Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77
  1. #1
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Well now that the election is over...

    and before you all disperse for lack of things to jab at, I would like to ask your thoughts about the "core ideology" of both the democratic and republican party's. As a youth back in the 80's I found myself to be more aligned with the republicans on issues pertaining to money and success. I also liked the things that Reagan did with the defense spending and his "STARWARS" proposal(still like the idea in principal) but quickly began to disagree with "Reaganomics" and "trickle down", as an efficient means to economic prosperity, the older I got. I didn't really look any deeper into the republican agenda while supporting them. I generally thought the environment was overplayed and civil rights were something each individual should have to earn and not be given away by government. But I began to look a little deeper as I acquired a family and began to understand how modern business works...truely works. I began to see favorite vacation spots in Colorado (as a youth) get gobbled up by rich investors from out of state who erected gambling casinos in their place. I began to see the pollution emitted from power plants and vehicles(other than cars) not be addressed due to the supposed expense that would be incurred by those companies. I began to see laws that require helmets on motorcycle riders and seat belts required on passengers in cars but no seatbelts for school bus' due to expense incurred by the companies. It seemed that republicans weren't so concerned about the increased money that I would have to buy a new car or the serenity of a good get away or the air that I breathe...just the money that the corperations would have to spend on a level playing field. They weren't concerned with bigger government when it came to me personally... just when it came to their companies.

    Sure I was a little naive in believing that everyone was no better than anyone else and that the only difference between dems and the gop was whether you succeeded by the government giving it to you or you working for it.

    SO...I have listened to most of you for some time now(and you all thought I left in a fit of rage ) and how you express yourselves as you do politically, but I would like you to put your discriptions in a short list of perceived/stated goals pertaining to your party. For instance...

    1) Since Dems tend to cater to the urban working population, women and minorities with promises of making their lives better/more prosperous through government involvement, that Dems are more about making/treating people more equal through government involvement since we can't do it on our own.(if we could, there would be no need for that platform in that aspect)

    2) Dems tend to side with environmentalist and naturalists on preserving the natural resources ie. creation of parks and wildlife preservation.

    3) Dems tend to side with consumer advocates on personal safety through legislation on companies that force safety standards on products and services. It should also be noted that personal safety includes work safety standards and holding companies responsible for violations or neglegance(sp?).

    4) Dems tend to spend only what they take in. They tend to believe that the addage "take from the rich and give to the poor". They tend to believe that everyone deserves to "make it" and the only way to make that happen is through government intervention. They tend to tax more in an effort to pay for the programs that will do so.

    5) Dems tend to believe that "people" need less legislation "directly" and more indirectly in the form of laws on companies providing products and services and the formation of government programs for the needy and under priveledged.



    And now for the GOP...

    1) Reps tend to cater to rural farmers, ranchers, and businessmen with the promise of "keeping" their lives as prosperous as they already are. They also cater to those of religion that believe everyone should live by the rule of God reguardless of their faith by promising to vote on legislation according to their beliefs. They cater to the upscale, white, males by voting against civil rights issues that would erode their status of being "the majority" or somehow superior.

    2) Reps tend to side with energy, mining, logging, and real estate companies that want to develope the wilderness for financial gain.

    3) Reps tend to side with companies to limit through legislation the amount and types of penalties that said companies can be exposed to for injury and damages from products or services.(TORT reform, toxic waste disposal, ect)

    4) Reps (as of late) tend to spend more than they take in. The trend started with Nixon and has been increasing with every republican since. They tend to give tax revenue back to everyone which inherently becomes a large portion for the rich and companies(since they pay more in both percentage and raw dollars). Because of the tax reform, they end up borrowing to pay for their programs. They tend to believe you are on your own in this country and IF you make it, you deserve a break. If you don't make it, it's probably your own fault and you deserve nothing from the government.

    5) Reps tend to believe people need more legislation "directly" to be equal in the eye's of God and less legislation on companies that ultimitely support the people.



    This is just an example of my "perception" in small part as I see it from 30yrs or so of observation. While they may not be factual in detail, the end result "seems" to be so. I would be extremely interested in a topic conversation on the subject. I will not have a great deal of facts to support my statement, but would provide a view positive or negative none the less. If anyone can give me a guide to "the goals and principles of the republican/democratic party" please do so. Ultimitely, this is what I seek... in short form of course. Something straight forward and no spin. If a republican is going to be in office for awhile(more than 4yrs I suspect) I would like some insite as to what they really want my life to be.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  2. #2
    AR Member JeffKnob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    265
    I have had the same observations.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Onkyo TX-SR606
    PS3 Bluray
    Denon DVD-1920
    Panasonic TH-50PZ80U Plasma
    HR21 HD DVR
    Paradigm Esprit (front), Focus (rear), CC270 (center)

    2 - 15" Dayton HF subwoofers
    Two Soundstream M1 monoblock amps for the subwoofer

  3. #3
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254
    Yes, but are they accurate... factual? Everyone has an agenda. When those coincide with other of the same, you have a party. They both claim to have the same kind of vision for us through different philosiphies. What are those philosiphies /agendas?
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  4. #4
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Hello karl!

    How do you like the current love-fest re: the two candidates? lol.

    I remember a story in English in elementary school, that I saw in my daughters book many years later, about how everyone was FORCED to be equal in every way. There were 200 amendments to the Constitution.

    If you were stronger than average, you wore weights. Smarter, you had a headset that would give off loud noises to break your chain of thought.

    Real equality is happening in the US, soon we will be the first multiracial democracy in history!

    Don't hear much about that. Anyway, equality under law is important. But the fact is, I'm sitting here talking to you because I can read. I am worth more economically than someone who can't. Doesn't make me a better person, not even smarter, just worth more money.

    Substitute work ethic, education, business smarts, etc. Money is colorblind now. And Powell is Secretary of State.

    I can't speak for all Reps, but I can speak for myself:

    1) Personal freedom. Not some nebulous theory, but the reality of me and other members of my community deciding what is best for ourselves. We have defended this with our lives. There are still those that will do it again.

    2) Personal responsibility. If some kid grows up to be a thug, it isn't my fault, it's his, perhaps (but not always) his parents, but it comes down to HIS choice, not mine.

    Flip side, if someone does extremely well, they deserve their reward and should be able to do with it as they see fit. I am not entitled to take it by force (gov't action).

    This also applies to good works in the community. See something you don't like? Well it ain't the gov'ts fault! Want something done, it's a free country (see #1), knock yourself out. Give time and money to those causes you believe in. Don't just sit there and complain that the gov't isn't doing it for you.

    3) Continue working on the world economic system. Aha! The evil Rep comes out! But only so the world can become more and more prosperous. The rising tide has lifted many, many boats, we are directly responsible for the worlds' greatest golden age. I want us to strive to extend and expand this. It takes work, and level-headed toughness, and is always subject to:

    4) Preservation of the Constitution. The most important single item. It is directly responsible for all other items here being possible, including this discussion itself. If it needs to be changed, it should be done through the long, difficult process of amendment, not by judicial fiat, which is against all principles listed here, and is tyranny, disenfranchment in its' final form.

    Those who twist the Constitution to meet their own ends will end up getting bitten by that lack of rules when a different group comes to power.

    5) What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can. We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.

    Well you asked !

    I realise that you were looking for greater specifics. All that I argue for comes from the above, as I see it.

    The more mudane, short term stuff :

    Gay "marriage" amendment. Equal parts public morality/health and protection from judicial overreach. Outlook: very good, witness the votes that have already taken place in the states. You Dems have a LOT of "intolerant" people!

    Budget management. The twin shocks of the WTC (war on terror) and recession (with the added problems of the corporate criminals), have shown an already existing problem with our spending habits. This encompasses all gov't programs, including SS and the tax code. Outlook: VERY questionable IMO. Many cuts will have to be made, and if a Congressman proposes cutting, say, Yak studies you can be sure the press will be all over him/her, with college and old hippie protesters chanting "Yak murderer!" and "Mean, evil Congressman!", with the Yak lobby both funding it and milking it for all it's worth.

    Then, come the next election, a private group will smear the Congressman with commercials about how he/she hates Yaks, which are somehow vital to our very survival.

    Moore will make a movie about it.

    Some will believe him.

    The only plusses is that Bush is now a lame duck. Easy to shoot ? Nah, but he can spend some of his vast wealth of popular-vote capitol on it (can I rub it in, just a little? ). Also, it is becoming such a huge problem that SOMETHING will have to be done. Stop spending your SS payroll deduction and save it for SS? Hahahahahahaha (stop - wipe eyes - continue) that would show the REAL size of the defict, and the gov'ts used to that money, so forget it - the "saving of SS" mentioned during the debates has became a huge tax increase. But 401ks' are so successful overall that I think we'll be seeing some privately managed SS accounts. We have GOT to try something, or have no SS at all.

    School unions like the NEA. This group of public school teachers should be like Ceasars' wife - not a HINT of inpropriety.

    Instead, we have an organization the partners with groups like MoveOn - using my tax money to advance their partisan agenda. Does any Dem see the problem with this?

    Outlook: Doubt it.

    Continue working on reducing pollutants worldwide. The easiest way is to increase income - studies have shown folks start worrying about the enviroment when their income hits a certain level - I think it was 6 or 7 gs' a year. Regardless, I was surprised it was so low. We make a lot of money here!

    We can continue to work on our contribution to pollution. I like the tax credits, like the $1000 given to those who buy alternatively-fueled cars. But - that equals a tax cut (gasp)! And worse, since the alternate fuel cars now cost like 3-4 gs more than gas ones, it equals a TAX CUT TO THE WEALTHY! Money that could better be used to balance the budget?

    Holding up a school constuction project for three months, at a cost of many thousands of dollars, because a certain bird MIGHT be living there (happened around here last year) does not make sense, though I guess it assuaged the liberal guilt of a couple of folks. Money better spent DOING something to help.

    Outlook on what? I don't know what to do. But it darn well sure WON'T be letting a bunch of American-hating foreign bureaucrats calling the shots, how about slowly lowering the total amount of pollutants we allow produced? Regardless, nothing earthshaking will be done anytime soon, due to human nature, better be ready for the day after tomorrow!! (is that only 2 days away?)

    War on terror. Continuing to spend massive amounts of money to lower casuality rates (which I agree with) and, protect us.

    Outlook: Very good. However, we can't control the actions of others, only influence and punish them.

    Thanks, karl, I needed this! Have a great weekend!

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  5. #5
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can. We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.
    Pete, you don't really believe this do you? Sorry bud, white men don't get off that easy. Racism in case you didn't know it is on the rise. Institutional racism is not gone, it has metamorphsized into a much more subtle culture. Blacks are still not widely welcomed in the board room, still lagging in employment, health, education, and in the highest reaches of government. Let's not even mention Hispanics. Anyone who believes that racism is no more has obviously closed their eyes, or have buried their heads deep in sand. White men still control the board room, the government, education, finance you name it. And it looks like they are not willing to share that control anytime soon

    Gay "marriage" amendment. Equal parts public morality/health and protection from judicial overreach. Outlook: very good, witness the votes that have already taken place in the states. You Dems have a LOT of "intolerant" people!
    This is a bunch of pish posh. The gay "marriage" amendment is about hate and intolerance, even this straight guy can see that. You cannot legislate morality, and you cannot force any form of morality on anyone. How health comes into the issue escapes me, can you enlighten me on that one? When my wife was alive, I cannot see for the life of me how two married men would negatively affect us. My next door neighbors are two men that have been together longer than every married couple in the neighborhood. They have raised two beautiful little kids, who are now by the way two grown young people attending college. Living next door to them has been a very enlightening experience. They are not as wicked and self indulgant as Alan Keys has lead us all to believe.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  6. #6
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    The gay "marriage" amendment is about hate and intolerance, even this straight guy can see that.
    Are you serious? Hate and Intolerance? That's a pretty bold statement and has no basis in fact. I am against gay marriage and I don't hate gay people in any way. I am all for legal agreements but Marriage is between man and women. Libs can't seem to understand the difference and resort to using scare tactics like "Hate" and "Intolerance". Just like San Fran, Houston has a huge gay population and I am friends with many. I can tell you that the majority of them think the whole gay marriage issue is a non issue. I would be willing to bet this is true in most parts of the country. Libs tried to raise it as a scare tactic to get Gay people to vote for them. Seems to have worked well huh?

    " Hate" and "Intolerance"? Please!


    JSE

  7. #7
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Well, T...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Pete, you don't really believe this do you? Sorry bud, white men don't get off that easy. Racism in case you didn't know it is on the rise. Institutional racism is not gone, it has metamorphsized into a much more subtle culture. Blacks are still not widely welcomed in the board room, still lagging in employment, health, education, and in the highest reaches of government. Let's not even mention Hispanics. Anyone who believes that racism is no more has obviously closed their eyes, or have buried their heads deep in sand. White men still control the board room, the government, education, finance you name it. And it looks like they are not willing to share that control anytime soon



    This is a bunch of pish posh. The gay "marriage" amendment is about hate and intolerance, even this straight guy can see that. You cannot legislate morality, and you cannot force any form of morality on anyone. How health comes into the issue escapes me, can you enlighten me on that one? When my wife was alive, I cannot see for the life of me how two married men would negatively affect us. My next door neighbors are two men that have been together longer than every married couple in the neighborhood. They have raised two beautiful little kids, who are now by the way two grown young people attending college. Living next door to them has been a very enlightening experience. They are not as wicked and self indulgant as Alan Keys has lead us all to believe.
    You appear to be educated and leaning a little left, maybe you can enlighten me as to the Dems "Big Picture"? What is their core ideology as you see it. While I do take great pleasure in watching the conflict baloon before my eyes, PLEASE answer my question before it gets lost in the insueing arguement.

    Thanks for being a standup guy!
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  8. #8
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Houston, we have a problem!

    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    Are you serious? Hate and Intolerance? That's a pretty bold statement and has no basis in fact. I am against gay marriage and I don't hate gay people in any way. I am all for legal agreements but Marriage is between man and women. Libs can't seem to understand the difference and resort to using scare tactics like "Hate" and "Intolerance". Just like San Fran, Houston has a huge gay population and I am friends with many. I can tell you that the majority of them think the whole gay marriage issue is a non issue. I would be willing to bet this is true in most parts of the country. Libs tried to raise it as a scare tactic to get Gay people to vote for them. Seems to have worked well huh?

    " Hate" and "Intolerance"? Please!


    JSE
    I didn't post this question here to start a fight... My wish to ask and learn was a sincere one. The question isn't about gays, or crime, or religion(directly) but the big picture. The political process is a means to an end. I wish to know what each party has in mind for the endgame. If republicans had their way, according to the republican agenda, what would my life be like when it's all over? What of the Dems?

    We can get into the sparring match but I would prefer to do it AFTER my question has been answered.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  9. #9
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    I didn't post this question here to start a fight... My wish to ask and learn was a sincere one. The question isn't about gays, or crime, or religion(directly) but the big picture. The political process is a means to an end. I wish to know what each party has in mind for the endgame. If republicans had their way, according to the republican agenda, what would my life be like when it's all over? What of the Dems?

    We can get into the sparring match but I would prefer to do it AFTER my question has been answered.

    Sorry Karl, I just can't and won't let statements like T. made go without responding. Especially when they are so far from reality.

    When I have more time, I will respond to your question.

    JSE

  10. #10
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Thanks Pete...

    I know that took some time to put together. I really wasn't looking to pick a fight.(contrary to what others might have thought through the appearent lack of interest in my topics)

    I was very sincere in my thirst for knowledge but was looking for the condensed form rather than spending hours and hours trying to re-learn history and political science. It seems to me that there is so much attention put on getting votes to win an election that the long-term goals of the different parties is getting lost to the public. There is a fear that has been put into the minds of people that their way of life is in danger and unless they act now, that all will be lost. It is that fear that causes the short-sightedness of the public to what the different philosophies are all about. I have found myself having difficulties with aligning myself with any particular one... in part because of a lack of understanding of the goal(s) that they represent and in part because of the lack of accountability of those goals. It can be difficult to make a decission without having a representation of the big picture(as conceived by any party) before you.

    I was also looking to see if all people here have an accurate concept of the goals of the parties they support/represent, or do they just support the parts of those goals that directly have their interest... at that moment. You would think more people that vote, do so because of the big picture. But I find it(more times than not) is more a case of "I want to keep my guns so I will always vote republican." or "I may want to have an abortion in the future, so I will always vote democrate." It seems like most people are happy with the way things are in general(except we are always wanting more money ) and that is why they vote as they do about "single issues". The exception is in 2000 when morals and values came into question over the Clinton sex scandle. It seems that we took it pretty personal what the world thought about our embarrassment THEN and now we are determined to do something about it. Funny how we care so much about our moral image then but not now in Iraq. See, that's why I'm having a problem with the parties. Like everyother party, it conflicts it's self making it hard to support or even understand what they stand for... long term.

    Anyway, I will spare you the response to the end of your post(as I said earlier, not really what I was looking for anyway) and express a few thoughts on the rest.

    "How do you like the current love-fest re: the two candidates? lol."

    They both dislike each other, why put a pretty face on it... for us? Waste of energy.IMO

    "I remember a story in English in elementary school, that I saw in my daughters book many years later, about how everyone was FORCED to be equal in every way. There were 200 amendments to the Constitution." " If you were stronger than average, you wore weights. Smarter, you had a headset that would give off loud noises to break your chain of thought."

    Probably distributed by the GOP in an effort to start kids early on how people will never be truely equal in reality so acceptance of inequality would be seen more preferable than equality. I find it interesting that the book would cite weighing down the strong in an effort to be equal to the weak instead of the strong helping to lift the weak. I was taught that you can't help others til you help yourself, but helping others, once self established, was morally acceptable and in some cases required as a responsible member of society(Uh huh huh... member) How many CEO's would drive by the slums and offer to provide work... personally... or just drive by and complain about the government taxing them too much.

    "Real equality is happening in the US, soon we will be the first multiracial democracy in history!"

    I'm not sure I understand the context of the comment. You'll have to clarify.

    "Anyway, equality under law is important. But the fact is, I'm sitting here talking to you because I can read. I am worth more economically than someone who can't. Doesn't make me a better person, not even smarter, just worth more money."

    I agree... mostly. The fact is that most people that can't read, work really well with their hands... something that alot of well educated businessmen can't do. So while your reading skill has value, I would argue that it may not have MORE value than someone who can build and fix things. I would argue that one who can't read IS NOT generally as smart as one who can but certainly not better/worse a person.

    "Money is colorblind now. And Powell is Secretary of State."

    Huh? Money is NOT colorblind but I will admit it is getting better... slowly. BTW, that was forced legislation if I recall my history. Was it right to force it back then knowing the current outcome? Or should the GOV had butted out of their business as well. Some will say that color denial is a function of education. While this might be true in some cases, it's not in all... or even a few. It's just another means that justifies the end.

    1) Personal freedom. Not some nebulous theory, but the reality of me and other members of my community deciding what is best for ourselves.

    Not for ourselves, but for ALL in the community. It(by your definition) doesn't sound very personal to me except for those who are in the majority(see Totalitarian) or unless the majority means everybody. Hopefully before you and your other members vote, you will have come to a comprimise that everyone can vote "YES" on.

    2) Personal responsibility. If some kid grows up to be a thug, it isn't my fault, it's his, perhaps (but not always) his parents, but it comes down to HIS choice, not mine.

    Personal responsibility... I like that one. Good call!

    Flip side, if someone does extremely well, they deserve their reward and should be able to do with it as they see fit. I am not entitled to take it by force (gov't action).

    and yet it is you(figuretively speaking of course ) who are entitled to restrict, by force,(gov't action) what I may potentially view in the privacy of my home? Should they not fall under the same ideology?

    "See something you don't like? Well it ain't the gov'ts fault! Want something done, it's a free country (see #1), knock yourself out. Give time and money to those causes you believe in. Don't just sit there and complain that the gov't isn't doing it for you."

    Oh now Pete, you know that's not true! Come on now, how many times have I seen you complain about those liberal sissy judges that rule from the bench. They are, whether you like it or not, part of the gov't. That's a big part of what the gay marriage thing is about. BEING THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT! That's what all the ballots were about... the conservatives fear of a government takeover of their way of life. Giving time and money... every two weeks brother! And yes I still believe in them!(although they do test my patience from time to time on how they manage it )

    I will fore go 3) as I want to address it a little later(if you dont mind )

    4) Preservation of the Constitution. The most important single item. It is directly responsible for all other items here being possible, including this discussion itself. If it needs to be changed, it should be done through the long, difficult process of amendment, not by judicial fiat, which is against all principles listed here, and is tyranny, disenfranchment in its' final form.

    Agreed. As long as you don't read to much into it. Alot like the Bible in that aspect, isn't it?

    Those who twist the Constitution to meet their own ends will end up getting bitten by that lack of rules when a different group comes to power.

    Do unto others... big fan of that one!

    5) What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can. We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.

    Killing me softly with his song? It seems anymore since we can't spread capitalism as directly as WE would like(figuratively speaking again) in totalitarian and dictatorship gov'ts, that the answer now is to spread Democracy instead and let the public choose Capitalism. Isn't that a big part of why we are in Iraq?(see GMEI) I find it interesting the plots being instituted by us, in the name of humanity, for our own ends, and against the wish's of those on the receiving end. While what you speak of not slaying dragons sounds noble, it seems like we have a problem with this getting in the way of our interest's.

    "I realise that you were looking for greater specifics. All that I argue for comes from the above, as I see it."

    And Pete, as usual, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for breaking the ice and answering my question as thoroughly as you did! If you have any additional thoughts, I'll be as civil as I can.

    Congrats on a smooth election!
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  11. #11
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Houston, we're standing by.

    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    Sorry Karl, I just can't and won't let statements like T. made go without responding. Especially when they are so far from reality.

    When I have more time, I will respond to your question.

    JSE
    Thank you for your understanding and I look forward to your answer.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  12. #12
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Insightful and remarkably complete

    Granted I'm an outsider, a Canadian, but you seem bang on to me. Canada too has its conservatives. Their position is becoming increasingly Republican-like, even on the religious issue. People here are similarly deceived.

    Also, in my youth long ago, I too saw things in terms of the deserving rich verus the undeserving poor. But I got over that decades ago.

    The biggest thing, maybe, is the right-wing ecomonics favors globalist multi-national corporations increasingly. And their interest is money purely: they don't care about Americans or Canadians or anybody. They will take all their taxes breaks and invest the cash anywhere wages are low, labor laws are lax, and the enviroment is unprotected.

    The "middle" class -- I'm speaking of small business owners and people in well-paying professional and technical jobs -- in both our countries are deceived if they believe that their prosperity will survive when the less well-off are reduced to poverty. No, middle class propersity depends on the relative posperity of the "lower" classes much more than it does on that of the rich.

    As for religion, as I said in another thread, "conservative" Chistianity (in both countries) is essentially Pharasaic, that is, self-rightiously hypocritical and falling short of of a thorough acceptance of Jeus' message.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    An outsider? You make it sound like a bad thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Granted I'm an outsider, a Canadian, but you seem bang on to me. Canada too has its conservatives. Their position is becoming increasingly Republican-like, even on the religious issue. People here are similarly deceived.

    Also, in my youth long ago, I too saw things in terms of the deserving rich verus the undeserving poor. But I got over that decades ago.

    The biggest thing, maybe, is the right-wing ecomonics favors globalist multi-national corporations increasingly. And their interest is money purely: they don't care about Americans or Canadians or anybody. They will take all their taxes breaks and invest the cash anywhere wages are low, labor laws are lax, and the enviroment is unprotected.

    The "middle" class -- I'm speaking of small business owners and people in well-paying professional and technical jobs -- in both our countries are deceived if they believe that their prosperity will survive when the less well-off are reduced to poverty. No, middle class propersity depends on the relative posperity of the "lower" classes much more than it does on that of the rich.

    As for religion, as I said in another thread, "conservative" Chistianity (in both countries) is essentially Pharasaic, that is, self-rightiously hypocritical and falling short of of a thorough acceptance of Jeus' message.
    On the contrary, if you study any at all about politics, you are qualified to respond no matter where you live. When someone not from the US can analyze and comment about the left or the right, I listen... objectively of course. I'm not so naive to believe that I'm getting all the info from my native news in an accurate, "objective", no spin fashion. I know how powerful a group of people with personal agendas can be and how the truth can be selective. That's what I'm trying to get at... the burried truth to the long term goals of the different parties. Throughout the ages, philosophers have described their version of utopia and I was looking for the same thing from the Dems and Reps to confirm that their party line goals would realistically take them there. I said in another post that the political process is a means to an end, are we looking at a model of heaven on earth? Are we just playing a game of Monopoly and the ones with all the money win? Is the goal of the Dem or Rep party truely a moral one? Maybe I'm asking for an overly simple answer that can't be had... but if it exists, I would like to see it.

    Thanks for your "outside" assessment, but I would say due to globalization, you're in the same boat and therefore not so much an outsider when you think about it.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Granted I'm an outsider, a Canadian, but you seem bang on to me. Canada too has its conservatives. Their position is becoming increasingly Republican-like, even on the religious issue. People here are similarly deceived.
    Your last statement sums up the whole problem with liberals today. Seeing as the moderate to conservative people clearly make up the majority(which is growing), one must ask, who is deceiving whom?

    Fact is, we're sick and tired of these back-handed insults. The elections results are a clear indication this group of people are pushing back.

    -Bruce
    (go take your enlightened back-sides and look in the mirror for a change.)

  15. #15
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    I know that took some time to put together. I really wasn't looking to pick a fight.(contrary to what others might have thought through the appearent lack of interest in my topics)
    karl,

    I wasn't looking for a fight either, the overall thoughts I posted were a genuine attempt to answer what I thought was the question.

    One wise man I knew said: "Every time 2 people talk there's actually 6 people talking. On each side: the actual person, the guy he thinks he is, and the guy the OTHER guy thinks he is".

    It's a wonder we can talk at all .

    Topic? What topics?

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    I was very sincere in my thirst for knowledge but was looking for the condensed form rather than spending hours and hours trying to re-learn history and political science. It seems to me that there is so much attention put on getting votes to win an election that the long-term goals of the different parties is getting lost to the public. There is a fear that has been put into the minds of people that their way of life is in danger and unless they act now, that all will be lost. It is that fear that causes the short-sightedness of the public to what the different philosophies are all about. I have found myself having difficulties with aligning myself with any particular one... in part because of a lack of understanding of the goal(s) that they represent and in part because of the lack of accountability of those goals. It can be difficult to make a decission without having a representation of the big picture(as conceived by any party) before you.
    I think the short-sightedness of the general public is a reflection of human nature. So as scary as it is a burden is on the candidates themselves to act in our best interest. Not the way it was supposed to be. Shudder!!

    I've often thought of independents, it's got to be tough. How hard is it to determine WHO will be the best to lead the country? And I fear the celebrity-based culture we live in hurts this, Lincoln wouldn't be elected now.

    The only real accountability we'll ever have is the next election.

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    I was also looking to see if all people here have an accurate concept of the goals of the parties they support/represent, or do they just support the parts of those goals that directly have their interest... at that moment. You would think more people that vote, do so because of the big picture. But I find it(more times than not) is more a case of "I want to keep my guns so I will always vote republican." or "I may want to have an abortion in the future, so I will always vote democrate." It seems like most people are happy with the way things are in general(except we are always wanting more money ) and that is why they vote as they do about "single issues". The exception is in 2000 when morals and values came into question over the Clinton sex scandle. It seems that we took it pretty personal what the world thought about our embarrassment THEN and now we are determined to do something about it. Funny how we care so much about our moral image then but not now in Iraq. See, that's why I'm having a problem with the parties. Like everyother party, it conflicts it's self making it hard to support or even understand what they stand for... long term.
    This is why I vote party and not individual. 60% of the winning parties' platform becomes law, on average. The person only counts for so much IMO.

    Regardless of what's being said, most Iraqis think it was immoral of us to desert them after Gulf War round one and would be horrible to do it now.

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    Anyway, I will spare you the response to the end of your post(as I said earlier, not really what I was looking for anyway) and express a few thoughts on the rest.

    * "How do you like the current love-fest re: the two candidates? lol." *

    They both dislike each other, why put a pretty face on it... for us? Waste of energy.IMO

    *"I remember a story in English in elementary school, that I saw in my daughters book many years later, about how everyone was FORCED to be equal in every way. There were 200 amendments to the Constitution." "[/i][i] If you were stronger than average, you wore weights. Smarter, you had a headset that would give off loud noises to break your chain of thought."*

    Probably distributed by the GOP in an effort to start kids early on how people will never be truely equal in reality so acceptance of inequality would be seen more preferable than equality. I find it interesting that the book would cite weighing down the strong in an effort to be equal to the weak instead of the strong helping to lift the weak. I was taught that you can't help others til you help yourself, but helping others, once self established, was morally acceptable and in some cases required as a responsible member of society(Uh huh huh... member) How many CEO's would drive by the slums and offer to provide work... personally... or just drive by and complain about the government taxing them too much.
    Yep I'm cynical about the love-fest, too - hate and fear each other (the election commercials) - love and respect each other - yeah that'll happen!

    The one thing that stood out was Kerry saying to stand together in Iraq.

    That story (I wish I could remember the name!!) was supposed to be an example of what can go wrong with democracy. Fact is, people are NOT equally endowed. Any attempt to force that will only screw things up.

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    *"Real equality is happening in the US, soon we will be the first multiracial democracy in history!" *

    I'm not sure I understand the context of the comment. You'll have to clarify.

    *"Anyway, equality under law is important. But the fact is, I'm sitting here talking to you because I can read. I am worth more economically than someone who can't. Doesn't make me a better person, not even smarter, just worth more money."*

    I agree... mostly. The fact is that most people that can't read, work really well with their hands... something that alot of well educated businessmen can't do. So while your reading skill has value, I would argue that it may not have MORE value than someone who can build and fix things. I would argue that one who can't read IS NOT generally as smart as one who can but certainly not better/worse a person.
    Well, we're talking about equality and the like, I thought it interesting that within a couple of decades, with current birth rates, whites will constitute less than 50% of the general population of the US. No one race will control over 50% of the vote. Thus, the first multiracial democracy in the world, curtesy of the US.

    If you reread my writing on reading you will see I did not judge the nonreader. I simply stated a fact.

    I think of the lead man at the last place I worked, who was solidly functionally illiterate.

    He was VERY good mechanically, quite smart (a lead man who can't read!), a hard worker, and a good man you could count on and trust. We became good friends (even more amazing, considering he was an old-school union type Democrat!). But if you can't read orders and packing lists, or fill out production schedules, there is only so far you can go on tools alone.


    [PETE NOTE: I had to break the post in two]
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  16. #16
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    *"Money is colorblind now. And Powell is Secretary of State."*

    Huh? Money is NOT colorblind but I will admit it is getting better... slowly. BTW, that was forced legislation if I recall my history. Was it right to force it back then knowing the current outcome? Or should the GOV had butted out of their business as well. Some will say that color denial is a function of education. While this might be true in some cases, it's not in all... or even a few. It's just another means that justifies the end.
    I respectfully disagree - money IS colorblind. Power, well, it NEVER will be.

    The Blacks' struggle here goes waaayyy back, before the Revolution, back to the founding of the Colonies. It was punted at the Revolution, at the Constitutional Convention, and many many times right up to the Civil War, for the simple reason that everyone believed it would rip the country apart.

    It did. It is a shame Lincoln died, everyone went back to business as usual, licking wounds, exhausting war, all that, but THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED.

    My point is that slavery, and by extension civil rights for blacks, was and is a special issue, a standout. It needed extreme solutions. No other issue approaches this in importance. It almost destroyed our country.

    Legislate morality, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    *1) Personal freedom. Not some nebulous theory, but the reality of me and other members of my community deciding what is best for ourselves. *

    Not for ourselves, but for ALL in the community. It(by your definition) doesn't sound very personal to me except for those who are in the majority(see Totalitarian) or unless the majority means everybody. Hopefully before you and your other members vote, you will have come to a comprimise that everyone can vote "YES" on.
    What is democracy? A majority equals a totalitarian state? What type of gov't do you suggest?

    People disagree, and desicions need made.

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    *2) Personal responsibility. If some kid grows up to be a thug, it isn't my fault, it's his, perhaps (but not always) his parents, but it comes down to HIS choice, not mine.*

    Personal responsibility... I like that one. Good call!

    *Flip side, if someone does extremely well, they deserve their reward and should be able to do with it as they see fit. I am not entitled to take it by force (gov't action).*

    and yet it is you(figuretively speaking of course ) who are entitled to restrict, by force,(gov't action) what I may potentially view in the privacy of my home? Should they not fall under the same ideology?
    But we DO use gov't force to take income through taxes. What I'm arguing for, what is part of my parties' core beliefs, is to be FAIR about it. We want to encourage the creation of wealth, not discourage it.

    As far as porn goes, well, it's the same as the tax code: "The People" - the legislature -decide (or is supposed to).

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    *"See something you don't like? Well it ain't the gov'ts fault! Want something done, it's a free country (see #1), knock yourself out. Give time and money to those causes you believe in. Don't just sit there and complain that the gov't isn't doing it for you."*

    Oh now Pete, you know that's not true! Come on now, how many times have I seen you complain about those liberal sissy judges that rule from the bench. They are, whether you like it or not, part of the gov't. That's a big part of what the gay marriage thing is about. BEING THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT! That's what all the ballots were about... the conservatives fear of a government takeover of their way of life. Giving time and money... every two weeks brother! And yes I still believe in them!(although they do test my patience from time to time on how they manage it )
    I'm not making the connection - further explanation please? Or aren't I clear?

    BTW, "you" in this instance is plural and not directed at you, personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    I will fore go 3) as I want to address it a little later(if you dont mind )
    Gaaahh! Ack! Phpppt!



    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    *4) Preservation of the Constitution. The most important single item. It is directly responsible for all other items here being possible, including this discussion itself. If it needs to be changed, it should be done through the long, difficult process of amendment, not by judicial fiat, which is against all principles listed here, and is tyranny, disenfranchment in its' final form.*

    Agreed. As long as you don't read to much into it. Alot like the Bible in that aspect, isn't it?
    Absolutlely. If in doubt, we should err on the side of Democracy, the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    *Those who twist the Constitution to meet their own ends will end up getting bitten by that lack of rules when a different group comes to power.*

    Do unto others... big fan of that one!

    *5) What used to be called, "the white mans' burden", is no more. With the end of institutional racism and the rise of multiracial democracy it now has become the civilized mans' burden: To spread personal freedom as much as possible; to show by example the fruits of religious tolerance and freedom of speech; to help were we can.We shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay, but will be a friend of humanity as we can. This is a gov't mission only as it is a mirror of us as citizens: we will give a hand when we can.*

    Killing me softly with his song? It seems anymore since we can't spread capitalism as directly as WE would like(figuratively speaking again) in totalitarian and dictatorship gov'ts, that the answer now is to spread Democracy instead and let the public choose Capitalism. Isn't that a big part of why we are in Iraq?(see GMEI) I find it interesting the plots being instituted by us, in the name of humanity, for our own ends, and against the wish's of those on the receiving end. While what you speak of not slaying dragons sounds noble, it seems like we have a problem with this getting in the way of our interest's.
    It is a shame, but sometimes people have been brainwashed against free trade.

    If we have a legit interest then it's not "looking for dragons". And those folks WANT us there, according to poll after poll.

    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    *"I realise that you were looking for greater specifics. All that I argue for comes from the above, as I see it."*

    And Pete, as usual, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for breaking the ice and answering my question as thoroughly as you did! If you have any additional thoughts, I'll be as civil as I can.

    Congrats on a smooth election!

    The pleasure is all mine. Imagine, not being called a hypocrite, a KKK member, or an intolerant hater!! What do I do?!



    Thanks!

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  17. #17
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    Are you serious? Hate and Intolerance? That's a pretty bold statement and has no basis in fact. I am against gay marriage and I don't hate gay people in any way. I am all for legal agreements but Marriage is between man and women. Libs can't seem to understand the difference and resort to using scare tactics like "Hate" and "Intolerance". Just like San Fran, Houston has a huge gay population and I am friends with many. I can tell you that the majority of them think the whole gay marriage issue is a non issue. I would be willing to bet this is true in most parts of the country. Libs tried to raise it as a scare tactic to get Gay people to vote for them. Seems to have worked well huh?

    " Hate" and "Intolerance"? Please!


    JSE
    JSE,
    Stevie Wonder can see this is about hate. When I got married I was entitled to more than a 1000+ federal benefits. When gay couples want to commit to a partnership, they get none of these benefits. Domestic partnerships allowed from the state level doesn't entitle them to these benefits. Why should my wife and I get them, and not the two commited gay guys next door. They have been together longer than my wife and I(she passed away)
    They are being treated like second class citizen, I cannot see how that is fair. They should be allowed to committed partnerships(it doesn't necessarily have to use the sacred word "marriage") with full state and federal benefits. That is what is called equality.

    There is no scare tactic in reconizing the truth. You just face it. My wife and I got federal benefits when we were married, and the gay couple next door gets nothing. Where is the fairness in that?

    You may be for legal agreements, but not everyone shares your view. The authors of alot of the "marriage is between a man and woman" constitutional amendments do not want gays to get anything for their partnership. No state benefits AND no federal benefits. Some of the go as far as not recognizing these kinds of partnerships at all.

    There are some here in San Francisco who think this gay marriage thing is a bunch of hoey. But there are others who think this is a pretty big deal. There are some straight folks the are rabidly anti gay marriage, and their are others like myself who think its very significant . Each to his own. While I am not a pro gay marriage activist, I am having a hard time understanding why straight couples are so opposed to seeing gay men and women get married. This kind of defensive behavior based around a word is puzzling. There is nothing sacred about it(ask Britney Spears, or the couples that are part of the 50% divorce rate, and cheaters). I can't help but to think that there are religious undertones to all of this, and it violates the seperation between church and state.

    Can you please enlighten me on how a gay couple getting married affects your marriage?
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  18. #18
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    You appear to be educated and leaning a little left, maybe you can enlighten me as to the Dems "Big Picture"? What is their core ideology as you see it. While I do take great pleasure in watching the conflict baloon before my eyes, PLEASE answer my question before it gets lost in the insueing arguement.

    Thanks for being a standup guy!
    Karl, I am more of a moderate than left leaning. I have no clear idea what the demo's big picture is, and neither do they which is part of the problem. As far as I know, its strengthening the middle, and lower class through tax cuts, healthcare for everyone, strong military, balanced budget, more money for education. Those seem to be the themes I have heard for the last couple of elections. Oh, and the get rid of Bush montra, which I don't think is particularly helpful.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  19. #19
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Your last statement sums up the whole problem with liberals today. Seeing as the moderate to conservative people clearly make up the majority(which is growing), one must ask, who is deceiving whom?

    Fact is, we're sick and tired of these back-handed insults. The elections results are a clear indication this group of people are pushing back.

    -Bruce
    (go take your enlightened back-sides and look in the mirror for a change.)
    Bruce, you are wrong man. Moderates make of the majority. Both liberal AND conservatives make up the minority. Both extremes are inherently dangerous to this country. Conservatives are what make up the racial intolerant. Liberals may be TOO intolerant(anything goes)about everything. Condervatives are for the rich whites, Liberals for the poor and minority. Both of these represent a pendilum that has swung to far in either direction.

    I think the real deception is listening to the conservatives talk about more minority inclusion, while they get rid of more and more affirmative action laws. Here in California the preach THEY are the party for minorities while sponsoring Prop 209 and 187. Right!!!!!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  20. #20
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Karl, I am more of a moderate than left leaning.
    I take issue with this.

    If someone's a moderate, that implies middle of the road. If you're middle of the road, why haven't you agreed with the GOP over anything of substance, while fighting for the Libs at every turn?

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  21. #21
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Pete, the funny thing is, I agree with many of your points - or at least the basis of them. I believe that you're a good guy. I'm all for personal freedom, personal responsibility, and the promotion of wealth. You tend to stand for the "good" things on the conservative side... the things worth agreeing with.

    I think personal freedom is extremely important, we need to protect personal liberties fiercely. I think those who are not responsible for their actions should not expect to be bailed out by loop holes. And I think we should reward hard work. But I think there are a few things we overlook as Americans. I find a little irony in how we boast about equality and how everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Our nation was founded on many principles, some of them tightly tied to religion. The gay marriage bans have made me see how religion still excludes certain people from our society, even today. Most of my family is very religious, and I still can't understand how they view other human beings as outcasts because a book tells them they should - especially when the same book tells them to love everyone. If homosexuals are denied certain rights that marriage offers, how can we argue that everyone has the same shot at the same opportunities in our country?

    Humanity is imperfect. Our nation used to enslave people. We used to prevent black people and women from voting. We grew enough to see that was wrong. I'm hoping that sooner or later, we'll see how denying homosexuals various rights that married couples receive is also unjust. I'm not saying the right thing to do is to allow them to get "married". But give them their rights - that's what most of them want (along with not wanting to be verbally assaulted, beaten and killed for being gay). I don't think it's a "hate" thing
    (well mostly) - just more about "exclusion" from society. If you're gonna promote wealth, you have to make sure people aren't being excluded. If you're going to promote religion, you have to promote love and acceptance for ALL.

    And please, let's not have some half-wit start talking about "what's next, letting people marry sheep?" - that's the type of talk that really insults everyones' intelligence, not to mention how bad it makes you look. If you can't see the difference, please move on to a less complicated subject.

    As far as the topic goes:

    I think Republicans are all about standing up for their freedoms and don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do. They stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right. They believe in promoting economic growth and rewarding those who work hard. They also feel that the environment should only be considered as long as it doesn't negatively impact the economy - if there isn't proof, it isn't our doing.

    I think Democrats fight to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed by promoting government intervention. They believe that the poor aren't always necessarily poor because they don't work hard. They believe that those who prosper more from our system should give more back - even though they already do. They feel that the environment should be addressed so that future generations don't have to suffer from our greed.

    Both sides have good intentions, however, they sometimes fail to see how each one of their stances can be a fault. I think Republicans help the rich get richer and I think Democrats put too much effort into trying to save people who don't want to be saved. This country gives everyone freedom - many choose not to be ambitious. Sure some people really do need help, but there needs to be more effort in making a distinction between those people and the lazy people.

    One last note - have any of you heard how Bush might have to raise taxes? This was on the news the day after the election. Figures... at least now I can go tell my friend "I told you so". Not sure how anyone thought it would be possible to make a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. ???

  22. #22
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    I take issue with this.

    If someone's a moderate, that implies middle of the road. If you're middle of the road, why haven't you agreed with the GOP over anything of substance, while fighting for the Libs at every turn?

    Pete
    Perhaps because no GOP issues have been mentioned here that I agree with. And please refrain from calling all democrats libs. We are not all that way, just like not all GOP supporters are not racist haters.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  23. #23
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    And please refrain from calling all democrats libs.
    Aren't they the same thing? My Republican friends seem to think so. Isn't a liberal anyone who doesn't agree with Bush's policies? Oh wait, those are communists and terrorists...

  24. #24
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    My bad T...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Karl, I am more of a moderate than left leaning. I have no clear idea what the demo's big picture is, and neither do they which is part of the problem. As far as I know, its strengthening the middle, and lower class through tax cuts, healthcare for everyone, strong military, balanced budget, more money for education. Those seem to be the themes I have heard for the last couple of elections. Oh, and the get rid of Bush montra, which I don't think is particularly helpful.
    Seeing you write about racism and other "dem supported" issues pertaining to predjustice, you seemed a little left. I, with yourself, am more in the middle than I may seem. I, like yourself(again) speak about equality and the freedom to do as I wish(as long as it's not hurting anyone) pretty passionately. And rightfully so...IMHO. In general, you seem to have the same handle on the left and the right as I and many others. I went to the DNC and RNC websites and did a little reading.(I figured someone would tell me to do so anyway) Not overly enlightening, but did expect more spin than I got.

    Anyway, I wont bore you any longer. I just wanted to thank you for answering my question personally in the context I asked for.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Hey guy's, he's back!

    Sorry man, it seems you don't come by near as often as you should!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    As far as the topic goes:

    I think Republicans are all about standing up for their freedoms and don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do. They stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right. They believe in promoting economic growth and rewarding those who work hard. They also feel that the environment should only be considered as long as it doesn't negatively impact the economy - if there isn't proof, it isn't our doing.

    I think Democrats fight to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed by promoting government intervention. They believe that the poor aren't always necessarily poor because they don't work hard. They believe that those who prosper more from our system should give more back - even though they already do. They feel that the environment should be addressed so that future generations don't have to suffer from our greed.

    Both sides have good intentions, however, they sometimes fail to see how each one of their stances can be a fault. I think Republicans help the rich get richer and I think Democrats put too much effort into trying to save people who don't want to be saved. This country gives everyone freedom - many choose not to be ambitious. Sure some people really do need help, but there needs to be more effort in making a distinction between those people and the lazy people.

    One last note - have any of you heard how Bush might have to raise taxes? This was on the news the day after the election. Figures... at least now I can go tell my friend "I told you so". Not sure how anyone thought it would be possible to make a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. ???
    In general(veeerrry general) I think your assessment is sound. I know it goes much deeper than that but also acknowledge the list could get quite long indeed. I noticed your assessment didn't specify world policy from each partie... that's ok. That could get pretty lengthy as well. Maybe we can discuss next about how these ideals are implimented to satisfy the goals of the different parties and at what potential cost.(if the peace holds up)

    You wrote that the Reps "stand by their religious beliefs and what they feel is morally right" and I was just curious if it is perceived that the Dems don't in either case? At what point(if any) does the stand for religious beliefs and what's morally right interfere with personal or religious freedom of either the majority or minority of a community or the nation as a whole?

    Thanks for chiming in!
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2004 Presidential Election
    By JOEBIALEK in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 11-19-2004, 01:03 PM
  2. It might be election day but it's still a Tuesday
    By Jim Clark in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-02-2004, 09:47 PM
  3. Political Ads?
    By bturk667 in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-11-2004, 04:05 PM
  4. The time has come boys and girls ...
    By woodman in forum Off Topic/Non Audio
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 02-18-2004, 09:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •