Rep vs. Dem Differences

In article , "Ash Wyllie"
writes:

James Robinson opined

Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of
history.

Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.

Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
authoritarian political order.

Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
greater freedom and well being of the common man.


Uh, No. Left and right and liberal and conservative have become distorted from
their dictionary meanings.

I can make it simpler. Look at the party NAMES.

Do you want to live in a Republic, with unalienable rights not even the power
of government is permitted to violate, or do you want to live in a Democracy,
where there is no right of yours that is not subject to transgression if 51% of
the populace lusts for what right protects?

That is what the political spectrum is all about, the degree to wich the
individual is soveriegn compared to the degree to which the collective is
soveriegn.

The order is, strarting with maximum individual rights

Libertarian Republican Democrat Nazi Socialist Ants

If you own yourself, and are willing to be responsible for yourself, you are a
Libertarian. If you are owned by the collective, and expect to be guided and
protected from your own failures by that collective, you are an ant.

Pick the degree to which you are your own person or to which you are willing to
trade away your liberty for economic security, and find your place on the
spectrum.

The only wild cards are the theocrats, who are collectivists who submit to
their invisible friend instead of the majority. They are currently allied with
the Republicans, but for 100 years before SCOTUS ****ed them off were allied
with the Democrats.

Note that theocrats are less dangerous when allied with the GOP, where they
have succeeded in passing almost nothing, than they were when they were allied
with the statist Democrats, and passed the Sodommy laws, Prostitution laws,
Drug laws and Prohibition. An alliance between Theocrats and Collectivists
gives you the Taliban, an alliance between theocrats and individualists gives
you some hurtful rhetoric but nothing more.

So, forget the spin and demagoguery, and decide where you are on the political
spectrum based on the single matter of personal freedom vs submission to the
collective and you will not go wrong.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote in
:

In article , "Ash Wyllie"
writes:

snip

I can make it simpler. Look at the party NAMES.

Do you want to live in a Republic, with unalienable rights not even the
power of government is permitted to violate, or do you want to live in
a Democracy, where there is no right of yours that is not subject to
transgression if 51% of the populace lusts for what right protects?

That is what the political spectrum is all about, the degree to wich
the individual is soveriegn compared to the degree to which the
collective is soveriegn.

The order is, strarting with maximum individual rights

Libertarian Republican Democrat Nazi Socialist Ants

If you own yourself, and are willing to be responsible for yourself,
you are a Libertarian. If you are owned by the collective, and expect
to be guided and protected from your own failures by that collective,
you are an ant.


snip

Interesting, then, that our Republican government enacted the Patriot Act
that basically allows government to violate just about every basic right of
the individual without any checks and balances whatsoever...

In article , Judah
writes:


Interesting, then, that our Republican government enacted the Patriot Act
that basically allows government to violate just about every basic right of
the individual without any checks and balances whatsoever...


At least they put a sunset provision in it.

Look, we're at war. Things are different in wartime, even the Constitution
acknowledges that.

In WW2 we interned people based on race and took the propellors off private
aircraft for the duration.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
The only wild cards are the theocrats, who are collectivists who submit to
their invisible friend instead of the majority. They are currently allied
with
the Republicans, but for 100 years before SCOTUS ****ed them off were
allied
with the Democrats.

This is something about US life and US politics which confuses me.
Christians. From reading the bible, Christian values should be for equality
and for sharing, and that the accumulation of wealth is wrong. These are the
moral values which relate to money. There are also the moral values which
relate to, in a word, sex.

The US parties have, from what I understand from the arguments on here
and what I see in the media, polarised into two camps, Republicans and
Democrats. Maybe some of the ideas here are from their opponents, but
I see:

Republicans - conservative. Economics - want the creation of wealth among
a small number of people and hope that will make the whole country wealthy.
Morality - High moral values in terms of family, anti-this and that.

Democrats - less conservative. Economics - feel that wealth should be more
evenly distributed by making laws or by taxation.
Morality - More of a live and let live idea and allow such acts as sex
before
marriage, homosexuality and so on.

So. How have these moral codes become to be associated with these
parties and why do more Christians, or so called Christians support the
former? For them, it seems the moral code overrides the economic
issues? As mentioned in another post, should there be another two
parties which have the opposite economic and moral combinations?

Paul

In article , "Paul
Sengupta" wrote:

Republicans - conservative. Economics - want the creation of wealth among
a small number of people and hope that will make the whole country
wealthy.
Morality - High moral values in terms of family, anti-this and that.

wow! you don't understand Republicans.


Democrats - less conservative. Economics - feel that wealth should be
more
evenly distributed by making laws or by taxation.
Morality - More of a live and let live idea and allow such acts as sex
before
marriage, homosexuality and so on.

and you don't understand Democrats either.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Ok, let me give it a try:

Republicans -
Social - Conservative rhetoric, hypocritical execution. No limits
to gov't control.
Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.
Morality - Big talk, too close to Church (monoculture), poor
performance.
Personal Responsibility - Via criminal regulations and laws (tends
to Police State).
Aviation - Restrict until only for the ultrawealthy and congress.
Terrorism - Crapshoot, poor record.
Unity - Very divisive, extremism driven policies, poor to mixed
record.
Honesty - Great rhetoric, poor performance.

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.
Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.
Morality - Big talk, usually arms-length from Church, poor
performance.
Personal Responsibility - Via civil regulations and laws (tends to
over-regulation).
Aviation - Regulate until only for the ultrawealthy and congress.
Terrorism - Crapshoot, poor record.
Unity - Better rhetoric, mixed record.
Honesty - Great rhetoric, poor performance.

Both -
Subject to change over time, even reverse roles.


(Honest) modifications/additions welcome. Flames to /dev/null/.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:



Both -
Subject to change over time,

Yes, quite obviously. If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
see why they had the House for 40 years. He made the democrats look
like the morons they have become over the last 20 or so years. One of
the best speeches I have seen in a long time. And what he did to Chris
Matthews last night was priceless.

"Newps" wrote
And what he did to Chris Matthews last night was priceless.

I watched most if not all of each of the conventions, flipping back
and forth between PBS, MSNBC, FOX, and CNN. I watched
MSNBC and PBS the most as it didnt seem as slanted as the
other two. But I've lost a lot of respect for Matthews for the
above and other stunts he's pulled compared to his Dem
convention coverage. At least with Hannity/Colmes or O'Reilly,
you know where they're coming from (left/right), they dont deny
it, and you get pretty much what you would expect from them.
The idea of his supposed "hardball" type of interviewing would
be great if it wasn't slanted. He was defending his style on
Bill Maher's show, but along with his hinting that anyone who
would vote for Bush must be uneducated and misinformed, failed
to mention how he goes quite "softball" on certain types of
interviewees.
The other thing I havent appreciated is his, IMO, total lack of
respect for those of opposing views in his interviews right
next to a heavily slanted crowd. Whether it be celebrities
or congressmen, he knowingly puts them in front of an
obviously hostile crowd who call them all kinds of names,
and Matthews adds fuel to their fire with his pointed questions,
followed up by interrupting their answers, and a roaring crowd.
Maybe it's just me, but if I was in that crowd and my worst
idea of a politician was 10 feet in front of me trying to give
an interview, I'd have the respect to let the guy answer a
question and not call him a "murderer" or taunt him. Off hand
I can think of Bo Derek, Zell Miller (via monitor), Larry
Gatlin (?, not into country), Alan Simpson (Sen-WY) and
I'm sure others as I don't watch every minute.

Then again, like I said, maybe it's just me.
Chris

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Yes, quite obviously. If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
see why they had the House for 40 years. He made the democrats look like
the morons they have become over the last 20 or so years. One of the best
speeches I have seen in a long time. And what he did to Chris Matthews
last night was priceless.


What did he do?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

What did he do?

I didn't see the entire interview, just the part where Zell got really
****ed. From what I can gather, Matthews asked Miller about his "spitball"
comment, asking him did he really believe that Kerry would arm the military
with spitballs. Miller responded that it was a metaphor and that had he ever
heard of a metaphor. Then Matthews kept interrupting Miller repeatedly
trying to make him answer that question, as dumb as it was.

Miller told Matthews that he wished he was in the studio with him so he
could get in his face and when Matthews would'nt let it drop, Miller said he
wished these were the old days when he could challenge him to a duel! Very
entertaining! Matthews met his match and then some.

-Trent
PP-ASEL