right). The Democrats hope we will follow the path we did after 1932 as things may get real dark again due to the massive demographic peak and the massive spending they are now doing and the massive taxing they plan to implement.

None of what either party does is about meeting the challenges facing this nation,

They just don't follow the Consitution. They try to meet challenges (many they create by not following the Constitution). They just try to meet them the wrong way. Example: Problems caused by tooo much debt: they do more debt!

nor about liberalism,

Yes it is all about modern Libralism.

nor about conservatism.

Nope.

If you ask a dozen people what those two terms mean, you will likely get a dozen different answers anyway.

Education is one of the problems thanks to the NEA who funds Democrats.

The parties are all about power, not about ideology, and certainly not about limited government.

10-4

That idea is gone, long gone, gone with the wind, never to return to Washington.

Hard tellin' not knowin'. Methinks the crisis we are wading into at present will cause a huge transformation. Hopefully we flush statists and return to limited Gubment and a robust private sector.

 

[Donc]

Dittohead not states:The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are currently in power, while Republicans want to be in power.

There is much more difference then that as my initial post points out.

After the next election,

I hope.

or perhaps the next couple of elections,

For some change.

the Republicans are likely to be in power, with the Democrats wanting to get back into power.

Hard to tell, (hope you are right). The Democrats hope we will follow the path we did after 1932 as things may get real dark again due to the massive demographic peak and the massive spending they are now doing and the massive taxing they plan to implement.

None of what either party does is about meeting the challenges facing this nation,

They just don't follow the Consitution. They try to meet challenges (many they create by not following the Constitution). They just try to meet them the wrong way. Example: Problems caused by tooo much debt: they do more debt!

nor about liberalism,

Yes it is all about modern Libralism.

nor about conservatism.

Nope.

If you ask a dozen people what those two terms mean, you will likely get a dozen different answers anyway.

Education is one of the problems thanks to the NEA who funds Democrats.

The parties are all about power, not about ideology, and certainly not about limited government.

10-4

That idea is gone, long gone, gone with the wind, never to return to Washington.

Hard tellin' not knowin'. Methinks the crisis we are wading into at present will cause a huge transformation. Hopefully we flush statists and return to limited Gubment and a robust private sector.

Very cornfusing dog, learn to use the quote button with your green letter posting.:2wave:

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Very cornfusing dog, learn to use the quote button with your green letter posting.:2wave:

Definitely this, otherwise a lot of people will start to ignore you.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If you ask a dozen people what those two terms mean, you will likely get a dozen different answers anyway.

Education is one of the problems thanks to the NEA who funds Democrats.

OK, then, since you seem to be well educated, no doubt despite the NEA, give us a definition of either "liberal" or "conservative" and let's see how many agree with your definition.

 

[Dog]

Definitely this, otherwise a lot of people will start to ignore you.

I don't mind being ignored.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I don't mind being ignored.

Well suit yourself.

This is a debate site, one were some strive to present good, structured arguments which add to the community.

Ignoring that will only cause you to be ignored.

 

[Dog]

OK, then, since you seem to be well educated, no doubt despite the NEA, give us a definition of either "liberal" or "conservative" and let's see how many agree with your definition.

Seems off topic but I will bite fer a wee bit.

The Liberals I will speak about are not the "classic Liberals" which modern American Conservatives actually are that value individual human rights and independence and limited Gubment as the Founders codified in the US Constitution.

Modern Liberals, (who now totally dominate the Democrat party), view the US Constitution as a "living breathing" Constitution that must change to accomodate their version of modern society with a huge intrusive Nanny state type Gubment. That is why they want Democrats to name Jurists to the Supreme Court who are willing to redifine the Constitution, and have done that since FDR packed the Court in the mid 1930s. The modern American Conservative belives just the opposite and wants original constructionist Jurists.

Modern Liberals tend to be very emotional, (touchie feeeeelie), where Conservatives are logical.

Modern Liberals want Nanny Gubment to force equality on everyone and their view of fairness, (forced outcome where they take private property or income from the individual achievers), where modern Conservatives know that individuals have differing abilities and ambitions and therefore differing outcomes, (material [private assetts] and incomes), will be very different due to those factors which they accept without guilt.

Modern Liberals are very pro CENTRAL CONTROL. Conservatives are just the opposite.

Modern Liberals are very anti Corporation and pro big Nanny Gubment, (statists as talked about in an earlier post). Conservatives accept material inequality based on abilities and ambition and want limited Gubment as invisioned by the Founders and codified in the Constitution.

Modern Liberals don't trust individuals or individual freedoms and want big Nanny Gubment to confiscate and spend the individuals money for them. HIGH TAXES! Conservatives value individuality.

Modern Liberals hate religion and want it controlled as much as possible where Conservatives know their human rights all came from God and have no problem with "In God we trust" on currency et al.

Modern Liberals say the are very "tollerant" yet are the first to key a Conservative's SUV for publically stating Conservative principals. Conservatives actually are the tollerant ones. Modern Liberals are just plain nasty. :shock:

If a Conservative doesn't like guns they don't buy one. If a modern Liberal doesn't like guns they want all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative is homosexual they live their lives quietly. A modern Liberal homosexual demands Gubment approval of the lifestyle, wants acceptance taught in the classroom, and demands special rights and anti hate crime laws et al.

Conservatives sometimes type in green and Liberals try to lecture them to conform to their way of communication. Central Control.

Conservatives feel that people are free to read and interact (or not) as they see fit. :mrgreen:

Hope that helps with your off topic question.

 

[Dog]

Well suit yourself.

This is a debate site, one were some strive to present good, structured arguments which add to the community.

Ignoring that will only cause you to be ignored.

As I said: feel free to ignore me.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Seems off topic but I will bite fer a wee bit.

Not necessarily, not if you view one party as conservative, the other as liberal, anyway.

The Liberals I will speak about are not the "classic Liberals" which modern American Conservatives actually are that value individual human rights and independence and limited Gubment as the Founders codified in the US Constitution.

OK, so classic liberals are much like today's libertarians then.

Modern Liberals, (who now totally dominate the Democrat party), view the US Constitution as a "living breathing" Constitution that must change to accomodate their version of modern society with a huge intrusive Nanny state type Gubment. That is why they want Democrats to name Jurists to the Supreme Court who are willing to redifine the Constitution, and have done that since FDR packed the Court in the mid 1930s. The modern American Conservative belives just the opposite and wants original constructionist Jurists.

Modern Liberals tend to be very emotional, (touchie feeeeelie), where Conservatives are logical.

So, liberals would be the ones most likely to try to refute scientific research based on what they would like to believe.

Modern Liberals want Nanny Gubment to force equality on everyone and their view of fairness, (forced outcome where they take private property or income from the individual achievers), where modern Conservatives know that individuals have differing abilities and ambitions and therefore differing outcomes, (material [private assetts] and incomes), will be very different due to those factors which they accept without guilt.

Modern Liberals are very pro CENTRAL CONTROL. Conservatives are just the opposite.

Which would make conservatives in Washington at least as endangered as whooping cranes.

Modern Liberals are very anti Corporation and pro big Nanny Gubment, (statists as talked about in an earlier post). Conservatives accept material inequality based on abilities and ambition and want limited Gubment as invisioned by the Founders and codified in the Constitution.
Modern Liberals don't trust individuals or individual freedoms and want big Nanny Gubment to confiscate and spend the individuals money for them. HIGH TAXES! Conservatives value individuality.

That sounds a lot like the tax and spend of the past, or the borrow and spend of the present. Either way, of course, we'll wind up paying. Still, don't Republicans engage in the same kind of statism? How do they get to claim the "conservative" title if conservative means not statist?

Modern Liberals hate religion and want it controlled as much as possible where Conservatives know their human rights all came from God and have no problem with "In God we trust" on currency et al.

Now, that's an interesting concept, which has nothing to do with the limited government idea. It seems to be quite the opposite, in fact. let's see what the rest of the members of this forum think about it.

Modern Liberals say the are very "tollerant" yet are the first to key a Conservative's SUV for publically stating Conservative principals. Conservatives actually are the tollerant ones. Modern Liberals are just plain nasty. :shock:

Now, that is the opposite of what I've read before as conservative ideals. It seems that it is the conservatives who argue for limiting individual choices. As for vandalism, I'm not sure I've read anyone from either side supporting that.

If a Conservative doesn't like guns they don't buy one. If a modern Liberal doesn't like guns they want all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative is homosexual they live their lives quietly. A modern Liberal homosexual demands Gubment approval of the lifestyle, wants acceptance taught in the classroom, and demands special rights and anti hate crime laws et al.

OK, so the conservative ideal is for homosexuals to stay in the closet so the rest of us don't have to acknowledge that they exist. Liberals, on the other hand, want government to stay out of people's personal lives so that they can openly be who they are. Somehow, that seems that the liberals are supporting the conservative ideal of keeping government out of people's personal lives, at least on that particular issue.

Conservatives sometimes type in green and Liberals try to lecture them to conform to their way of communication. Central Control.

So, it is conservatives who are the non conformists. I'm surprised by that.

Conservatives feel that people are free to read and interact (or not) as they see fit. :mrgreen:

So, liberals are against the first amendment? That is the first time I've heard that one. It is liberals, then, who would ban certain books they consider inappropriate, while conservatives would allow for individual choice?

Hope that helps with your off topic question.

Since we're talking about Republicans and Democrats, and since the one is touted as more conservative than the other, it really isn't off topic at all.

I'll be interested to see if the other members of the forum agree with your definitions of liberal and conservative, particularly when much of what you've posted is internally contradictory.

 

[Dog]

Dittohead not! states:

Not necessarily, not if you view one party as conservative, the other as liberal, anyway.

Where did I say that?

One party is clearly dominated by the radical hard Left. Hint: the leaders are Pelosi, Obamaprompter, and Reid. Not all Democrats are that hard Left, although they are endangered by the current leadership of the party, (see Evan Bayh).

Even though Democrats are dominated by hard Left today, the majority of todays Republicans in power are hardly very "Conservative". Sadly todays Republicans are Left of Harry Truman or JFK if you think a wee bit. (Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat too you surely should know.)

I hope the abject and obvious failure of the hard Left's Centrol Control policies (which will happen over time IMHO), brings about a rebirth of real Conservatism, (the classic Liberalism codified in the Constitution). The tea parties rallies are a very healthy sign. (Liberal look down their nose Left wing heading for bankruptcy media's position not withstanding).


OK, so classic liberals are much like today's libertarians then.

You could say that and I would not debate you over it.

So, liberals would be the ones most likely to try to refute scientific research based on what they would like to believe.

Modern Liberals use selective science, language, (the meaning of the word "is"), hard Left media, NEA dominated education and their current political control of CENTRAL CONTROL to further their aims all the time. ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS, (another modern whacked Liberal slogan from their hero Karl, that does mean something to the afflicted), if you pay attention and your brain still works after all the Liberal cool aid spewing out in every institution. Takes some discipline ta keep a clear mind.

Which would make conservatives in Washington at least as endangered as whooping cranes.

There maybe some wind in their sails with the crew now in charge that can't shoot straight. One benifit of the current hard Left Democrats is people are learning once again why they don't like Democrats as they learned with Jimmy Carter and the Democrats in charge of Congress in the late 1970s

That sounds a lot like the tax and spend of the past, or the borrow and spend of the present.

So I guess you are not aware of the massive borrowing of the past? Ever heard of FDR? Obamaprompter's hero and role model? Hmmmmmm....

Either way, of course, we'll wind up paying.

We can't pay. (At least with our collective income if ya think a wee bit), we will pay in other ways that Obamaprompter, Pelosi and Reid may not even be considering but maybe they are, (I can't read their minds), I just know their policies are extremely foolish.

The tipping point has come and gone, (IMHO).

Glenn Beck does make a few easy to understand SPOT ON observations for those who's brain's still function. I'm purdy stooooooopid but I can tell if you have to take 100% of the profits of the S & P 500 or Fortune 500 to pay off the $12-$14 trillion of disclosed debt for 140 YEARS, (and the off balance sheet US debt figure is much larger, [BTW: maybe 9 to 10 times larger]), I know we can't do that without monetizing these debts and defaulting on some of the obligations as well, (the monetization is now under way), in case you didn't know.

BTW Obamaprompter plans ta add to that disclosed debt figure at least $1 Trillion per year as far as the eye can see. Much more if his rosy optimism about future income falls short, (as is very likely), due to the massive taxes he also plans to saddle the private sector with.

Still, don't Republicans engage in the same kind of statism? How do they get to claim the "conservative" title if conservative means not statist?

It is used in a relative way. Compared to the hard Left Liberal statists now in charge of the Democrat party they are more Conservative leaning and are likely gonna get much more conservative going forward. If they read the tea leaves they will either become real Conservatives actually adhering to the US Constitution or they will go away, (at least one would surely hope).


Now, that's an interesting concept, which has nothing to do with the limited government idea. It seems to be quite the opposite, in fact.

Human rights from a creator, (God) doesn't inherently limit the Gubment your trying to say here? Hmmmmmmm.... I say.....

You think human rights come from a Queen or a tyrant in a black robe or some such????

let's see what the rest of the members of this forum think about it. Now, that is the opposite of what I've read before as conservative ideals. It seems that it is the conservatives who argue for limiting individual choices.

OK then let's see. Conservatives want small limited Gubment to maximise God given liberty and individual human rights. If it comes from God how can a man made Gubment take it away???? New concept for ya eh? Modern Liberal/Statists grow Central Control which lessens our liberty every chance they get.

As for vandalism, I'm not sure I've read anyone from either side supporting that.

Modern Liberals do it in the bright blue place where I live. You don't want McCain signs on your front yard or stickers on your bumpers here or you are just asking for it.

OK, so the conservative ideal is for homosexuals to stay in the closet so the rest of us don't have to acknowledge that they exist.

They don't have to stay in the closet they can do as they please. They just don't need super rights or forced acceptance and approval as the hard Left is trying to shove down everyone's throats. They also don't need to use public education to force children to accept a practice that should be a private matter.

Liberals, on the other hand, want government to stay out of people's personal lives so that they can openly be who they are.

You really think this statist health care takeover by the hard Left squares with what you just spewed? LOL LOL LOL :roll:

Somehow, that seems that the liberals are supporting the conservative ideal of keeping government out of people's personal lives, at least on that particular issue. So, it is conservatives who are the non conformists. I'm surprised by that.

Conservatives live and let live. They also don't want tax payer funded public education used as a tool to force acceptance of what should remain a private matter. They want what the Founders of the Republic wanted and codified as the foundation of the Republic which we have badly moved away from during the last century.

So, liberals are against the first amendment?

Modern cracked Liberals? Clearly.
Are you aware in the open supression of free speech that goes on a college campuses? Ever heard of the "fairness doctrine" that Chuck U Schumer, little Dick Turbin Durbin and terrible Tom Harkin always talk about. You think those clowns are Conservative Republicans? You think Central Control dictating AM radio format is freedom of speech?

That is the first time I've heard that one.

Cool aid tastes good for you too, eh?

It is liberals, then, who would ban certain books they consider inappropriate, while conservatives would allow for individual choice?

The debate is about who pays for certain text books that are used in the public class room. (Cool aid). The NEA and Liberals want to shove all aspects of their homosexuality and man made global warming agenda down children's throats which Conservatives (as tax payers and parents), don't like. They want "the three Rs" taught. What a concept eh? That type of thing should be taught at home by parents not Nanny Gubment schools promoting Liberal dictated acceptance doctines shoved down kids throats.

Since we're talking about Republicans and Democrats, and since the one is touted as more conservative than the other, it really isn't off topic at all.

10-4

I'll be interested to see if the other members of the forum agree with your definitions of liberal and conservative, particularly when much of what you've posted is internally contradictory.

I don't see the contradiction in my stated positions on this thread.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Dittohead not! states:

Not necessarily, not if you view one party as conservative, the other as liberal, anyway.you've posted is internally contradictory.

I don't see the contradiction in my stated positions on this thread.

(I had to delete most of the above, as your continued use of green/black instead of using quotes is making the posts rather long.)

Thanks for the clarification. As a libertarian, I find it curious how those who label themselves "conservatives" and anyone who disagrees with their points of view on unrelated matters as "liberals" can say that they're for limited government, yet want that limited government to dictate who may marry whom, when a woman must carry a fetus to term, what drugs are legal and which are not, then throw people in jail for choosing the wrong ones. It is those issues that seem contradictory to me.

It does make sense that the Democratic Party's platform is further from your personal point if view, and therefore more liberal, than that of the Republican party, since your definition of liberal is further from your own point of view. That is quite logical in a circular sort of way.

The Republican Party of today is a long way from being for limited government that is instituted to protect our god given rights, on that we agree. That the Democrats are even further from that ideal is up for debate. Both parties have a history of growing the government whenever they are in power.

It has been a very long time since I was on a college campus, having earned an MA back in '73. At that time, freedom of speech was highly valued, even when the speaker was in complete disagreement with most of the rest of the students and faculty. If that has changed, it is indeed sad situation. I can't comment on that, as I don't know. Still, how is limiting freedom of speech "liberal" unless by that term you really do mean someone who doesn't agree with your point of view?

The so called "fairness doctrine" is an interesting issue. It is, of course, totally contrary to the first amendment, and has been held up as a "liberal" value, yet no one seems to be actually advocating it. The only place where I've heard the phrase used at all is on the right wing radio stations, where it has been denounced. Could it be that the fairness doctrine is a strawman argument that the pundits on said stations like to denounce, but that no one is actually advocating? I'm not sure.

 

[Dog]

Dittohead not! states: (I had to delete most of the above, as your continued use of green/black instead of using quotes is making the posts rather long.)

10-4

Thanks for the clarification.

You are welcome.

As a libertarian, I find it curious how those who label themselves "conservatives"

Did I do that?

and anyone who disagrees with their points of view on unrelated matters as "liberals"

I do like to label some posters Liberals when they post modern whacked Liberal chit, regardless of what they claim to be.

can say that they're for limited government, yet want that limited government to dictate who may marry whom,

Hmmmmmmm..... I didn't raise this issue in this thread either, (if memory serves). Any adult human women can marry another unrelated adult human man and the same with the other way around (man can marry woman). That is known as a "privilege" in America not a God given "right". Procreation is in the interest of any society that wants to sustain itself. Hope that is clear.

when a woman must carry a fetus to term,

Since two living "entities" with basic protected rights are involved that is a very tough issue for any legal system. At some point a "fetus" is a living person who diserves protection of those God given rights, (LIFE being one of the basics), all citizens of this Republic are provided with. When does a "fetus" become a living human being instead of a piece of extra tissue?

Roe v Wade was an overreaching of the Supreme Court that should be over turned.

The states are free to regulate this difficult issue through each individual State's legal system under the tenth amendment and many States did have laws regarding this issue prior to the Roe v Wade power grab.

what drugs are legal and which are not,

Public safety issues are also the legitimate perview of our legal system.

then throw people in jail for choosing the wrong ones. It is those issues that seem contradictory to me.

I did not bring these issues up so you are projecting the claimed "contradiction" into my posts.

As to drug classifications, the Federal Gubment has a 20 page document that strictly limits that particular branch of Gubment's scope that both political parties but especially the Democrats have ignored for many years. Whether a drug is legal or not is a legitimate issue for a dully elected legislature to consider and regulate from a public safety perspective, IMHO.

It does make sense that the Democratic Party's platform is further from your personal point if view, and therefore more liberal, than that of the Republican party, since your definition of liberal is further from your own point of view. That is quite logical in a circular sort of way.

OK, I will accept that, I try to use logic.

The Republican Party of today is a long way from being for limited government that is instituted to protect our god given rights, on that we agree.

10-4

That the Democrats are even further from that ideal is up for debate. Both parties have a history of growing the government whenever they are in power.

History shows the real massive Federal Gubment growth (counter to the restriction imposed by the tenth amendment), generally comes from Democrats #1 FDR, #2 LBJ and those two are so far out in front the distant #3 place is not worth a debate here. Obamaprompter is fading way to fast now to take out LBJ, although he is clearly trying real hard.

It has been a very long time since I was on a college campus, having earned an MA back in '73.

Similar vintage here (my BA was 1975 from a large well known Left wing Commie place on the Left coast).

At that time, freedom of speech was highly valued, even when the speaker was in complete disagreement with most of the rest of the students and faculty.

I agree.

If that has changed, it is indeed sad situation.

OH it has dramatically changed although the main stream media doesn't report this extensively as it comes from their side. The hard Lefties on today's campuses are very VERY intollerant.

I can't comment on that, as I don't know. Still, how is limiting freedom of speech "liberal" unless by that term you really do mean someone who doesn't agree with your point of view?

David Horowitz has written a great deal on this subject and has a lot of first hand experience as a former 1960s radical turned Conservative that still visits and speaks at campuses. Anne Coulter and the Minutemen have also had huge recent problems on campuses with the hard Left over the last few years.

The so called "fairness doctrine" is an interesting issue. It is, of course, totally contrary to the first amendment, and has been held up as a "liberal" value, yet no one seems to be actually advocating it.

I named three very powerful US Senators that have raised the issue in a serious way: recently.

The only place where I've heard the phrase used at all is on the right wing radio stations, where it has been denounced. Could it be that the fairness doctrine is a strawman argument that the pundits on said stations like to denounce, but that no one is actually advocating? I'm not sure.

As I said: it has been brought up recently by powerful Liberal Democrat law makers.

 

[molten_dragon]

Followers of Ron Paul, (who is a great Congressman, but would make a poor POTUS, IMHO, [he could never win a national election anyway]), and other third party types have leveled the criticism that "both parties are the same". Sadly, there is a partial truth to their observations.

Both parties do miss lead their voters. :shock:

Since Ronald Reagan the Republicans claim to be the party of smaller Gubment, lower taxes and jurists that adhere to the Constitution.

Then the Republicans turn around and grow the Gubment. Grrrr

They actually do keep taxes a wee bit lower, (which actually increases revenues to grow more Gubment), and they do attempt to place jurists on the bench that adhere to the limits placed by the Constitution. (One of the real differences between the two parties).

Both parties have well known corruption over many years and the Democrats seem to also like openly anti American behavior. There is, however: a significant difference in how Democrat voters and Republican voters treat their corrupt pols once their corruption is widely known.

The Republicans tend to purge the corruption when the Left leaning main stream media exposes it, (sometimes it takes a long time as with Ted Stevens of very corrupt Republican leaning Alaska).

The Democrats usually institutionalize it to the point where it actually dominates their party of fools, and has for many years. Significant very powerful Democrat pols past and present, (national and local), who win elections after their corruption or in the case of Kerry: treason, are well known by their Democrat voters. (not a complete list).

Charlie Rangel
Teddy Kennedy
Dan Rostenkowski
Richard M Daley, (don't forget Richard J Daley)
Marion Barry
Rod Blagojevich
Speaker Jim Wright
Chris Dodd
Barney Frank
John Kerry
John Murtha
Alcee Hastings
William Jefferson, (not so powerful but: he won an election after the $90,000 in the freezer was well known by the voters)
Harry Reid
Maxine Waters
Jessie Jackson Jr
Laura Richardson
Alan Molohan

Another big difference: very Liberal Democrats who run for POTUS openly misslead independent voters, (Democrat voters usually know how hard Left they are), as to how Liberal/Progressive they are and the willing hard Left "main stream media" always go along with the openly false premis during Presidential campaigns.

Think about:

Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Michale Dukakous
Al Gore
John Kerry
And the mother of them all: Barack Obama, (Obamaprompter), and his hard Left Democrat House and Senate that we are currently suffering with.

This grow the Gubment borrow and control more of our lives both parties do has gone on now for many years and we are clearly reaching a tipping point which has made media sensations like Glenn Beck a powerful force in the media.

How will this play out? Hard to tell.

Let's hope the current radical Left Democrat party goes away or transforms as the so called aiding and abetting "main stream media" is in the process doing. :mrgreen:

What say you..................

Ah, a partisan rant against liberals couched in a thin veneer of bi-partisan bashing.

I see what you did there.