[quote=Keeper Of The Light™ (Strazca)]snds: No, it's flawed in it's very nature. The world is not black and white--it's not only many shades of grey but also may different hues of color. the 2-party system muddles everything up. Instead of actually trying to work to solve all of the problems as one candidate best sees fit, it's devolved into which party you're pigeonholed into, how how it's contrasted by the other party.
So, you get some asinine bull@!#$ like:
Repubicans are against abortion, Democrats are the opposite or republicans, therefore Democrats are baby-killers.
Or
Democrats are generally in favor of same-sex unions. Republicans are the opposite of democrats, therefore Republicans are homophobes.
As is the case with many debates, it devolves that quickly. Hence why i say any time i hear someone use the term "liberal" or "conservative" as a contrasting insult, I know i'm talking about someone that should chop their nuts off or remove their ovaries with a melon baller so they don't further contaminate the gene pool.
Anyhow, the problem with that is whatever contrast their is du jure, while everything else seems to walk right by us.
Personally, i think it's a sadder state of affairs in how this shoes the average intelligence of the american Joe and Jane Q Public. We can't think on anything except polar opposites and contrasts. There is no middle ground. Peeople don't vote for the person--they vote for the party.
Very rarely do I strongly agree with you but this is one of those time. Political partys create an unnneeded divide among us. They play politics on issues that should be non partisan. Our elected officials usually vote alongside their party not based on what is right or wrong or with what the people really wanted.
I think this may be the last time I vote for a caqnidate of either party.
Personally, I think George Washington had the best idea...Political parties are dumb--and IMNSHO, as dumb as the people that identify with them.
But hey, that's their choice.
I agree with you strongly which is very rare.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:00 AM
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
There is a site up to submit ideas to rebuild the Republican party -
http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
they dont need to rebuild. they need to just get back to the basics of what the republican party was founded on: free market, small government, and lower taxes. its quite simple, really.
(tabs) wrote:they dont need to rebuild. they need to just get back to the basics of what the republican party was founded on: free market, small government, and lower taxes. its quite simple, really.
Those ideas are there - vote for them.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
Bastardking3000 wrote:(tabs) wrote:they dont need to rebuild. they need to just get back to the basics of what the republican party was founded on: free market, small government, and lower taxes. its quite simple, really.
Those ideas are there - vote for them.
i did. ron paul--a true republican.
YEP.
Just like the person he worked for in the 80's
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
yeah, i can admit that since nixon the republican party has gone off course (although ronald reagan was a good pres).
can you admit the same about your democrats? ever since the 30s and FDR they have become increasingly welfare-laden, wanting more big government and increasingly *gasp* liberal in their views. exponentially more so since ex-hippies started taking seats on the local, state, and national levels.
and youre what.....? the typical clinton nutswinger? are you going to sit there and tell me that johnson was a god send? how about carter? oh yeah, the past 40 years have really shown us some winners from the democrats, havent they?
dont try to use logic or facts on these types. they blissfully ignore them when they dont support the democratic side of things. instead we all need to hail kaiser clinton for the genius he was. nafta, after all, was an absolute stroke of genius.
You know the unemployment rate is only one of many economic indicators - and not even the most important one. For example in a socialist government you might have 100% employment and universally get paid very little for your work. That doesn't exactly make for a strong economy despite what that particular stat may tell you. Shall we say that there is a difference between making $5/hour and making $15/hour - but both jobs would reflect the same on the unemployment rate.
I don't think Reagan was a bad president as a whole. I think he was a smart, capable, and inspirational man(much like a certain nameless president elect(cough)(cough)) with policies that made him popular with some and hated with others. But trickle down economics... not so good. It defies even common sense to think that giving money to those who do not spend the majority of it is better than giving money to those that spend 100%(or close too) of their income. Saving is smart on a personal level, but bad for the economy. Spending is what fuels it - and no person of any political persuasion couldn't argue different.
Other than that - why do people attempt to boil down an entirety of any given presidency to only one of his many policies?! Even worse why is every Democrat president automatically bad if you are a Republican yet good if you are a Democrat, and vice-versa any Republican president is bad if you are a Democrat and yet good if you are a Republican(GWB being kinda an exception because most Republicans don't even try to defend him anymore)? You may say it isn't automatic - that there is a good reason every time - and you probably even believe that load of nonsense.
Its blatantly obvious why and its obvious that most of you guys DO see it that way. Its no coincidence. You know who you are but are more likely thinking that "they"(those who disagree with you) are the ones who are really guilty. Unlike "them," you just "see it as it really is"... /sarcasm Its the same on both sides and its sad.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Let me guess you were one of the fools that bought in his poor acting ability, right? Or do you think it was only him that ended the Cold War? What do I care, I bet you are one of those oblivious nut swingers that think he should be on the $1 bill.
I will tell you one thing, he was the architect of today's Republican.
Three swings, three misses. 
How about the fact that he reduced the unemployment rate by almost 50%, to the lowest it had been in over 10 years? When he left office, it was at 5.3%.
When he took office, it was at 7.6, and the following year at 9.7. Once he began implementing his trickle-down policies, it's obvious they worked. I know that you democrats hate to admit it, but the proof is in the stats: 9.7 to 9.6, to 7.5, to 7.2, to 7.0, to 6.2, to 5.5, and finally to 5.3. A clear, steady decline.
Lay off the Ronald Reagan's penis shaped crack pipe. "Unemployment went down by 50%?" During his tenure Unemployment almost reached 11%, last time it was that bad, it was the "Great Depression." His "trickle down economics" DIDN'T work. We are reliving today a Banking-financial crisis in the same way as 1989, where gov't socialized the rich to send money down. Top heavy is not good for the economy, blame greed for that.
(tabs) wrote:dont try to use logic or facts on these types. they blissfully ignore them when they dont support the democratic side of things. instead we all need to hail kaiser clinton for the genius he was. nafta, after all, was an absolute stroke of genius.
LOL this coming from a guy that doesn't even know what liberal is. I'll give you this though, Clinton's NAFTA done in conjunction with Republican majority was and is a complete disaster. It goes hand in hand with Reagan's tax breaks to build outside of the US.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
20 bucks says under half will care about slick willeys death, then showed up for President Regan's
That should speak volumes to you
LOL at "a typical Clinton nut swinger"
That has SO MANY INNUENDOS......
Like...maybe his dress is stained too!
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
"I did not have sexual relations with Mr. Goodwrench-G.T."
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Lay off the Ronald Reagan's penis shaped crack pipe. "Unemployment went down by 50%?" During his tenure Unemployment almost reached 11%, last time it was that bad, it was the "Great Depression." His "trickle down economics" DIDN'T work. We are reliving today a Banking-financial crisis in the same way as 1989, where gov't socialized the rich to send money down. Top heavy is not good for the economy, blame greed for that.
LMAO. The highest unemployment rate since 1948 has been 9.7, and that was at the beginning of his presidency, before any of his policies were in effect. That was the residual effect from the Carter administration. It never went to almost 11%, as you claim. Just check the USDOL website. It's all there.
But again, you don't want to see facts. As Tabs said, you're a typical Clinton nutswinger, who can't stand the fact that Reagan was a good president who improved the economy greatly over his two terms.
Hey fool, your 9.7% in 1983 is the (average) for a year and not recorded for specific time period. During his tenure his unemployment rate hit as high to a very close to 11%. And that lame Bullsh-it that it was because of Carter is just pathetic, it was well into his time frame and even when Reagan immediately went into office and unveiled his "Program for Economic Recovery" in Feb/1981 where he called for a 30% tax cut over three years and an increase in defense expenditures. Also his (yearly average) unemployment rate was highest ever recorded during tenure in the 1980's, but if you want to shrug it off or downplay his (yearly average) of 9.7% unemployment, to put it in perspective, with all the crap we have going on TODAY we are just ONLY at 4.7%. This BTW is siting your very own USDOL, and I can not find (as I'm at work) the month average where it almost hit 11%.
Not to mention his f- approval rating was a plummets to measly 35% by Jan/1983. Were you one the fools who played devil's advocate and approved?
Quote:
Reagan's approval rating while he served peaked at 73 percent in the spring of 1981, after he was shot and wounded in an assassination attempt, and hit 70 percent in 1986, after he ordered a bombing raid against Libya. It fell to a low of 42 percent in early 1983, following a surge in unemployment and dropped to 44 percent in early 1987, during the Iran-Contra controversy.
http://a.abcnews.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_reagan010806.html
Also are you the one has Alzimers (no pun intended) to seem to forget how lousy he was and approve of the jack ass more now then when he was in power?
Hey if you want to defend his work with his high unemployment rating, mass spending; quadrupling our debt, socializing the unnecessary rich "to trickle down," instigating manufacturing jobs to go elsewhere because there was a push via tax incentives to build outside, then you are just proving that either you don't give a sh-it about this country as you sit in your high horse, or you are just an idiot that will never acknowledge his mistakes just because he had the title... "Republican."
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
I was just re-reading earlier pages in this thread(didn't remember how this got started) and I saw a few people making quotes along these lines -
zero wrote:I believe in smaller government, lower taxes, elimination of entitlement programs, I'm pro-life, pro-second amendment, and I believe that our constitution states that the U.S. has "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion". That's why I vote Republican.
First off - tell me how imposing religiously based laws washes with your belief in small government(which I also mostly believe in)? Small government is one that stays OUT of your personal affairs.
Second - government can't promote - and especially cannot legislate - religious views from one religion without infringing on the religious views of those with other faiths(or those with none). And in many cases, while you may be legislating what you think is a Christian stance - such as abortion - and you will still be infringing on even some Christians(like myself) who do not incorporate such external beliefs into their Christianity. And even for views with some Biblical basis, well there is often alot of room to interpret those versus which could support or oppose that stance depending on how you interpret. Point here is that Government promoting beliefs from some religious people can even infringe upon others of the same religion - let alone other religions.
Take the "definition of marriage" thing - well the moment you wanna define it, you are stomping on someone's religion. I'm not even going into the gay marriage thing at the moment - although I easily could - Christians feel that polygamy is not how God intended marriage, and yet Mormons, Muslims. and probably other religions view polygamy as valid and sanctioned in the eyes of God. Current laws prohibit it and I think those laws are religiously discriminatory/oppressive (although perhaps not as oppressive as being married to even one woman
- I don't understand how people would be crazy enough to be married to multiple wives).
As far as people wanting to say that The Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit imposing one's religion upon others, well it doesn't exactly support it either. No where in The Constitution is it mentioned or established that we are a "Christian Nation." I think Ron Paul Republicans should(but may not all) back me up on this one.
And if that not establishing a national religion thing(which is in the Constitution) was simply a counter measure to the Church of England - then by taking todays thinking - We wouldn't officially recognize the Church of England but would instead legislate its doctrines into our law. [sarcasm]Because that surely would have made us independent of them [/sarcasm]. Luckily our forefathers did NOT think like people do today. Taking that into account - by current line of thinking - that part of The Constitution has absolutely zero real world implications.
Also, if you have no issue with legislating your religious beliefs on others - well time to put yourself in someone else's shoes. You have no issue legislating Christian doctrines, then surely you have no objection to legislating Muslim Sharia law?! Suppose that Muslims where the majority or assume they may become so in the future(wouldn't be that surprised if your grandkids have to face this), does that give them the right to oppress your Christianity? Keep in mind this really does happen in some nations and of course Christian leaders rightly denounce it - but the irony is biting...
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
And note, he did not affirm nor deny that statement, about his sexual relations with slick
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
