Republicans
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
deliciously_naughty
One Sexy Mama
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Posts
- 4,765
Re: Make me understand
Oh, I don't know...standing for the rights of the people?
Believing that I have the right to sleep with whomever I choose, that I have the right to determine what happens with my body, that I have the right not to have other religions spew their shit at me in school.
In other words...they promote tolerance.
Republicans claim they do...they have tolerance for you...if you believe what they believe.
LifeSux said:
Oh, I don't know...standing for the rights of the people?
Believing that I have the right to sleep with whomever I choose, that I have the right to determine what happens with my body, that I have the right not to have other religions spew their shit at me in school.
In other words...they promote tolerance.
Republicans claim they do...they have tolerance for you...if you believe what they believe.
deliciously_naughty
One Sexy Mama
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Posts
- 4,765
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Republicans
your republican propaganda underwhelms me so we're even
Besides...I've played that game with you before on other threads...I have no desire to recreate every other thread you have ever posted on.
Ishmael said:
your republican propaganda underwhelms me so we're even
Besides...I've played that game with you before on other threads...I have no desire to recreate every other thread you have ever posted on.
Dougy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 27, 2002
- Posts
- 822
Okay....we need to establish something here. Both parties are run in virtually the same way. The ideals which they are founded upon are different, but they are essentially just as responsible for the corporate culture that exists in the US and the widening income gap.
We, or at least I, am not arguing 'who is doing a better job' in political circles. What I am arguing is the foundation of their principles. A human basis is always a better basis than a purely economic one.
We, or at least I, am not arguing 'who is doing a better job' in political circles. What I am arguing is the foundation of their principles. A human basis is always a better basis than a purely economic one.
Worm
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Posts
- 3,271
Re: Re: Make me understand
Little known is that Republicans were a major force in the civil rights act. As a matter of fact Al Gores daddy was opposed to it and voted against it. I am not a hardcore republican but I consider myself conservative. I am an aethist, but I am against abortion as I consider it murder what about the rights of the child. As an atheist I have never seen any religion shoved down my throat. The word "God" maybe printed on our money and in our pledge but does that really bother anyone. Our country was founded on christian values and I see it more as tradition...I do not believe in god but the word certaintly doesn't bother me. Can you cite examples?
deliciously_naughty said:
Little known is that Republicans were a major force in the civil rights act. As a matter of fact Al Gores daddy was opposed to it and voted against it. I am not a hardcore republican but I consider myself conservative. I am an aethist, but I am against abortion as I consider it murder what about the rights of the child. As an atheist I have never seen any religion shoved down my throat. The word "God" maybe printed on our money and in our pledge but does that really bother anyone. Our country was founded on christian values and I see it more as tradition...I do not believe in god but the word certaintly doesn't bother me. Can you cite examples?
kotori
Fool of Fortune
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2001
- Posts
- 28,474
Re: Make me understand
Ech, why bother.
First, not all Democrats are liberals nor all Republicans conservative; just mostly, these days. Jacob Javitz and Nelson Rockefeller were wealthy Republicans who were quite liberal.LifeSux said:
I agree with you there, but capitalism taken to it's "natural" extreme is as repressive as communism. Only the government can protect individual rights and freedoms
You mean places that have universal health care and actual working public transportation systems. Ask anyone in Britain how the railroads are running since they've been privatised.
What capitalism can't distinguish is that there are some things that just aren't commodities. Health. Education. Transportation infrastructure. This is where Republicans fail to live up to their title: res publica, "things of the people." If all the focus is on the individual and personal rights and responsibilities, where is the polity, the things for everyone?
Ech, why bother.
Dillinger
Guerrilla Ontologist
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 26,152
American politics nauseates me. Both parties - not the regular average person who says they associate with one party or the other - but the parties, their control of the system, the way one gets indoctrinated, the way you must conform to rise in the parties - be a team player - etc, etc... its all bullshit. Both parties. Both parties are responsible for blocking social reform and keeping the old boys networks alive. They both suck. As long as this country remains controlled by this two party system bullshit, we're all fucked.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Dillinger said:
Ah, a refreshing dose of virulent cynism by that beacon of optimism, Dillinger!
Bravo!
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Gee, lavs. I have zero respect for you, too, if you believe that shit you're spouting.
I had no idea you detested me so. I thought you were my friend, but that only shows what thought got. You're too bipartisan and narrow minded for that, I suppose. Can't cross the aisle, either. Welcome to the herd.
Fuck ya'll, baby and have a very, very nice day.
I had no idea you detested me so. I thought you were my friend, but that only shows what thought got. You're too bipartisan and narrow minded for that, I suppose. Can't cross the aisle, either. Welcome to the herd.
Fuck ya'll, baby and have a very, very nice day.
Worm
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Posts
- 3,271
Re: Re: Make me understand
Well here in Chicago our government funded public transportation sucks. Universal health care sounds good doesn't it. Why do you think we have the best health care people in the world here. Why do you think people come from other countries dto get serious operations/procedures performed. Why do you think we make so many new advances in health care. If it wasn't for the Americans the health care in this world would be in the 19th century. Why do you think all this is. Because researchers are allowed to patent products and make profit on their discoveries and advances. Simply put privatized health care is far superior. I am all for helping poor people but why should it be universal. Why should my hard earned money pay for Bill Gates health care when he can easily afford it?
As far as education goes I hope vouchers get passed. Our public education system here sucks compared to the rest of the world. We have the best "extended education" in the world and guess what they are privatized.
kotori said:
Well here in Chicago our government funded public transportation sucks. Universal health care sounds good doesn't it. Why do you think we have the best health care people in the world here. Why do you think people come from other countries dto get serious operations/procedures performed. Why do you think we make so many new advances in health care. If it wasn't for the Americans the health care in this world would be in the 19th century. Why do you think all this is. Because researchers are allowed to patent products and make profit on their discoveries and advances. Simply put privatized health care is far superior. I am all for helping poor people but why should it be universal. Why should my hard earned money pay for Bill Gates health care when he can easily afford it?
As far as education goes I hope vouchers get passed. Our public education system here sucks compared to the rest of the world. We have the best "extended education" in the world and guess what they are privatized.
Last edited:
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Re: Re: Re: Re: Republicans
What he says is NOT true.
Tax cuts benefit everyone, not just the wealthy.
There are some underlying assumptions here that just aren't true.
There is the assumption that the wealthy consume more public services than the rest of the citizenry. Not true, they consume less.
There is an assumption that the wealthy will use their tax break to buy a car. OK. Someone had to build that car and that someone had to be paid. Or if they don't buy the car, they will just invest the money in a bank or the stock market. Fine, that money is used by the banks and business to finance houses, buy capitol equipment, provide jobs.
Why is it that the tax breaks benefit the wealthy, and just what was the constituency of congress when those 'breaks' were passed? Why should anyone have a tax break?
There is also an assumption that the pie is finite. That if just one wealthy person gets to keep a little more of their money, it's coming out of someone else's pocket. Not true. It is not a zero sum game.
Answering the poster about the 'spread' between the wealthiest and poorest. That has to do with the unregulated immigration to this country. Typically the immigrant is at the bottom of the earning ladder. Cheap labor. By continuing to flood the country with this type of labor you create a condition that perpetuates the cheap labor pool and garuntee's that the bottom of the income pool increases. Under what party did this become policy?
Your beliefs notwithstanding, it was not the Republicans.
The Democrats have a much higher vested interest in big business for reasons previously stated.
Ishmael
princessa said:
What he says is NOT true.
Tax cuts benefit everyone, not just the wealthy.
There are some underlying assumptions here that just aren't true.
There is the assumption that the wealthy consume more public services than the rest of the citizenry. Not true, they consume less.
There is an assumption that the wealthy will use their tax break to buy a car. OK. Someone had to build that car and that someone had to be paid. Or if they don't buy the car, they will just invest the money in a bank or the stock market. Fine, that money is used by the banks and business to finance houses, buy capitol equipment, provide jobs.
Why is it that the tax breaks benefit the wealthy, and just what was the constituency of congress when those 'breaks' were passed? Why should anyone have a tax break?
There is also an assumption that the pie is finite. That if just one wealthy person gets to keep a little more of their money, it's coming out of someone else's pocket. Not true. It is not a zero sum game.
Answering the poster about the 'spread' between the wealthiest and poorest. That has to do with the unregulated immigration to this country. Typically the immigrant is at the bottom of the earning ladder. Cheap labor. By continuing to flood the country with this type of labor you create a condition that perpetuates the cheap labor pool and garuntee's that the bottom of the income pool increases. Under what party did this become policy?
Your beliefs notwithstanding, it was not the Republicans.
The Democrats have a much higher vested interest in big business for reasons previously stated.
Ishmael
REDWAVE
Urban Jungle Dweller
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2001
- Posts
- 6,013
Female mud wrestling!
I want to see a mud wrestling contest between Muffie and Lavy!
But seriously now, folks, the Democrats have become Republicans and the Republicans have become Nazis. There used to be liberal Republicans. Remember John Lindsay? For that matter, there used to be liberal Democrats. Remember Bobby Kennedy? You know what they did to him.
The whole political process has been corrupted and debased in the post-'60's reaction. The 1960's scared the hell out of the ruling class, with its "excess of democracy." They made damn sure that wouldn't happen again! Now the last thing we have to worry about is an "excess of democracy." Sig Heil Bush! AmeriKKKa Uber Alles!
For once I have to agree with Ishmael somewhat. (Yes, call up Ripley's & Guinness!) Both parties are parties of big business. The only difference is the Republicans are more open about it.
Both parties screw the people. However, the Democrats at least sweet talk them first & use lube. The Republicans, on the other hand, are into rough sex.
I want to see a mud wrestling contest between Muffie and Lavy!
But seriously now, folks, the Democrats have become Republicans and the Republicans have become Nazis. There used to be liberal Republicans. Remember John Lindsay? For that matter, there used to be liberal Democrats. Remember Bobby Kennedy? You know what they did to him.
The whole political process has been corrupted and debased in the post-'60's reaction. The 1960's scared the hell out of the ruling class, with its "excess of democracy." They made damn sure that wouldn't happen again! Now the last thing we have to worry about is an "excess of democracy." Sig Heil Bush! AmeriKKKa Uber Alles!
For once I have to agree with Ishmael somewhat. (Yes, call up Ripley's & Guinness!) Both parties are parties of big business. The only difference is the Republicans are more open about it.
Both parties screw the people. However, the Democrats at least sweet talk them first & use lube. The Republicans, on the other hand, are into rough sex.
Shy Tall Guy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Posts
- 5,735
Re: Re: Republicans
It is quite typical of "Liberals" (a misnomer if I ever heard one) and Democrats to think so highly of themselves and their "solutions" looking for a problem, that they consider themselves so morally superior to everybody else, that only they can make "appropriate decisions".
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The answer is when you setup a simple set of rules which outlines what the basic Natural Rights we each have, defines that the only role of government to defend those rights against those who would tread on them, and then enforces those rules, people can be left to make appropriate decisions when left to their own devices. That is if you the "appropriate decisions" we are talking about are with regards to "public" issues such as whether to go to war, whether to build a road, etc.
OTOH, if the issues are personal issues, such as how much I should put into my savings in case I lose my job, what kind of health care insurance I should have, or what kind of retirement fund I should have, if any - then, if you believe, like most Liberals and Democrats, that the general populace is just plain too stupid to make decisions about such personal issues, and that the government should make those decisions for them - then no, I guess not, people won't make the "appropriate decisions".
But then what is appropriate for one person is not necessarily appropriate for another when it comes to such issues - is it? That is the difference between the Libertarian approach of letting individuals make their own decisions about such issues, and the socialist (Liberal) approach of having the government make such decisions for the collective. One is the human approach, the other is the Borg approach.
Oh gee, I guess everybody must be forced to do the right thing right? Just tell me one thing; who decides what the right thing is, and how can you trust that person or persons to make appropriate decisions.Dougy said:
It is quite typical of "Liberals" (a misnomer if I ever heard one) and Democrats to think so highly of themselves and their "solutions" looking for a problem, that they consider themselves so morally superior to everybody else, that only they can make "appropriate decisions".
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The answer is when you setup a simple set of rules which outlines what the basic Natural Rights we each have, defines that the only role of government to defend those rights against those who would tread on them, and then enforces those rules, people can be left to make appropriate decisions when left to their own devices. That is if you the "appropriate decisions" we are talking about are with regards to "public" issues such as whether to go to war, whether to build a road, etc.
OTOH, if the issues are personal issues, such as how much I should put into my savings in case I lose my job, what kind of health care insurance I should have, or what kind of retirement fund I should have, if any - then, if you believe, like most Liberals and Democrats, that the general populace is just plain too stupid to make decisions about such personal issues, and that the government should make those decisions for them - then no, I guess not, people won't make the "appropriate decisions".
But then what is appropriate for one person is not necessarily appropriate for another when it comes to such issues - is it? That is the difference between the Libertarian approach of letting individuals make their own decisions about such issues, and the socialist (Liberal) approach of having the government make such decisions for the collective. One is the human approach, the other is the Borg approach.
REDWAVE
Urban Jungle Dweller
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2001
- Posts
- 6,013
Never & Ishie poo
Like rough sex, eh, Never? And I like "Radwave"-- I may change my name!
Dolt, Ishmael? And after I was nice and actually agreed with you for a change! I agree this is NOT a democracy-- it's a plutocracy, as I've said many times.
Like rough sex, eh, Never? And I like "Radwave"-- I may change my name!
Dolt, Ishmael? And after I was nice and actually agreed with you for a change! I agree this is NOT a democracy-- it's a plutocracy, as I've said many times.
