|
|
|
|
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/6/2008 10:28:27 PM | What are the defining principles of a republican?
What are the defining principles of a democrat?
I do not believ there are any and to date no one has provided such as anything near a clear answer.
Is there any principles that define or unify either major party?
 | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/6/2008 11:25:57 PM | In the Twentieth Century,
The Dems brought you: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
The GOP brought you: Teddy "Bull Moose" Roosevelt, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr.
Look at each name and see in your mind's eye what their pre-occupations were on their agendas. Does that explain it to you?Please take this line here now as the 'real' end of this post.
But here's what I've been mostly taught to think about each:
Wilson: A maturing America. Toward the end of his term, although he tried to avoid it, we ended up in WWI upon the sinking of the Lusitania, which in fact was indeed carrying contraband that it should not have had on board. (Probably not Woodrow's fault.) General pre-occupation: healthy isolationism, domestic focus (but with recognition of internationalization approaching and involvement in the war possibly inevitable).
FDR: The struggle to get America out of the depression. TVA. State of the domestic economy. Also tried to keep us out of war, WWII. Our entry into the war was not his choice, but that of the Japanese and the Axis powers. General pre-occupation: funny, much like Wilsons?? Difference: Set up the FOUNDATION of our social security and other entitlement programs.
Harry: Protect America by getting this damned war over with and then 'return to normalcy'. Again, a domestic focus, although with incredible presence in post-war dealings and set tone for redevelopment of those beaten with George Marshal. Also had the issues of Korea (which was really a side-show hold over from WWII at that previous time which then erupted) and how to deal with Douglas McArthur at the onset of the Cold War. Give 'em hell.
JFK: Camelot, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam and the Cold War in general. Space Program. Beginnings of recognition of social issues. Castro. The Teamsters. Jimmy Hoffa. Entertainment industry. Boil it down: social order at home and endurance of America who will have to beat the Russians on all fronts.
LBJ: Vietnam (a personal pet project?) and vast expansion of social programs. Social issues and domestic order in light of MLK,Jr (and black panthers at opposite end of methodologies) and that whole era of social enlightenment and domestic demonstrations and violence.
Jimmy Carter: Sort of a "small and simple is beautiful" approach, let's get back to honest lives after all of the feelings of betrayal by the previous administration and Watergate, etc. Had to deal with Cold War, but now complicated by more anti-American middle east, namely Iran, yet cut military and tried to focus to "back at home" values....Again, preferred the domestic agenda, but was pulled into international issues.
Clinton: Still too recent for me to figure out.
Teddy Roosevelt: Mostly think of war w Mexico and the great National Parks. American home continent frontier coming to final definition.
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover: Initial industrialization of America, but still in an isolation mode, although with industrialized trade starting to step up. Wildly successful economy until the bust of the stock market via practices of buying stock on the margin (using loans to buy the stock with, and then when it went down, defaults). Generally an industrial infant starting to see 'the world out there'.
Eisenhower: WWII commanding hero. Successful times for the US. Cold War. Installed interstate system not really with first intention for internal domestic commerce but rather as part of defense system for military transport at home as primary reason for building it. Seeing America as a world player. Brought Korea to a cease fire, but also started seeing what would eventually become Vietnam starting to develop (although it was JFK who escalated our presence in it as a Cold War measure). While he also expanded some entitlement programs a bit, he did not really recognize the growing social pressure that would finally erupt under later administrations, which in fact his VP had to work to bring under control at the start of his first term.
Nixon: Social uprisings going on at start of first term needed to be addressed to meaningful conclusion as possible. Cold War. Get US out of Vietnam. Economic times difficult and requested wage freezes and also took US off of Gold Standard. Played (Kissinger) role as peacemaker in the middle east (as of yet not with the Iran issues). Eventually got bottled up in Watergate to the point that he himself saw how ineffective he was becoming as president and resigned. Later went to China on America's behalf to try to lend to establishment of friendly relations.
Ford: Heal the country as best as possible after Watergate.
Reagan: Hostages returned via understanding of cowboy's peace through strength ideals. End the Cold War. Prosperity in America. The beacon on the hill. Mr. Gorbichov, tear down this wall. Air Traffic Controllers strike - which was the first stone at killing the unions in this country. Pursue free trade. Re-establish 'belief in America'.
Bush Sr: Still too recent to comment.
So what are the themes? The only general theme that I even see hinted at is that the Dems tend to put Domestic before International issues, and the GOP might be the other way around from after about WWI to the collapse of the evil empire.
Comments anyone????? | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 12:02:19 AM | | Edit: Forgot Taft (Republican) after TR but before WW. Not much to say except part of period from close of continental definition and into higher (still pre WWI) industrialization. Lots of pre-war immigration from Europe (although certainly not the only time that this has happened). Continuation of building of Panama Canal which had been taken over by US in TR's administration and it opened shortly into WW's term. Opened easier east/west and international trade. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 12:29:17 AM | Well, you could just google for definitions. But....my personal way of distinguishing democrats from republicans (broadly speaking and with exceptions) is this:
Democrats care about other people.
Republicans care about themselves.
It comes down to this: what's more important? Society (dems) or the individual (reps)?
Seems flippant and rude, but if you look at the arguments on these threads, you will see what I mean. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 1:09:37 AM | | Sometimes caring about yourself is the best thing that can happen to the universe ala Henry Ford and Bill Gates instead of thinking you can solve every one elses problems when you may not know how their life really is. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 1:21:34 AM | Anti-intellectualism is IMO, what separates the two parties
I would also support ABitNomadic's posture, that dem's are more caring to others, while Reps seem wholeheartedly about their party or themselves, and care less about any others. Ruthless, in fact.
I also find dem's to enjoy a MUCH greater sense of humor, while reps (in general) seem so serious, stoic, and lacking a sense of humor.
In 1966 two young liberal Republicans, Bruce Chapman and George Gilder, published a book called "The Party That Lost Its Head." In it they
...critiqued Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential candidacy. The book labeled the Goldwater campaign a “brute assault on the entire intellectual world” and blamed this development on a woefully wrongheaded political tactic: “In recent years the Republicans as a party have been alienating intellectuals deliberately, as a matter of taste and strategy.”
http://politicsplusstuff.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-are-republicans-so-anti.html
In The Republican Noise Machine, David Brock skillfully documents perhaps the most important but least understood political development of the last thirty years: how the Republican Right has won political power and hijacked public discourse in the United States. Brock, a former right-wing insider and the author of the New York Times bestseller Blinded by the Right, uses his keen understanding of the strategies, tactics, financing, and personalities of the American right wing to demonstrate how the once-fringe phenomenon of right-wing media has all but subsumed the regular media conversation, shaped the national consciousness, and turned American politics sharply to the right. Brock documents how in the last several decades the GOP built a powerful media machine--newspapers and magazines, think tanks, talk radio networks, op-ed columnists, the FOX News Channel, Christian Right broadcasting, book publishers, and high-traffic internet sites--to sell conservatism to the public and discredit its opponents. This unabashedly biased multibillion-dollar communications empire disregards journalistic ethics and universal standards of fairness and accuracy, manufacturing "news" that is often bought and paid for by a tight network of corporate-backed foundations and old family fortunes. By dissecting the appeal, techniques, and reach of the booming right-wing media market, Brock demonstrates that it is largely based on bigotry, ignorance, and emotional manipulation closely tied to America's longstanding cultural divisions and the buying power of anti-intellectual traditionalists. From the disputed 2000 presidential election to the war with Iraq to the political battles of 2004, Brock's penetrating analysis of right-wing media theories and methodology reveals that the Republican Right views the media as an extension of a broader struggle for political power. By tracing the political impact of right-wing media, Brock shows how disproportionate conservative influence in the media is integrally linked to the Republican Right's current domination of all three branches of government, to the propping up of the Bush administration, and to the inability of Democrats to voice their opposition to this political sea change or to compete on an even playing field. As only an ex-conservative intimately familiar with the imperatives of the American right wing could, David Brock suggests ways in which concerned Americans can begin to redress the conservative ascendancy and cut through the propagandistic fog. Writing with verve and deep insight, he reaches far beyond typical bromides about media bias to produce an invaluable account of the rise of right-wing media and its political consequences. Promising to be the political book of the year, The Republican Noise Machine will transform the raging yet heretofore unsatisfying debate over the politics of the media for years to come.
http://store.knowbetter.com/servlet/mw?t=book&bi=22524&si=35
Watching American (and Iranian-Americans who haven’t been to Iran since the revolution of 1979) “experts” talk about Iran can be a painful experience. Most of the analyses are not only superficial and stereotypical, they also lack the depth that is required in order to make sound policy.
Of course the ultimate phony expert is none other than the anti-intellectual George W. Bush. Last week in front of the Israeli Knesset, he likened the willingness to talk to Ahmadinejad to the appeasement to Hitler. But the administration and their Israeli friends have navigated through a number of phases and systematic distortions throughout the past three years in order to prepare us for what they will try to do: Use something Ahmadinejad said in 2005 against the Democratic candidate for president in 2008.
Here are the stages of Neoconservatives’ and Bush’s propaganda campaign on Iran:
1) The time line starts in 2005 when one of Ahmadinejad’s statements was grossly mistranslated with the unanimous consent of the American media. Then, Ahmadinejad had said “Imam [Khomeini] said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times.” The statement was mistranslated as “Israel should be wiped off the map.”http://www.gnn.tv/articles/3666/The_Anatomy_of_Neoconservative_Propaganda
I won't say which party I believe is which 
I remember talking to a young guy (21-23) some time ago, about our 2 parties, and asked him what he thought. His remarks made me chuckle, but all the while, feeling like he'd been railroaded. He spoke about people on welfare, and how unfair it was others had to support them. He spoke about unborn children and how their souls were being wasted. Then, after more questioning, he finally came clean and told me that his family was ALL republican, and that he'd be disowned if he thought of things any other way.
I just don't remember being given orders to think a certain way, and I found stark contrast to what he was saying with how I was raised as a child, to think for myself, to care for others, and to not be selfish.
| |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 3:49:10 AM | Yeah. Speaking as a republican, I can say we all just care about ourselves. I know, that's how I think, anyway. We don't do anything to reach out and help anyone. We want everything for ourselves. We force our kids into thinking the way we do. We don't have any compassion for anyone at all, ever. We seek to take money from poor people...because we know they have all the money.
Whenever we can, we knock old ladies down as they try to cross at busy intersections. We are all uneducated and ignorant rubes. We want to ruin the country, just by our presence.
Pathetic. When I read some of the posts in these threads, I honestly think the only thing missing is a tab of acid and some violin music. Strike that. Perhaps, only the violins.
I recommend a book....Makers and Takers, by Peter Schweizer. I very interesting study of the differences between liberals and conservatives. You might be shocked to learn how things really shake out. Read it.......IF you have the stones.
Rock on......comrades. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 4:25:02 AM |
Democrats care about other people.
Republicans care about themselves.
Couldn't be any more succinct!
Democrats want you to have a say in choosing who your representative is.
Republicans want to tell you who your new leader will be
Democrats want you to have an education so everyone can have a chance at building a better life.
Republicans want you to remain stupid so only the elite have a better life.
Democrats will recognize a portion of society needs help and try to help.
Republicans will recognize they hate spending money on portions of society that need help.
Democrats recognize the need for a strong definsive military to protect us.
Republicans enjoy being aggressors in places with lots of cash flow, (OIL and Drugs) especially with stupid accountants and bookkeepers. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 6:13:30 AM |
Democrats want you to have an education so everyone can have a chance at building a better life.
But only for minorities
Republicans want you to remain stupid so only the elite have a better life.
That sounds more like a democrat to me, keeping the non elite dependent on the government, so their eliteness can be controlled.
Democrats will recognize a portion of society needs help and try to help.
Again, only for minorities.
Republicans will recognize they hate spending money on portions of society that need help.
No, Rebublicans want to help those in need, not do for those in need, Republicans also want the person in need to do more to help themselves so they can become elite.
Democrats recognize the need for a strong definsive military to protect us.
From who? Extremist who want to destroy us.I think republicans just want to go after these extremist before they get here. I mean, people come up with ways to fight crime. They dont wait into a criminal comes into there home.
Republicans enjoy being aggressors in places with lots of cash flow, (OIL and Drugs) especially with stupid accountants and bookkeepers.
Now how is the Republicans going to benefit. With all the money they are spending on the war. We are in debt because of this war. How are the republicans benefiting from the cash flow.And is not republicans mostly who want to stop illegal immigration.You would think by your definition that republicans would want them here to take advantage of cheap labor.I think democrats want to give just enough charity to keep people happy and under control.Republicans want to people to learn independence so they can be more than happy and not be dependent on charity. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 6:18:11 AM | Republicans politians operate on the principle of give to the rich and hopfully they'll share with everyone else...ie the trickle down theory of Regan, big taxes breaks for big corporations, deregulations in the finacial industry.
Democratic politians operate on the principle of bigger government, which mean more government programs, and regulations. In the countries most recent history (say 30yrs.) the latter of the two seemed to have worked the best for most of country | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 6:42:18 AM | There is no difference between the two parties.
The two part system is a joke.
I cannot find a real difference in them.
One seems to be to the left. The other one seems to be to the far left.
Neither one of them care about the people.
They just do for themselves. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 8:29:52 AM |
I do not believ there are any and to date no one has provided such as anything near a clear answer. You should buy a book and learn how to read it. That will get you started on your way out of abject ignorance. The history of both parties has been written about extensively. Their current leadership is a matter of public record, which information is easily accessible online. Biographies, speeches, voting records and other information about prominent Republicans and Democrats is at your fingertips. This exact subject of comparing the two parties is the subject of many very well researched and well reasoned articles and books. There is something called political science you could look into. But for your purposes and all you will ever need to know: Republicans are Red and Democrats are Blue. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 8:58:30 AM | Here is a test.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many people who score high on it are Republicans and how many people who score low are Democrats.......any takers? It's short...and be honest.
I scored 2.7, liberal airhead.....
http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 9:31:44 AM | I took the test and I was honest. My score was 4.5
3 to 4.5 Within normal limits; an appropriate score for an American. (The overall average score for groups tested in the original study is listed in the 1950 publication as 3.84, with men averaging somewhat higher and women somewhat lower.)
4.5 to 5.5 You may want to practice doing things with your left hand.
My statement of
Again, only for minorities.
concerning
Democrats will recognize a portion of society needs help and try to help.
That why most minorities are democrats.
Post 11 makes more sense than all post here, including mine. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 9:40:56 AM | | ha ha ha. 2.5, liberal airhead. YAY! | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 9:41:56 AM | | I was a 4...good test guess I'm an American... | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 9:42:13 AM | 04;
You need to come over from the Dark Side, I can save you!
I will add to your post this weekend, when I have time to do so with the eloquence your initial post deserves. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do a fair job during the week. But we could always use another good mind, so it isn't wasted on the Dark Side.
Ex I | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 9:43:32 AM | I scored a 4.26
Didn't even have to hesitate on the answers I provided. It was all clear cut in my mind.
Here is what the site describes for my score:
"3 to 4.5 Within normal limits; an appropriate score for an American. (The overall average score for groups tested in the original study is listed in the 1950 publication as 3.84, with men averaging somewhat higher and women somewhat lower.)"
EDIT:
I just read the posts which came in while I was posting. It's weird how our posting histories and the stand we take are being reflected in our scores. The Conservatives and ones leaning towards McCain are scoring in the 4.0 area = Conservative/Middle America and the Liberals leaning towards Obama are scoring in the 2.0 area designated Liberal.
Oh... and as an aside note. I am right/left handed fairly equally.
EDIT 2
Okeydoke... the post below me is the exception to the rule. :smile: | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 9:46:47 AM | Im a 4
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
(I didnt' make it up, that's what it said)
Back to this post.
SD, I get what you're saying
It goes without saying, I know of democrats who are selfish, greedy, and hateful.
Because of my previous post, I don't think we can unilaterally draw a line of party distinction. Clearly, I know republicans who try to lend a helping hand, who are thoughtful, and probably should (ahem) consider a move to the other side of the fence. "We need good people like dem guys".
However, in those general terms discussed, I believe that there are similarities. I don't think every democrat is more adept or intelligent that republicans, but, say for instance the story I ended my past post with, a young mans family was so one-sided as to not even allow their son to have free choice in the matter. His only thoughts were to act according to his parents ways of thinking. I find that to be selfish of his parents, and consequently, makes him selfish as well. As they say, "contempt breeds contempt".
But when we speak in general terms, I'd say Bush or Cheney are, indeed, very selfish people, and care nothing about people that are not on their team or who do not think like they do. There seems to be little if any regard among them for the plight of the average citizen. Trickle down economics never has worked, in spite of their insistance that it does. Just look at what's taking place today. People can't decide whether to feed the kids or pay their light bills. Do you see Cheney or Bush trying to do something to help them out? What about the mortgage crisis. Instead of bailing out the people, they choose to bail out the companies that wrote the bogus notes, namely, because with the additional risk came additional profits. And it's that mentality-that they bail out the corporations and say nothing to the poor people who have lost their homes, and are now living in the streets.
I'll take violin music for 200, Alex............. and at this point, maybe some purple microdot
| |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 9:59:03 AM | not correct on the mortgage crisis. The repubs tried in the first gw adminstration to reform fannie and freddie and the dems stopped them. so the boards of both were taking ANY kind of mortgage, even if aunt tilly wrote it from prison; and took out fifty million dollars in compensation OVER their multimillion dollar salaries. what the hell, its just a job, right? no fiduciary responsibility to the people. or to the system.
the miami herald here did a cover story on how convicted felons were not only writing phoney mortgages for people who didnt qualify, and forging, but were selling the ss #'s and info to spammers and direct mailers. but fannie and freddie bot all the bad paper up like it was gold plated.
check out who's on those boards; its the same caliber of people the democrats are supporting for president.
now you and i are left holding the bag. hell, i couldve been kiting houses for years if i had known the extent of the corruption. did banks and mortgage companies profit? you bet they did. and all the executives in the know split well ahead of time, with their huge salaries, pensions, mansions, and limosine services. thank your democratic party for this one. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 10:15:27 AM | 2.8333333333333335
liberal airhead
I resemble that remark! | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 10:20:33 AM | Exodusi: LOL! I'm looking forward to it! :-)
Now mind you, EVERYTHING that I wrote up there (except for the part where I forgot about Taft which was pointed out to me in a double-check) was from off the top of my head from classes I took 20 years ago (actually more than 20 years ago...oh that hurts!). If I missed particular aspects, go easy on me okay? I think that the biggest point I was trying to make was that while there might be some slight variances to how the past presidents have approached problems, in reality when they were actually in the trenches doing the job, it was the context of their worlds that set their agendas more than they did, regardless of which party they were from. I do tend to generally think that Reps tend to have foreign policy slightly higher on their agendas and the Dems probably have domestic social and economic issues usually higher, and I hope that this is not seen as a negatively biased statement. I'm also not saying that either one ignores the other either, but possible slightly different weightings that's all. Myself as you know, I am much more Republican in my point of view than Democrat (I don't rule out that the Dems do have some good ideas sometimes). I am this way because I truly feel that if America's position in the world is kept safe and generally speaking the country inside of it left alone, that Americans are pretty smart people and will figure out what to do and how to live best to their individual likings without too much government involvement making it harder for them. [I realize that the apparent argument is the entitlement programs (on the surface those appear to make things easier for living the good life), but in my opinion, in 9 times out of 10, those actually disenfranchise good people by rather coddling them into dependence]. Just my 2 cents. Exodusi, I do look forward to a good discussion when you have the chance....(as we can fit it in with both of us having upcoming time commitments...). Chaio until later ~ o4 | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 10:20:39 AM |
not correct on the mortgage crisis. The repubs tried in the first gw adminstration to reform fannie and freddie and the dems stopped them. so the boards of both were taking ANY kind of mortgage, even if aunt tilly wrote it from prison; and took out fifty million dollars in compensation OVER their multimillion dollar salaries. what the hell, its just a job, right? no fiduciary responsibility to the people. or to the system.
the miami herald here did a cover story on how convicted felons were not only writing phoney mortgages for people who didnt qualify, and forging, but were selling the ss #'s and info to spammers and direct mailers. but fannie and freddie bot all the bad paper up like it was gold plated.
check out who's on those boards; its the same caliber of people the democrats are supporting for president.
There's only one or two Networks carrying the facts as presented in the above quote. Luckily for the American Public it's the Networks which rank the highest. The truth is coming out more and more. Thank goodness!! | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 10:25:06 AM | | No, I was impressed with you unbiased post. I will just add some depth. I will have to stop at Reagan though, bucause I don't have anything positive to say about him and I would like to maintin your level of class on the subject. | |
|
| REPUBLICRATS
Posted: 8/7/2008 10:32:36 AM | | 3.8, do I win a prize? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
