Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 canadianbakeun
Joined: 1/9/2006
Msg: 26
Republicans Are Happier Than DemocratsPage 2 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
^^^just did and....i definately stand corrected....apologies all around^^^^
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/17/2006 12:02:12 PM

yes flavordave, the quicker you and your loony socialist anti conservative left wing whackjobs leave the country, the quicker we can get back to where america once once before the 60s: the preminent country in the world.


Of course, if you really want to recreate the 50s you'll have to do it right. First, reduce American millitary spending and debt to 1950s levels. Then get Europe to bomb the hell out of one another's factories. Convince China to pack up all their industry and send it over our way and stop competing with us for resources. Done that? Wonderful. Now American industrialists can get back to their 'you can have any car you want as long as it's black' attitude without having to worry about nasty foreign competition.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/17/2006 12:22:11 PM

Maybe this means that all of the countries involved on the allies side were required?
Including France. Without them acting as a buffer, Britain would have been over run.


Churchill: Okay, here's the plan. The Brits will fight them on the beaches. The Americans, you wait around till we're all nice and bloody so you can march in and save everyone. Russians, you just live someplace cold and get attacked. I know you don't even have one gun for every four soldiers, but the Germans only have so many bullets and eventually winter will set in. And the Frogs, you have the Maginot line and all. It's not like you really need to enlist to protect the part of your border that's NOT covered by it as was originally planned. So here's what you do, you DISTRACT the Germans by surrendering. And if you're hospitable enough, the Germans may decide to rest there for a few weeks before taking over another country, which will give us time.

Now does everyone have their plans?
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/17/2006 12:59:18 PM
I should correct myself. The rate of millitary spending has been in steady decline since WWII as a percent of GDP.

The debt, however, was much smaller then.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/17/2006 1:23:00 PM

Read the sticky threads. Conspiracy theories are not allowed here. The Second Sino-Japanese War was not hastened by any action by any American action. It was well under way four years before the Pearl Harbour incident! And japanese militarism had been running rampant


It's not a conspiracy theory. On July 25th FDR placed Japan under an embargo that included fuel and high grade scrap. This move designed to force Japan to either pull out of China or go to war withthe US had the desired affect. He also followed the rest of the 8pt plan including moving sships, submarines and the use of politcal pressure.

This is a real docuement look it up. McCollum's 8 point plan for war

It was in this context that Arthur McCollum presented his five page memorandum in October, 1940, which advised the following moves: 1) Arrange to use British naval facilities in the Pacific; 2) Arrange to use facilities and supplies in the Dutch East Indies; 3) Give all possible aid to China in its resistance to Japanese aggression; 4) Send a division of heavy cruisers to the Far East; 5) Send two divisions of submarines to the Far East; 6) Keep
the main U.S. fleet in Hawaii; 7) Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for oil; 8) Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with the British.


Business.


Actually it wasn't. After Britian declared bankruptcy FDR created Lend lease in March of 1941 and the US Tax payer funded the British war effort.


Source?


September of 1940 FDR with out congressional approval gives the British 50 destroyer sin return for basing rights (99 year leases) in British Colonial possesions. For those whoa r eitnerested the Magor US Base at Deigo Garcia in the Indian Ocean wher eso many B-52 sorties agiasnt Iraq and Afghansitan were launched form is just such a base.

On to the navy fighting Germany before pearl harbor

US vs Germany

1940

# Oct 16. Ranger (CV-4) and San Francisco (CA-38) are mobilized to locate and trail German tanker departed Tampico, Mexico, for Admiral Graf Spee.
# Oct 20. USN to use plain language radio reporting of contacts.

Nov 16. Destroyer McCormick (DD-223), on neutrality patrol off Tampico, Mexico, radios attempt of German freighter Orinoco to make for European waters. Destroyer Plunkett (DD-431), by her presence, thwarts German tanker Phrygia's bid for freedom; Phrygia's crew scuttles her.

Dec 8 . Destroyer Sturtevant (DD-240) stands by while British light cruiser HMS Diomede intercepts German freighter Idarwald.

1941

March 1. Support Force Atlantic Fleet established for protection of convoys in North Atlantic

Mar 27. ABC Conference. Atlantic Fleet is to help the Royal Navy convoy ships across the Atlantic. The agreement inextricably links the U.S. Navy in the effort against Germany.

Mar 30. U S seizes Axis ships in US ports.

April 10. Niblack (DD-424) a new, Benson class destroyer on "Neutrality Patrol", rescuing survivors, depth charged a contact off Iceland

Apr 10. FDR authorizes the transfer of 10 "Lake"-class Coast Guard cutters to the Royal Navy. Transfers completed Apr 30-May 30.

May 24. USN PBYs from Newfoundland search for Bismarck in the western Atlantic.

May 26. USN observers flying two separate RAF Catalinas sight Bismarck. British fleet units converge on the lone German capital ship.

May 27. Roosevelt proclaims unlimited state of emergency, including delivery of supplies to Britain, because of Axis battleship incursion of western Atlantic.

# June 12. Naval Reserve called to active duty.
# June 14. US freezes German and Italian assets.
# June 16. US closed German and Italian consulates.

July 4 . US marines under US air cover relieve British troops in Iceland for duty elsewhere

Aug 1 . US-USSR accord signed.

Aug 9 . Atlantic Charter, a strategy meeting in Newfoundland between President FDR and Prime Minister Winston Spencer Churchill. Agree, when the US enters the war, Germany first. US warships to escort British merchant ships between the United States and Iceland

Sept 4 . Recommissioned destroyer Greer (DD-145), tracked U-652 for several hours. Each attacked the other without injury.

# Sep 12. Coast Guard cutters seize Norwegian trawler Buskoe in Mackenzie Bay, Greenland, thwarting establishing German radio weather stations.
# Oct 5 . Naval Conference between US and British commanders in Singapore.
# Oct 16-Nov 1. DDs escorting Atlantic convoy make depth charge attacks daily after six merchant ships sunk in five hours.
# Oct 25-Nov 8. Yorktown (CV-5), New Mexico (BB-41), and 11 other American warships were screening convoys to and from MOMP.
# Oct 28. Screening destroyer Anderson picked up a submarine contact and dropped depth charges noticing "considerable oil slick".
# Nov 1-4. PBYs and PBMs provide air coverage for convoy ON 31.
# Nov 4 . Omaha (CL-4), Memphis (CL-13) and 3 DDs search for German surface raider.
# Nov 6 . Omaha (CL-4) and Somers (DD-381), en route to Recife, Brazil, returning from the 3,023-mile patrol, captures German blockade runner

# Nov 10. First United States-escorted troop convoy, transporting more than 20,000 British troops, in six USN ships sailed from Halifax for the Far East.
# Nov 10-20. DDs attack numerous sound contacts.

Germany Vs US (leaving out the sinkings of non miltiary vessels by U-boats which woud tak up way to much space)

1940

Oct 17. Kearney (DD-432) escorting a convoy was attacked by U-boat off the coast of Iceland with 11 killed. (thats 11 dead USN sailors)

Oct 31. Reuben James (DD-245), an older destroyer on convoy duty west of Iceland, was sunk by U-boat with loss of 115 men.


Probably a moot point. As it was, atomic fission was already familiar to the scientific community and it was a race between Germany and America to see who would have the first working atomic bomb. If America was the only enemy they had had, it's not unreasonable to think that Germany could have developed the Bomb first.


Not true. Gemrany's leader in this area was Heisenburg and his theories proved to be unworkable. He never even got a working pile going. meanwhile America had 90% of the worlds greatest minds concentrated on one project. America also had a head start by several years.

Oct 31. DuPont (DD-152) is attacked by U-boat, but missed.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:07:38 PM

Good god, there is still hope for you. You can see the evidence, then admit the government did us wrong and actually KILLED our citizens.


FDR did not kill US Citizens. He palced navy personal in harms way and steered a national course agians tthe public will to bring America into a war he knew had to be fought both for short term and long term safety. He sa win Hitler and Imperial Japan powers that if left unchecked would create a very dangeorus world.

Eisenhower and Truman percieved the same things with the USSR. So did Kennedy and LBJ (Vietnam) and Reagan.

Bill Clinton is on record very clearly sayign the war woudl ahve been fought by Gore if not Bush as it wa sa amtter of US law to remove saddam and sanctiosn were failing.

I refuse to accpet the notion that enough Americans coudl be subverted into a super secret conspiracy wher eno evidece only specualtion exists and that these people would knowingly launch an attack that woudl kill 3000 of thier fellow citizens.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/17/2006 7:14:22 PM

Nobody died in the Pearl Harbor attack? I really haven't researched it greatly, I just thought that at least somebody died, and is not 1 American too many if it could have been avoided?


You're not listening to what he's saying. FDR didn't attack American millitary personel, as you claimed. It's not the same thing that FDR knew that they would be attacked.

A lot of folks knew that the US would be attacked in the pacific somewhere. It was Eisenhower's brilliance that he guessed Pearl harbor. Other commanders thought it would be another location in the Pacific, since Pearl harbor's bay was thought to be too shallow for Japanese torpedoes. (modified torpedoes were used.)


Uhhh, and Vietnam becoming too powerful if left unchecked?


Vietnam was a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union, one which the USSR did a better job of choosing the venue for than the US. The USSR would have become too powerful if left unchecked.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/17/2006 7:21:39 PM

A lot of folks knew that the US would be attacked in the pacific somewhere. It was Eisenhower's brilliance that he guessed Pearl harbor. Other commanders thought it would be another location in the Pacific, since Pearl harbor's bay was thought to be too shallow for Japanese torpedoes. (modified torpedoes were used.)


More WW2 trivia. The attack on Pealr harbor would ahve been impossible without the British. An attack ealie rin the war by British Fairy Torpedoe bombers on Taranto damaged several Itlain battleships. The British secret that let them make torpedoe attacks ina shallow sheltered bay was wooden fins. This information was passe donto Japan via the Italians and incorperated. This gave Japan the means to hit PH with torpedoe's. Prior to this no one thought using them in a shallow bay was possibe and the world had not yet accpeted the fact that Billy mitchell was right and that bombs alone could sink capitol ships.
 serendipitee
Joined: 9/5/2005
Msg: 34
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/17/2006 9:35:09 PM
QUEEN GUENEVERE,
An idea whose time has come!
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/17/2006 10:25:11 PM

not really, the entire cold war was "fake" as well. You'd think we all would have seen that when the "war" ended without either country even fighting. Just a reason for both countries to just keep pouring money into nothing but fear.......but at least we both still have the power to destroy humanity, so it's all good.


I really can't bleeive you just said that. Followingthe end of WW2 the USSR violated sevela agreements and turned eastern Europe into a bufferzone of satalite states. Stalins goals was war with the west. The onyl thing that prevented a 3rd great Eurpean war was the VVS (Soviet Airforce) had no long range bombers and was several years behind in devleoping and mas sproducing A-bombs. What resulted was a stalemate with the US and UK on one side with A-bnombs and the USSR on the other with the worlds largest army.

As the Marshall plan rebuitl Europe more natiosn wrere adde dot the anti-soviet fold and NATO was created. The USSR repsonded by creating the Warsaw pact. Luckily for man kind the Superpowers never went head to head. But we came close several times. Instead the war was fougth by proxy. Although it is called the Cold war is is only cold via the fac ttha tthe nuclear fires wer eneve runleashed.

Coldwar hotpsots

Korea
Greece
Malaysia
Israel
Egyot
Angola
Iraq
Lebanon
Afghanistan
Sudan
Somalia
Zimbabwe
South Africa
Nicarauga
Cyba
Grenada
Italy
Germany
China
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Taiwan
Japan
Lybia
USA
USSR
UK
Austrialia
Philipines
Burma
Indonesia
France
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Albania
Chezklovakia
Canada
Belgium
Holland
Luxemburg
Iceland
Yugoslavia
Greece
Turkey
Norway
Columbia
Peru
Argentina
Spain
Portugal

and the list goes on. The nations I liste dhave at least one of the following in common

1) Occupied by the Soviet Army

2) In a miltary alliance to aboid being occupied by the Soviet Army

3) Lost troops in combat fighting communist or lsot troops fighting the West

4) used as a testing ground for weapons and tactic developed by the supier powers

5) subject to a communist supported terror campaign or revolution (sucessful or not)

The Cold war was leathal and and it was very real. Between the end of world war 2 and the fall of the Berlin wall as many people died in conflict as died during the 2nd world war.

be glad you don't remeber it. I only caught the tail end of it and those who came before me had it even worse. We grew up in a world where it wa salways 2 minute sot midnight. One mistake could have wiped us out. There were not thousands of nukes but tens of thousands all aimed and armed and ready to go 24/7.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/18/2006 7:42:55 AM

I just don't understand why both governments would just keep on making more weapons....I understand the idea as given, to deter the other country.


A couple of reasons

1) The mor ewepaosn you have the ahrder it is for a first strike to take them all out the insuring MAD.

2) The more wepaosn you had the influence you had to affect proxies in the fight to spread communism or capatalism.

30 beucase that show you win. Eventually the USSR folded beucase reagan Bet the bank and hit the USSR with an economic offensive they coudl not withstand. We rebuitlt he army and navy which were almsot derelict after Vietnam and also upgraded our nukes. But what really broke them was the fact that reaganw as developing a system by which we coudl survive a limited first strike (SDI) and launch a secret 1st strike (stealth and the Ohio class boomers) of our own thus potentially invalidaitng the entire soviet a***nal. This happened just as Gorbachev in an attmept to revitlaise the Soviet economy loosen restirctions at home and aborad which allowe ddiscontent which had been bublbing (Solidarity in Poland and strikes in the USSR) to boil.
 confused/knothead
Joined: 12/23/2005
Msg: 37
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/18/2006 5:39:37 PM
Empirical evidence (at least my personal empirical observations) show that generally, "conservatives" are more prone to be problem solvers.
"Liberals" are more prone to be whiners.
That is maybe why engineers and doctors are prone to be "conservative".
Hmmm. And lawyers Democrats.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/18/2006 6:23:22 PM

No I didn't miss his point. He could have stopped it and didn't. That's not murder, but it's killing people. His own citizens at that, as the president. No excuse in my opinion. We should have attacked Germany, but not allow us to die to do so.


FDR knew the worold was in danger. He also agreed with Churchill that there should be a Germany first policy. The problem he has was America was strongly isolantionist. There was no way the American public owuld go to war agiasnt Gemrany. So he created a situation that would force an Ally of Gemrany to attack us and thus bring America into the war.

Ina sence he sacraficed a finger (the sialors who died at Pearl Harbor) to save the body.

The thing is if Britan and France had acted like Bush did in iraq there would ahve been no WW2. But they vacilliated and instead of a few thousand or few tens of thousand dead 50 million died. saddam had a logn hsitory of agression and contmept for itnenrational law and a big grudge against the US and it's allies. If sanctions could not do the job the only solution wa smilitary action.

The world is safer for it. Sure we ahve terror bombings and IED's. But if we had waite danother 10 years till Saddam struck on a time of his choosing at a target of his choosing and with a reconstructed WMD's program instead of maybe 100K dead would might be faced with 1 million plus. We know Saddam was capable of startign a war that big becuase he did. The Iran-Iraq war claimed 1 million lives in 8 years. Add in the brutality agians this own people and the dead in Kuwait and the 1.5 million who died during the sanctiosn beucase he would not paly by thew rules and come clean and you ahve 3 million dead beucase saddam wanted power. That put shim up there with Pol Pot.

The madman had to go and I am glad Bush had the will to act and that Saddam is now on trial.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/18/2006 10:01:35 PM

not really, the entire cold war was "fake" as well.


What would have to have happened for you to believe that the cold war was real? You really don't think there was any conflict? Theft of technologies. All that effort put towards spying. Hundreds of nuclear weapons pointed at one another. American submaries in the arctic circle sinking Russian ship, and ready to self destruct if they were found because their confirmed detection would touch off a nuclear war. Half of Eastern Europe under soviet control. Proxy wars funded by the USSR and the USA all over the globe. Promises by the Soviet leadership that "We will bury you."


Why, because their form of government was different than ours?


Because Marxist-Lenninist ideology explicity called for the violent overthrow of non-communist governments and Soviet actions demonstrated quite clearly that they were serious about making good on that promise.

If people are really dying, and really jockeying to demonstrate their power so the other side would back down, and really trying to expand their reach of allies and territory through violence and diplomacy whenever possible how much more real can a conflict get short of outright nuclear war?


No I didn't miss his point. He could have stopped it and didn't.


How? By not placing the embargo on Japan, surrendering our territories in the Pacific, and declaring "peace in our time?" What are you suggesting that FDR should have done? There were strong suspicious that Japan was going to attack the US, but most millitary officers thought it would be in the Philippines. Germany and Japan had carved up the world. We were doing everything we could do to stop them without overt millitary action (lend lease, embargo, etc.) Where exactly do you think FDR screwed up?



If Bush GENIUSLY placed our forces in a place he knew would be attacked, or attacked Vietnam so they didn't have a different form of government, I think you'd be all up in that case....I think you're playing partisanism sir. But that's only my opinion.


Not even sure what you're suggesting or implying here.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/18/2006 10:18:06 PM

Poll: Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats

Thats not news to me I have allways known that.


Anyone who thinks a 'poll' by the Drudge report has any significance whatsoever is deluding themselves. Even if we give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's honest, we're still only measuring... what? Honesty in self reporting?

The whole thing is a red herring.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/18/2006 10:28:13 PM
Well said jty.


We should have attacked Germany, but not allow us to die to do so.


FDR wouldn't have had political support for that, as mentioned previously. For starters America was intensely isolationist at that time. Also, there were a lot of German Americans who weren't enthused to go to war against their kindred (again). WWI was supposed to be 'the war to end all wars' and noone was eager to repeat it if they could avoid it. Charles Lindbergh, very popular and anti-war (And more than a little German American), comes to mind. FDR got support for Lend-Lease which was about as good as he could do.

Leaders can't just do anything that they want. They have to have support for their decisions.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/18/2006 10:42:02 PM

But then, there was the whole hanging out with the lepers, taxmen, whores, etc.


And "the rich have as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel through the eye of a needle" ...and Jesus lived in a commune and owned little personal property. Sounds liberal.

And lets face it, the dude could drink all his apostles under the table. I don't know if that makes him a liberal or a conservative, though.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 12:04:01 AM

Ok. All of you are right. Lol. The politicians were THAT stupid. HAHA. Don't even answer my question, just tell me a bunch of stuff I've already heard.


Who and what are you replying to?
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 12:08:04 AM

uh hello man. he wasn't a "dude". he was and is the Son of God. show a little respect to my Savior please...


Sincerely about that. Your savior, son of God, could drink his apostles under the table.

I'm a dude and I'm a son of God. No genuine disrespect was meant by the phrase.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 12:50:37 AM
drflavordave - While I generally consider myself a moderate with some leftist leanings why do you assume that conservatives don't want to help others? Sure, there are some conservatives who only look out for their own pocketbook and glorify material success. There are also some conservatives who believe very strongly in helping others, but think that it's better for private individuals to do this as opposed to the government since the government will award contracts based on political contributions, is corrupt, and is inevitably impersonal. I'm not saying that I agree with this view 100%, but it is somthing that some of the people who label themselves conservative believe.



What, exactly is your theory about WWII drflavordave? That FDR truly wanted to attack the Axis and could have easily declared war on them if he wanted. But he didn't do this for some strange reason and deliberately allowed the US to be attacked by surprise at Pearl harbor, (causing us to lose some very crucial millitary hardware, which was in terribly short supply at the time. ) just so that he could declare war on the Axis which he could have done anyways if he had wanted to? That doesn't make any coherant sense unless you believe that you would somehow be capable of political maneuvers that FDR could not have managed. I think you overestimate your leadership abilities.

FDR knew he was baiting Japan into a war. However I don't buy into the conspiracy theories that say he knew about Pearl Harbor or a surprise attack ahead of time. Many expected a strike somewhere in the Philippines or SouthEast Asia. Pearl Harbor was not seen as vulnerable to torpedo attacks by the majority of navy commanders. (Some disagreed, but hindsight is 20/20) If FDR could have declared war any time he liked without consequences, he would have done so.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 9:26:13 AM

And YOU said FDR thought pearl Harbor was going to be attacked, thus GENIUSLY placed our fleet there.


What? Where do you claim I said that? What I said was "There were strong suspicious that Japan was going to attack the US, but most millitary officers thought it would be in the Philippines." I didn't claim that FDR knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked or that he knew it would be a surprise attack. While a few in the millitary believed that Pearl Harbor would be attacked, the majority thought Japan would strike another location. I simply said that FDR was pushing Japan into war. Considering you were in favor of fighting the Nazis, why be opposed to that? America had clearly sided with the Allies in Europe via the lend lease act. The Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis, right down to having their own Mengeles. They were downright brutal to the Chinese in Manchucuo.


I was referring to the fact that after at least 500 or so nukes, ONE of the the people in ONE of the countries could have seen that they could both just keep making more, but for no apparent reason, as both could just keep making more. LOL. Not that hard to see, unless they simply didn't want to, so both sides made the other side hate one another so they could do whatever they want.


They did have SALT I and SALT II talks eventually. But part of the idea was to have extra nukes sufficient to retaliate after being hit with a massive surprise first strike.
Besides, it's not to either side's advantage to be too explicit on the actual number of weapons in their a***nal. A lot of the cold war involved bluffing, to put it lightly.


which is kinda the point of voting I thought.


Whether or not the US should have called a plebecite (which would have been interesting), they've never done anything like that before. Voting in the US has usually served as a stopgap measure so that an unpopular leader could be removed without the use of force. I'll leave it to others to argue what the point of voting should be. But most decisions aren't conducted by plebecite.



And about "conservatives". The literally sense of the term means they don't like change. Thus they assume that man has come as far as he can.


For as many lies and untruths as 'conservatives' have flung at their political oppnents, I should probably leave them to argue against this. But most of the people I've met who label themselves 'conservative' believe that people can improve themselves, individually and as a society and that technology can improve as well. They simply favor a governmental, or value system from an earlier age. But they're not opposed to ALL change any more than a 'progressive' believes that all values need to be altered.

A few self proclaimed conservatives do make the unfounded assumption that if they act the way they did 50 years ago, the world will oblige them and turn itself back as well.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 10:44:34 AM

Jesus was liberal in all sense of the term. He was divine.


Jesus helped peopel, Liberals hurt people thats the big differance. In Amrica the elft wing has systemativally destroye dhte quality of living, economy and equality via pandering. Instead of treatign everyone as an American they break the population down into target gorups and practive division. Looka t the damage welfare has cuased the decade sof failign students and the loss of savings and creation of a consumer mentlaity after the creation of social security. The breakdown of the Americna fabric happened under a democrats watch (LBJ) which led to the drug wars and crime waves. The left promoises the moon and only delievers pain.

They rail about how evil the right is for opposing abortion, gay marriage and education reform but when they had the helm did they do anyhtign to create prosperity? No not a damm thing. Beucase prosperity breeds conservatism. So instead they divide and conqoruer and hav ethis country so at odds that sight slike this are flooded with nutjubs who are willing to bleive any half baked tale out the evils of the other side.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 10:59:06 AM

and the loss of savings and creation of a consumer mentlaity after the creation of social security.


That's a mighty big stretch. If you claim to be a conservative, aren't you supposed to believe in 'personal responsibility?'

Bush was the one urging Americans to go out and spend to boost the economy.

You do remember the Iran Contra scandal don't you? With CIA hacks under Reagan selling crack cocaine in the inner cities to fund their operations. It's hard to get more pro-cocaine than actually letting governmemnt officials sell the stuff under your watch.



but when they had the helm did they do anyhtign to create prosperity? No not a damm thing.


Well, for starters pushing for clean air, water and food. Remeber Bob Dole's attempt to increase the amount of fecal matter allowed in food? Or is cancer good for the economy?

It's not the government's job to 'promote prosperity' for the most part. But Gore was an early proponent and supporter of DARPA net, for instance, which led to the creation of the internet. The US Gov created (and spun off) a first rate weather service. The ability to predict weather would lend itself to economic efficiency.

I think I'll let the other folks on this board fight things out.

Cheers all!
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 11:24:40 AM

That's a mighty big stretch. If you claim to be a conservative, aren't you supposed to believe in 'personal responsibility?'


It's not a strecth at all sicne the SSA wa sapssed saivngs ahve gone down and are now in the negatives. What Bush did wa spsuh for a short time influx of credit into the economy to stall and reverse the recession. It worked.

[quote[You do remember the Iran Contra scandal don't you? With CIA hacks under Reagan selling crack cocaine in the inner cities to fund their operations. It's hard to get more pro-cocaine than actually letting governmemnt officials sell the stuff under your watch.

louis Farrakan what did you do with Mr Wiserd. Thats pure rubbish the CIA wa snot seelign crack in the inner city


Well, for starters pushing for clean air, water and food. Remeber Bob Dole's attempt to increase the amount of fecal matter allowed in food? Or is cancer good for the economy?


A law that was thnakfully never passed. But over regualtion is not good for the economy or do you think the lack od refineries leaidng to higher fule costs is good for the economy? Or massive forest fires caused by burn bans that allow fuel to build up.


It's not the government's job to 'promote prosperity' for the most part. But Gore was an early proponent and supporter of DARPA net, for instance


Pleas ename one perosn in govemrnet at the time who opposed DARPA. The Govemrne thas the job of defneding the country. Not only form enemies but agians things liek Tornadoes and hurricanes. This is not direct economic interferance.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 1:36:33 PM

It's not a strecth at all sicne the SSA wa sapssed saivngs ahve gone down and are now in the negatives. What Bush did wa spsuh for a short time influx of credit into the economy to stall and reverse the recession. It worked.


1. Correlation does not indicate causation.

2. I can buy on credit for a while and things will be temporarily better. But as long as Bush is increasing the debt, his strategy is short term.

3. You've still not addressed the fact that Bush was deliberately telling people to go out and spend rather than save. If you're a conservative, Bush doesn't share your values apparently.


Thats pure rubbish the CIA wa snot seelign crack in the inner city


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra

Do you know what the Iran Contra scandal involved?
Just curious.


But over regualtion is not good for the economy or do you think the lack od refineries leaidng to higher fule costs is good for the economy? Or massive forest fires caused by burn bans that allow fuel to build up.


The national forest service now allows naturally started fires to burn to take out underbrush. Earlier policies were a mistake.

"Over regulation" isn't good. But I'm naturally suspicious when any polititian refuses to give the details. Under regulation isn't good either, since it allows for fraudulent sales and economic externalities.


Pleas ename one perosn in govemrnet at the time who opposed DARPA.


I doubt many people in government even understood that ARPANET might have a civilian use, much less understood the technical aspects of the project. As far as they were concerned it was just a millitary project. So why would they oppose it?


The Govemrne thas the job of defneding the country. Not only form enemies but agians things liek Tornadoes and hurricanes.


Of course the government has the job of defending the country. No argument from me there. And also to defend against things like tornadoes and hurricanes, at least in terms of giving people good advance warning.

It also has a job to prevent your neighibor from dumping hazardous wastes into the groundwater which supplies your tap water, and insuring that building codes are up to standard before a nightclub full of people gets trapped in a fire or other disaster.

And in order to do that, you need organizations which can investigate matters and resolve them. There have been attempts to reduce environmental protections under the guise of 'deregulation.' That's what I'm concerned about.

I'm not saying that all deregulation is bad. Just that it's sometimes been used as a smokescreen to do things that people wouldn't otherwise want done. If polititians tell you they're 'deregulating' somthing and don't give specifics, it's worthwhile to be suspicious.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats