Help me understand Republicans...

[oberlee]

Obviously, I'm not republican. I'm technically independent because...well, I don't like being confined to a box. I also don't like confining others to boxes, but the more and more I look, the republican outlook and agenda just seems...so horribly wrong. I want, however, to understand more of the benefits of the party, even if I don't agree with them.

So much of republicanism--and conservatism especially--is fear-based. It's about keeping things the way they are, keeping values the same (hence no gay marriage/union), and that stems from, in my opinion, a very unenlightened stance. And I understand that the concept of being a republican is technically financial and not social, but at this point, it's all lumped together.

I try watching Fox news to understand, and I just can't. I can't take the station seriously, or most of the people. The conservatives are trying to spin things as much as possible and the "liberals" are just a bunch of...wusses.

Please understand--I'm not out here trying to bag on republicans; I apologize if it seems that way. I'm just saying, my view of it must be skewed, that is, the republican regime is not evil, it's just...different. Right? And I know lots of good, nice, fun people who are republicans and this party must make sense to them like the democratic party (or other) does to me. My parents are republicans, as a matter of fact (all 4 kids are not).

And even if I were financially conservative, I just couldn't vote for someone who has the stances on topics that most republicans do--gay marriage=bad, abortion=going to the devil. Also, I live in the Bay Area and work in the arts, so my whole environment is very anti-republican.

Anyone out there who's intelligent and open-minded and can shed some positive light on the republican party?

[coollikeme]

Republicans want as little form of government as possible. No taxes and no social programs. It's about personal responsibility, that is not to say we won't help anyone in need. We just don't want the government to control it, they can't be trusted.

Stem cell research is OK if done with money from private donations, not by being forced on you by the government. Fox has point and counter point, CNN and MSNBC have an agenda that leans to the left. Awful stations!!!!

I have one major problem with Democrats. They claim they don't want the death penalty, yet they will kill a baby in the form of abortion. Am I missing something here? Some one needs to explain this to me. A killer can take the life of an innocent person of any age or gender, brutally, and have their life spared. Yet, when it comes to a baby, they have no problems taking the life of an innocent child. I have much more to say, but at another time.

[krackato]

There is the difference in economic philosophies, but also cultural philosophies.

Please note, that Democrats vs. Republicans is hardly the entire spectrum.

But basically, you have these two choices. Democrats or Republicans.

A few factors early on will make you identify with one of the other. Maybe your parents are democrats. Maybe you're good at football and most of the team is republican. Maybe you're big on pro-choice. Maybe you're big on pro-life. Maybe you just hate taxes. Women's issues.

One or two or perhaps three core issues are going to be the influcencing factor on which of the two options you sub-consciously choose.

And from there, you will very likely buy into all the other issues on the agenda.

So if you're making $26k a year, and basically on the poverty line, but you're a "country boy" or whatever, but you love Jesus (to stereotype), you attach the label of "Republican" because that's the party most associated with Christianity, faith, the country, etc. So you'll vote Republican EVEN THOUGH it doesn't make sense for you financially. A person making $26k a year would benefit from social services, a tiered taxation system, universal healthcare, etc. But you VIBE with the right. Vibe is very important and is a better explanation for these things than you'd think.

What I'm trying to say is that a person can call themselves Republican or Democrat and then someone says, "well, explain to me how you believe A-Z" and the other person will say, "well, I believe A because of this and Z because of that" and they won't have realized that they bought into a few ideas, and through an almost cascade effect, bought into an entire agenda.

[Brutha]

First, I am myself in the left political spectrum.

In general you shouldn't watch TV if you really want to understand a political position.
Conservative News, Views & Books - HUMAN EVENTS would be a website that I would recommand to get the republican view point on some things.

In general a lot of repulicans have certain values that they want to defend. The way to do that is for republicans to forbid indivudals from things like gay marriage that conflict with their values.
The desire to control the enviroment is also seen in the areas like safety. The state shall have the ability to spy on citizens to exert control and individuals shall have the right to carry guns to control the safety of their home.
Another goal is to have international control by having military bases all over the globe which allow America to prevent bad things that happen in the world.

Then there is the conflict between realitivsm and absolutism (neither Republicans nor Democrats are at one extreme but in general Democrats are more relativistic than Republicans) and a Republican can therefore take the stance that something is either 100% a human being or it isn't a human being, where democrate has categories between those extremes for cases like abortion.

For one relativism conflicts with christanity where things are either right or wrong. Relativism has also other problems that make it in it's purest form unpopular.

[Amadeus]

In my personal opinion there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to legislation. You can't tell me that Republican politicans are for smaller government, because Bush has doubled the size of government in 8 years. Now the ideology of a lot of Republican citizans is to have small government, pro life, anti gay marriage, blah, blah, blah.

However, you can't tell me that the Republican party is fear based and the Democrat party is not. The Democratic politicans do a good job putting fear in minorities in this country telling them that Republicans will take away their civil rights and telling women that they'll take away their abortion rights. They'll tell people that Republicans will take away their social securty when the only thing they want to do is put a small percentage of their s.s. into the stock market to get more of a return.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by coollikeme

I have one major problem with Democrats. They claim they don't want the death penalty, yet they will kill a baby in the form of abortion. Am I missing something here? Some one needs to explain this to me. A killer can take the life of an innocent person of any age or gender, brutally, and have their life spared. Yet, when it comes to a baby, they have no problems taking the life of an innocent child.

You know if you reverse that the Republicans cry foul at abortion as being murder, but the death penalty is justified.

Both parties and all people have conflicting beliefs and hypocricy. It's not just on one side.

[oberlee]

Thanks, all.

With the current election, I've been much more interested in politics than ever before. And I love where I live, and I love what fervor it's brought to my interests politically.

However, it's scary to see my opinions get so fervent, because then I also see myself more close-minded. And the way to any progress is not to denounce those of opposing views, but to understand them.

Anyway, I knew that I would find intelligent, open-minded people here on this forum.

Bush has REALLY made republicans look bad, unfortunately...IMO.

coollikeme wrote, "I have one major problem with Democrats. They claim they don't want the death penalty, yet they will kill a baby in the form of abortion. Am I missing something here? Some one needs to explain this to me. A killer can take the life of an innocent person of any age or gender, brutally, and have their life spared. Yet, when it comes to a baby, they have no problems taking the life of an innocent child."

This argument is so laden with different viewpoints, arguments, etc. Both sides are legit; for me, though, I am more concerned with those of us who have been born, and are living now. It's not that I pit one against the other--it's not so simple. I think ultimately that banning abortion would be sexist and do little more than contributing to to unhappiness and despair. It doesn't let people take control of their lives. And I'm sorry, but so many men would bail and leave some poor teenage girls to do this on her own. Not ideal, but realistic.

But I digress...

Brutha, I agree... esp about relativism and absolutism... that defines a lot of issues dividing the two.

And amadeus, you're right about democrats being fear-based too, but that's only in their tactics against an opponent, from the way I see it. It seems to me the whole ideology of republicans is fear-based, from their perspective. Sure, they use fear as a tactic on the people, but it just seems republicans are so afraid of change, especially socially, with things that have nothing to do with them. I'm sorry--it doesn't affect your reality if Joe and Bill down the street are lovers. It doesn't! It's not YOU. Democrats seem to have progress goading them, and republicans have fear. Otherwise, why be so afraid to change?

[Pegasus]

One of the biggest mistakes the Republican Party has ever made is aligning itself with the Christian Right. This religious constituency has a strong voice (and pocketbook) but does not represent most of America.

Most citizens don't necessarily fit into our current two-party framework. There are a lot of libertarians and populists out there.

[Amadeus]

90 percent of Americans call themselves Christians whether they practice it or not. So it was the smartest things the Republicans have done was to align itself with the Christian right.

[Pegasus]

It depends on what you consider a Christian. Most here (excluding the South) do not practice the fundamentalist or evangelistic brand of Christianity.

[Doku]

My take on Republicans vs. Democrats basically echos the comments of coollikeme with a twist.

The Republican party is generally for smaller government. The reason that Bush grew it as large as he has is because of his war. Frankly, I think that Baby Bush is the worst president in my lifetime. He's also the worst thing to happen to the Republican party. He took the biggest budget surplus in American history, and turned it into the largest debt in our history.

The thing that the Republican party really seems to fail to realize is that we do have a national debt, and while they may not like taxes, and want to lower them, you can not borrow money to pay debt. It just does not work.

I firmly believe that the best candidate never stood a chance because the media outlets did not like him, and therefore never gave him any air time, etc. The person that I really thing represents the republican party views is Ron Paul.

So, at their core, the Republican party is for getting the government out of people's faces, and holding people accountable for their actions. The Democratic party is for using the government's power to force equality, and hold all of society responsible for a single person's actions. I mean, if "the man" would give a job to the street punk who can't seem to find a pair of pants that fit, can't speak clear English, can't stand up straight, etc. then he would not have resorted to selling drugs, right? So the fact that Johnny "Ski-dog" Jones shot up the liqueur store is society's fault, right? Not Ski-dog's.

So, here's my analysis of the three candidates:
Hillary - She scares the krap out of me. Read Marc Tucker's "Dear Hillary" letter about education to see what I mean. Here's a quote from it: "a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone" And then take a look at Hillary's current stance on education, and see for yourself if she agrees with Tucker or not: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: Education

Obama - Scares the krap out of me. Yes, I agree that experience is not everything, but I am not about to be a brain surgeon's first patient.

McCain - Scares the krap out of me. Career military man in power during time of war? Might sound good, but realize that the biggest problem facing this nation today is not some muslim extremists... it's the national debt. How good is a career military man at managing finances?

In the end, I don't know what I am going to do... Likely move to another country, and get off the sinking ship.

[oberlee]

Doku, I think your explanation makes a lot of sense,and I agree with most of it. Thank you--that's what I was looking for. I'm sorry you don't feel confident about the candidates--I, on the other hand, feel extremely confident, but maybe it's just because we've had Bush in office for so long, that the concept of having a president who can speak English correctly and also have a heart is strange and compelling. I'm glad you think he's the worst ever. I still can't forgive my parents for voting for him.

I hear the smaller government and that viewpoint makes sense. Again, I don't always necessarily agree, but it's also not in my best interests to agree.

I do have to disagree with coollikeme's statement about news stations. How on earth can FoxNews be touted as "fair?" Everything I've seen just completely spins things out of control--especially O'Reilly and those jokers on Hannity and Colmes... they purposefully pick topics and guests that represent an extreme viewpoint (whites are responsible for the blacks' situation) and then beat them down. And Ann Coulter, I'm sorry, is the devil.

BUT as far as regular news, it has a different focus--like it followed Nathalie HOlloway 24/7 while CNN followed the war in Iraq. I suppose the news is never non-biased; it's completely impossible, IMO. I like that Fox tries to get people from the opposing side, but they always seem to be total goobers. That guy on Hannity & Colmes...I don't know which one--what a wallflower. I just get so ANGRY when I watch Fox, but then again, you probably feel the same way about the others.

So, let's say this is fact--CNN, MSNBC, and all the others swing to the left. Fox swings to the right. Why would all the news stations but one be left-minded? There are a number of ways to answer this, and I'm not saying it's true, but if it were, why would people who tend towards journalism and media be of that mind? Is it because they're strugging writers? Because they observe so much of life, from the lowest to the highest? What about the executives in a news organization? Why would such a thing occur, do you think?

And why are comedy news shows left-minded? Are republicans not funny? I personally think the democratic party is less insecure, and allows for comedy and fun a little bit more. I mean, come on, is there an equivalent of THE DAILY SHOW on Fox? Why not? It would be great.

Okay, I'm at work and totally bored. Sorry for the long rant!

[Josephus Magnus]

I think republicans want smaller, less intrusive government, and lower taxes. A country never taxed itself to prosperity.

There has been a multi-tiered tax system in place for a very long time. It's not a democrat or republican thing.

The federal government was not meant to take care of every individuals every need.

My big concern is health care. It's become too expensive. Too many people are left out. Insurers are not providing adequate care. Before the housing bubble, the number one cause of foreclosures in this country was due to people becoming ill or getting hurt and unable to work. First you're savings runs out. Then your retirement money is depleted. Then your out on the street. Health care shouldn't be based on employment status.

[Amadeus]

Josephus, nothing is for free. Who is supposed to pay for other's health care? Me? Why me? That is what you are proposing. You want the government to reach in my pocket and take my money to pay for someone's else’s healthcare. I've taken care of myself, why should I pay for someone else’s choices by overeating or smoking? Tax the big corporation's more? So tax them more so they have less money to hire me and my family to work? That is not fair. Tax the rich more? They already pay their fair share and why would you tax (punish) someone that is being productive and contributing more to society.
The 40 million people they are telling you who are uninsured in this country is mostly by choice. The biggest percentage of these people are in their 20s and 30s who want to take the risk of not having health insurance because they are still young and healthy. They'd prefer to buy the latest clothing or CD. Another huge chunk of that percentage of people are illegal aliens. Yes, they are people, but again don't ask me to pay for their healthcare when it is Mexico's responsibility, and ultimately the individual's responsibility. So honestly we are really only talking about 9 million people who really need insurance and can't get it. So we are just letting them die on the side of the road as a nation? Hell no! There is Medicaid and Medicare for these people. There is no one in this country that is dying of cancer and who are not getting treated with the medicine they need. Yes, they would have to sell their 300,000 dollar home before they would be eligible, but there are more important things than living in a house that is too big for you in the first place. So their children want get as big of an inheritance, it doesn't mean I have to deprive my children of an inheritance because they don't have insurance.

[Josephus Magnus]

Amadeus, I don't think anyone in this country is paying for their own health care. If your retired, the government picks up the tab. If your in the military the government pays. If you work, your employer subsides your health care costs.

I am not saying I'm for Hillary care, I'm just saying when a commodity becomes so expensive the only way one can afford it is through a subsided health insurance program, geared toward investors profits rather than the welfare of people, we wind up getting short changed or paying way to much for it.

[Amadeus]

Heathcare is part of the person's pay whether they work for the government or for a company. The money doesn't come from thin air. It is expected that the employee will ultimatly pay for it based on labor (or what they give). Again, nothing is for free.

[Barcs]

I think republicans want smaller, less intrusive government, and lower taxes.

When was the last time a republican president actually made the goverment smaller? Definitely not either of the Bushes and I highly doubt that Regan did either with the whole cold war going on. Yeah they can talk a mean game, but when it comes to practice I just don't see that happening. Smaller governments are a thing of the past.

Josephus, nothing is for free. Who is supposed to pay for other's health care? Me? Why me? That is what you are proposing. You want the government to reach in my pocket and take my money to pay for someone's else’s healthcare. I've taken care of myself, why should I pay for someone else’s choices by overeating or smoking? Tax the big corporation's more? So tax them more so they have less money to hire me and my family to work? That is not fair. Tax the rich more? They already pay their fair share and why would you tax (punish) someone that is being productive and contributing more to society.

I think it would be worth paying a little more if I didn't have to pay so much for a dental visit. I'm not sure if the whole proposed medical plan includes this though. The rich should be taxed more, because they do not need that money as much as poor and middle class. It makes sense, especially since most rich people live in uneccesarily huge houses and have massive car collections and whatnot. The upper echelon could lose half of everything they own and still have more than plenty to support them for life (and probably their kids too). I don't consider them paying more money towards taxes, contributing to society more than a middle class person that does volunteer work. Percentage wise they contribute the same exact amount as anyone else, and they don't even need that money. Someone barely getting by paying bills does need it.

[Amadeus]

Rich people contribute a hell of a lot more than the middle class person. Where did they get the money in the first place? Obviously they did something for the public through goods or services to warrant them having more money. Less than 5% of wealth is inherited in this country.
You're telling us that rich people don't need to live in bigger houses. Says you. It is not your place or the government's place to tell a person how big of a house they can have and to punish them for being wealthy. The government doesn't suppose to get in the way like this and distribute wealth. They should collect money from us for national defence, interstate highways, and national disasters........and that is it. Why would you want to give the government anymore of your money to delegate towards healthcare when they spent every dime of our social security money towards everything but social security. Now we are being told that we may not get ours. Hell I could have blown my own money if I wanted to do that.

Again, nothing is for free. You wouldn't be paying less for dental care by paying more taxes. It all equals out. You want to punish companies and the wealthy by taxing them more, for what? They'll just move to another country where they are not taxed as much. Oh wait, that is happening now! Honestly Barcs, people like you scare me. This story has already been played out. They governed this way in Russia, old Soviet Union, for years and look where it got them. How is it working in Cuba right now?

[Barcs]

Rich people contribute a hell of a lot more than the middle class person. Where did they get the money in the first place? Obviously they did something for the public through goods or services to warrant them having more money. Less than 5% of wealth is inherited in this country.

They contribute more in monetary value and that's it. Percentage wise it is not much different, as I said above. Just because they make more money does not mean they are contributing positively to society. Otherwise you could lump oil ceos and others in that category, when they are really contributing to our self destruction, IMO.

You're telling us that rich people don't need to live in bigger houses. Says you. It is not your place or the government's place to tell a person how big of a house they can have and to punish them for being wealthy.

Yes. I'm saying that they don't NEED to. As in, they will SURVIVE without it. I'll even take it one step further and say they will still live excessively comfortably even with the extra tax, and it WILL make a difference. For a poor person they'd have to sacrifice something they need and still couldn't pay nearly as much in taxes as the wealthy. I'm not saying the wealthy can't spend the money that they've earned and enjoy their lives, but there comes a point when you over indulge and forget that you are not the only person in the world. I'm just saying that if a higher percentage of taxes are taken from them, they will miss it a hell of a lot less than a poor/middle class person would. I don't think you can deny that. I don't see that as a punishment, since it's not going to affect them much at all. If anything it combats greed, which is one of the biggest problems in the world today and ultimately is what starts wars.

Everybody's different. I had an unfortunate accident when I was a kid where I was struck in the mouth with a golf club and constantly have to have maintenance on my teeth and have crowns re-done. Dental insurance is horrible right now and I have one of the better ones. It doesn't cover any kind of implant and only covers 50% of other expenses, which are a rip off to begin with. That is how people become wealthy. By overcharging you for services that you NEED (well at least to eat solid food). Both doctors and dentists are involved with scams like this and have their buddies to refer you to, whether you actually need it or not. Is that positively contributing to society? So yes, it would be better for me to have a flat rate and have everything covered, than to spend thousands of dollars on my teeth each year. But again, it depends on how much we will have to pay. I highly doubt it will cost me thousands each year with a flat rate. How do I scare you? All I am is one man with an opinion that will probably never be heard by anyone that matters to change things... and my opinions aren't that drastic, just less mainstream.

[Subscreet]

OP, make sure you don't confuse the Republican party with neo-conservatism.

Originally Posted by Barcs

They contribute more in monetary value and that's it. Percentage wise it is not much different, as I said above. Just because they make more money does not mean they are contributing positively to society. Otherwise you could lump oil ceos and others in that category, when they are really contributing to our self destruction, IMO.

You mean by allowing millions of people to get where they want to be in an efficient manner and allowing thousands of machines to run?

Originally Posted by Barcs

Yes. I'm saying that they don't NEED to. As in, they will SURVIVE without it. I'll even take it one step further and say they will still live excessively comfortably even with the extra tax, and it WILL make a difference. For a poor person they'd have to sacrifice something they need and still couldn't pay nearly as much in taxes as the wealthy. I'm not saying the wealthy can't spend the money that they've earned and enjoy their lives, but there comes a point when you over indulge and forget that you are not the only person in the world. I'm just saying that if a higher percentage of taxes are taken from them, they will miss it a hell of a lot less than a poor/middle class person would. I don't think you can deny that. I don't see that as a punishment, since it's not going to affect them much at all. If anything it combats greed, which is one of the biggest problems in the world today and ultimately is what starts wars.

Who's to say where the line is drawn? What if some people decided you were living too extravagantly?

Originally Posted by Barcs

That is how people become wealthy. By overcharging you for services that you NEED (well at least to eat solid food). Both doctors and dentists are involved with scams like this and have their buddies to refer you to, whether you actually need it or not. Is that positively contributing to society? So yes, it would be better for me to have a flat rate and have everything covered, than to spend thousands of dollars on my teeth each year. But again, it depends on how much we will have to pay. I highly doubt it will cost me thousands each year with a flat rate. How do I scare you? All I am is one man with an opinion that will probably never be heard by anyone that matters to change things... and my opinions aren't that drastic, just less mainstream.

That's ridiculous. Of course they're contributing positively. How much is too much to be able to eat solid food? You're taking for granted the fact that there are people even available to you that provide such a service. Why aren't you grateful for it? Just think of all the resources that they used to heal you, plus all of the specialized training they required. Even with universal health care the money has to come from somewhere, just less of it is out of your own pocket.

[oberlee]

Hmmm...well, I don't think there's anything wrong with being wealthy--at all. A lot of things couldn't happen without wealthy people, and furthermore, being successful and affluent is not a bad thing. I'm in the arts, and trust me--without their contribution, I would be out of work.

Strangely, the Catholic Church named "being obscenely rich" one of the *NEW* Mortal Sins...lol...

I know the republican ideals are different than conservative ideals...in theory. I understand that from the perspective of having money, government programs might be less of a need because that sort of thing might not be in your immediate environment. What I DON'T understand is what seems to me the desperate need to stop things from changing. Sigh...I'm not being clear. OK, if I WERE wealthy, and decided I thought a republican government would be more suitable for me and the nation, regardless of social issues, I STILL could never stand behind these guys. I could never stand behind someone who wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade, who was against same-sex unions, and had such complete disregard for humanity as to DEFY THE GENEVA CONVENTION and invade a country.

I know many of these things are Bush, and not republicans, and many republicans HATE Bush, but republicans also have stood behind him.

[Amadeus]

Barcs, you and averyone else are not paying too much for dental work. Why? You are using their services and so are millions of other people. If it were too expensive, they would go out of business, but they are not. That is how capitalism works. Subscreet is right. Where do you draw the line? Maybe you are living in too big of a home. Maybe the people who are living in mansions should be living in a mansion double the size. Doctors from all over the world are coming here to practice because they can open up their own business and make the money they deserve. If the government was runned the way you wanted it, they would move out of the country to find a place where they can make the money they deserve.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Subscreet

You mean by allowing millions of people to get where they want to be in an efficient manner and allowing thousands of machines to run?

No. By supressing technology that could save our planet and drastically reduce pollution. That's a whole different topic however.

Who's to say where the line is drawn? What if some people decided you were living too extravagantly?

I would wonder how extravagantly they are living. I'm sure most people would agree that having 5 houses, 10 automobiles, and 2 yachts is just a bit over the edge and uneccesary. I make just enough money to pay the bills with a tiny bit of spending money. There's a HUGE difference. Would the person with the 10 cars really be hurt if they had to take one away? No, they wouldn't. That's my point. To take away my ONE car, I'd be completely out of a job and would lose everything. THAT's where you draw the line, and simple logic will tell you that.

That's ridiculous. Of course they're contributing positively. How much is too much to be able to eat solid food? You're taking for granted the fact that there are people even available to you that provide such a service. Why aren't you grateful for it? Just think of all the resources that they used to heal you, plus all of the specialized training they required. Even with universal health care the money has to come from somewhere, just less of it is out of your own pocket.

I've been the victim of a scam where a dentist purposely messed up a cavity filling JUST so he could do a root canal on a tooth that never had a problem in the first place until after the procedure. Basically more money for him. Also, I wasn't the only victim of this dentist, he did the same to my mom, and probably tons of others. I know they're all not bad, but the way the system is set up right now opens the door for these type of scandles, and the customer (me) can do absolutely NOTHING about it. This is why the system needs an overhaul. So yes, I stand by my original statement that that guy is not contributing positively to society, yet is rich. Too many people earn their wealth through dishonest means.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Barcs, you and averyone else are not paying too much for dental work. Why? You are using their services and so are millions of other people. If it were too expensive, they would go out of business, but they are not. That is how capitalism works. Subscreet is right. Where do you draw the line? Maybe you are living in too big of a home. Maybe the people who are living in mansions should be living in a mansion double the size. Doctors from all over the world are coming here to practice because they can open up their own business and make the money they deserve. If the government was runned the way you wanted it, they would move out of the country to find a place where they can make the money they deserve.

Well, if it fixes the current problems and scams with doctors and dentists, then it's fine by me if they move out of here. Enough will stay and will make more money, that will be MUCH MORE deserved. I disagree that we are not paying too much. Sure, the rich people afford it no problem, but I have a single procedure that I need done in a few months that's going to cost me $1500, and insurance doesn't cover any of that. How am I supposed to afford that? It's either I do that or just hang out with a half tooth missing, which will probably cause further damage. It's a big rip off, and that's exactly why the system is biased toward rich people. The gap between rich and poor is bigger than it's ever been, mainly due to republican policies, IMO.-

[Amadeus]

You know I keep hearing how bad Republican policies are, but how great are Democrat policies? Where you even alive during the Carter administration? That was an economic disaster. We know Clinton had a budgitary surplus during the later years of his administration, before we were attacked on 9/11, but where did that extra money go? He didn't pay down the deficit at all with that money. It doesn't how much money you make if you can't keep any of it and pay down your debt. Last time I checked the history books Lyndon Johnson started the Vietnam War.

[Barcs]

I'm not exactly pro democrat either. I don't really like either party to be honest. I just find dems to be the lesser of the 2 evils. In basic terms the republican political philosophy seems to be Money > human life, and many republican supporters feel the same way. As long as they get tax cuts, it doesn't matter how many innocent people are getting slaughtered over seas. I thought Kennedy "started" Vietnam, but Johnson escalated it after he got into power.

[Amadeus]

lol
For the Democrats it is YOUR money>them getting elected

[Barcs]

Exactly why they are the lesser of the 2 evils. I'd much rather pay a little more in taxes than know that my money is helping to fund an illegal slaughter overseas. That makes my stomach turn, and I don't even get a say in the matter.

[Amadeus]

Exactly why they are the lesser of the 2 evils. I'd much rather pay a little more in taxes than know that my money is helping to fund an illegal slaughter overseas. That makes my stomach turn, and I don't even get a say in the matter.

Barcs

No, it's the same. Democrats, just like Republicans, will take lobbying money from these big corporations to do whatever they want to do overseas as long as it helps them get votes.

[Barcs]

I agree completely. I really hope that they overhaul our bs 2 party election system.