For those who don't know what they are---

MoW

Moderator
a simple check and the bottom says it all---http://www.ourcrowdedplanet.org/demsvsreps.htm
DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS
LIBERALS VS. CONSERVATIVES


THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LIBERALS VS. CONSERVATIVES – DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS


Black vs. White? Up vs. Down? Wrong vs. Right? Evil vs. Good? NO! Of course not! Though sometimes the two camps may seem that far apart, in many ways they are closer together than either side wishes to acknowledge. The public rhetorical displays of opposition, mud-slinging, righteousness and disgust with one another are meant to define differences, and to close the gates to each camp so that believers in either cause won’t desert.

The excitable Daschle and the more restrained but cunning Gephardt, currently wield the sword of Democrats, while the resolute Orin Hatch, Phil Graham and Trent Lott spar equally well for the GOP side. The public hears the vehemence and strident words intended for it, while in private these men know the truth – that there is more gray than Black or White; more middle ground than Up or Down; more compromise than Right or Wrong; and more fair than Good or Evil.

There are, however, fundamental differences, and people who “join” either side should be intellectually honest enough to know and accept those differences. Let’s talk about some of the major differences – note that we will use the terms Liberal and Democrat interchangeably, just as we will Republican and Conservative. These are our "short-form" views of the two major political parties:

· Military issues – Democrats value safety and freedom as much as the next guy, but they tend to not want to invest in it as much as Republicans do. They wish to put their tax revenues into domestic programs. The Dems also love to pit military spending against domestic spending. In some ways that's a good thing, but only when done honestly and genuinely. Liberals want to wait until the threat is undeniable, while Conservatives believe more in the power of deterrence by strength. Republicans also tend to believe that the Federal Government’s primary role is to protect its citizens, while Democrats feel it is their duty to provide for citizens.

· Moral issues – Liberals, because of their individual rights stance, tend to fight what they perceive as invasive rulings regarding morality, while Conservatives place more value on societal morality, family values and traditional values than on individual rights. Again, Dems know that special interest groups and the selfish bone in many Americans respond positively to ideas that serve them, regardless of the effects on society as a whole.

· Economic issues – Democrats think nothing of spending more and more money of domestic issues – they see themselves as “providers” of the common good. Republicans generally oppose more programs, large government and the concept of being “providers.” See the joke, below. Its cute, and stresses this philosophic difference between the two sides. Republicans believe in the adage, "Give a man a fish, and he has but one meal; teach him to fish, and he will eat forever." Dems want to hand-feed people, making them slaves to the government's dole. Dems love to pit one American against the other on issues of taxes, social security, health issues, diversity and crime. Democrats have played the class warfare card once too often, and we believe that most Americans are wising up to that divisive game.

· Civil Rights (Race, Sex, Religion, etc.) issues – Democrats tend to represent individual rights over traditional rights. They also claim to be the voice and defender of the common man. It is in that role that they have driven a mighty wedge between the people and Republicans through a continuous barrage of "class warfare." The Democrats have courted the black and Hispanic vote, blue collar vote and labor union vote, pitting them against America's vital business and industry community. Republicans have only recently begun to take them head-on, attempting to dismantle the Democrat's house of cards. It's a hard sale, as many people respond to the Democrat message, thinking that it will "pull" them out of their troubles. It never has, and we doubt that it ever will.

· Crime & Courts issues – Hand-in-hand with the ACLU, liberals tend to side with the individual being "prosecuted." They honestly wish to guard the accused's rights, and that's a good thing, when done with common sense. Republicans tend to look to the victim's rights, and to the good of the whole (society) over that of the individual. Liberals want to make everything right through the courts, using liberal federal judges to accomplish their agenda. We laud the Democrats for some of the social reforms they have garnered, but we also condemn them for the many harms they have done to society as a whole.

· Foreign Aid issues – Let’s begin by accepting reality – every administration has doled out money to foreign nations in reckless, self-serving, poorly controlled and questionable ways. What adds to the problem is that foreign regimes evolve, some for the worse, and times change. What made sense in 1995 may make no sense in 1996. Heads of State that served our needs one decade may evolve into nasty problems for us down the road, as with Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc. Our alliances and our foreign aid are tied to what serves us best at the time. Democrats know that, as do Republicans, though both parties ignore that truth when they think they can malign the other party successfully. The United States of America defeated world communism and fascism, not always with the cleanest of hands, but the end did justify the means. The Cold War is over, thanks largely to President Ronald Reagan and his "bankrupt the Soviets" policies.

· Taxation issues – Conservatives believe that tax dollars are our individual dollars, not theirs, while Democrats feel that tax dollars are everyone’s, and should be used, as needed, to provide for everyone. “Take from the rich and give to the poor,” is often applied to them in unflattering ways. The Democrats are willing to steal from wealthier Americans, not because they believe it to be fair, but because they come across as Robin Hoods, and further their class warfare campaign. They also know that they are alienating a smaller percentage of Americans (higher wage earners), while satisfying the self serving instincts and natural jealousies of the larger lower income group.

· Liberty and Rights issues – Democrats tend to support individual rights regardless of their impact on society’s rights. Conservatives tend to vote in favor of protecting the majority interests over individual interests, especially when the individual interest seems petty, biased, an assault of basic values, or a threat to American values. It often seems that Liberals support intellectual arguments, while Conservatives apply more common sense. Burning of the American flag was supported by Liberals as a free speech issue, but opposed vehemently by Conservatives on a common sense, traditional and patriotic basis.

A LITTLE HUMOR FROM THE RIGHT:


A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they
came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then
took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another
homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless
person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached
into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15
for administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats


As of 01/26/03
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's pretty biased. How much ya willing to bet that there isn't a version of that which can paint Republicans as bible thumping nannies determined on having friends of their elite families running the business world.

Republicans generally oppose more programs, large government and the concept of being “providers.”

Yet Republicans are the first to give huge tax breaks to oil companies, defense companies, and other large industries that need welfare. I don't want my tax money going to a homeless guy OR to Exxon. What's the difference?

"Good for society." On the moral issues most of all the Republicans chant the mantra of "what's good for society is more important than what's good for the individual". I can understand where the concept comes from but what on earth makes the conservatives think they know what's good for society? Traditional values? Yes, the standard one mom, one dad, two point five kids family seems like a tradition value. Slavery is also a traditional value, as is not allowing women to vote. I don't think the republicans have any more bearing on what is good for society in terms of morality than democrats.

My biggest problem with this whole "essay" is that while mentioning the grey area it still dumps people into two categories. Sickening. So I'm against any form of gun control....but I'm also against any form of tax-funded welfare (for individuals AND for multibillion dollar corporations).

It often seems that Liberals support intellectual arguments, while Conservatives apply more common sense.

What gives the conservatives any more credence in claiming they can define "common sense" better than liberals? Burning the flag is an expression of free speech. Anyone who cares so much about the 2nd ammendment that they demand it be interpreted as an individual right would be a hypocrite in claiming that the 1st ammendment is NOT an individual right.

I'm not a fan of democrats but republicans infringe on freedoms all the time. Despite what Zel Miller says I do not need the ten commandments plastered in a school to remind me "of the dangers of living a sinful life." I simply do not care what his bible defines as a sinful life. I simply don't care if the bible says gay marriage is bad. I do not care if the bible says a person exists at conception as opposed to birth. I do not care if the bible somehow makes people think that Janet Jackson showing her nipple on national television has warped the mind of the child they care so little about raising (because if they truly gave a damn they'd stop blaming everyone else and start parenting).

My problem with republicans is that the majority of their "moral" issues are driven by a religious text. A religious text that advocates polygamy, slavery, and torture. I don't care if a politician chooses to live his life by that book, that's what freedom of religion is about. But to make ME live by it infringes on my 1st just as much as the Brady Campaign wants to infringe upon your 2nd.
 
MoW

here is some reading for you about Democrats and military spending cuts...

I think Cheney speaks with forked tounge.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-military-votes.html

"Ironically, Cheney made the rounds on the cable channels on March 2, criticizing Kerry's record in terms parallel to the RNC's release. During an interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume, Cheney said: "What we're concerned about, what I'm concerned about, is his record in the United States Senate, where he clearly has over the years adopted a series of positions that indicate a desire to cut the defense budget, to cut the intelligence budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs."

Unfortunately, Hume failed to raise an important follow-up: Why was Cheney now criticizing Kerry for having essentially the same position Cheney advocated back in 1991? "

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

"The inclusion of some of the items listed here is all the more ridiculous given that they were weapons systems that a previous Republican administration advocated eliminating. For example, it was Dick Cheney himself, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush, who testified before the House Armed Services Committee on 13 August 1989 that he had recommended cancelling the AH-64 Apache Helicopter program:

The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.
(Note that this testimony took place over six years before Senator Kerry supposedly voted to "kill" the AH-64.)"

In a speech to some ROTC students in California he later parises the AH-64 pilots...lol

this is from Bush Srs 1992 State of the Union Adress

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. "

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=48737

"As former Secretary of Defense, Vice President Cheney bragged about cutting defense spending. In February 1990, Cheney told Congress" since I became Secretary, we've been through a fairly major process of reducing the defense budget." Cheney stated that during his the first year of his tenure, he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out." "

Vice President Cheney tried to cut troop strength in the 1990's and cut pay for troops currently in Iraq. An August 4, 1991 New York Times article shows that Cheney tried "to reduce active-duty troop strength" from 2.2 million to 1.6 million while making "deep cuts in the Reserves and National Guard." And after criticizing opponents on military pay increases, the Bush administration last year tried to cut pay for 148,000 troops in Iraq by rolling back increases in monthly imminent danger pay and family separation allowances, according to the Army Times.

enjoy
 
Back
Top