The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats…USA style…

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
This thought came to mind during an episode of Ken Burns, ‘The War”, that described the reaction of Americans at the death of FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1945, near the end of World War Two.

What follows is a simplification and a wide generalization, of course, which I am well known for, but bear with me, even that method of exposition has benefits.

From the inception of the American Nation, place that date where you wish, there has been a conflict between those Colonists who desired a semblance to a Monarchy, from which they migrated, and those who desired another, ill defined form of government, called a Republic.

That which we call individual freedom, the implementation of which is Capitalism, was a new discovery, a new path to explore, an uncharted horizon, as it had never been traveled before.

Everyone knew what a totalitarianism Monarchy, rule by Kings and Courts, would entail, but no one knew, because it had never been tried before, what a Constitutional Republic would bring about.

It has been a long and winding road (McCartney song), as to how those two opposite desires would conflict and continue, and it continues, yet today.

Each generation seems to face a reaffirmation of those differences and we are no different as opposing forces battle for supremacy.

Here on the AH forum, a microcosm of world events, we spit and spat to define left and right, liberal and conservative, right and wrong, good and bad, freedom or slavery and although you may think, little changes, it does, but very slowly.

Perhaps unintended, for those of you who followed the entire Ken Burns series, ‘The War”, left an impression that one should be prepared to defend human rights at all costs and be prepared to pre-empt efforts by tyrants to annul those basic human values.

In 1933 there were 9 million people of Jewish ancestry in Europe, two thirds were exterminated, 6 million humans eliminated, at the direction of a centralized, totalitarian dictatorship. The answer to the question, could that have been prevented?, is inconsequential; what is of consequence is if we are will willing, as a people, to prevent it from happening again.

Democrats, the left, the modern Liberals, advocate a strong central government, that has absolute control over human affairs; that is where the danger lies. Not in those who give value to human individual rights.

~~~

I know…I go ‘off’, every once in a while…what else is new?

Amicus…
 
As usual, you oversimplify politics.

Republicans and Democrats are broad churches, accepting many within their supporters who do not always agree with their party's policies on several issues.

"Pure" Republicans and "Pure" Democrats don't win elections. Each party wins by appealing to people who are undecided between one party and the other. So each political philosophy has to be moderated to appeal to the largest number of electors.

Almost every dedicated political party supporter will agree with the majority of their party's aims and may suppress their concerns and disagreements with other aspects of their party in the interests of what they perceive as more important.

Unfortunately for the democratic system, the voters that swing elections often cast their vote on the basis of "What's in it for me?". If one party promises less taxes and the other more government spending in the local area - which is the best option for the individual. Usually "less taxes" has greater appeal BUT how many appreciate the difference between direct and indirect taxation, or that "less taxes" may mean a larger national debt and a weaker dollar?

Politics ain't that simple, and never was that simple, even in the Classical Greek City States.

Og
 
Here is how do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans and Southern Republicans? The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

Democrat's Answer

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor or Oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.​

Republican's Answer

BANG!​

Southern Republican's Answer

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

*click*

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips I gave you for Christmas?​
 
Ah, Mr. Neb...dunno who you are so welcome to the fray and please imagine the sound of hearty laughter bubbling forth from the ole Amicus at your post.

And you nailed em, baby, nailed em right proper!

Amicus...
 
Demodrats/Republicans

Hmmmm I dunno...looks more like hollow point impacts to me. I, myself carry a Styer M-40. Really nice gun for a Glock knock-off.
 
Last edited:
DragonSlayer_OK said:
Hmmmm I dunno...looks more like hollow point impacts to me. I, myself carry a Styer M-40. Really nice gun for a Glock knock-off.

~~~

An 'Okie' DragonSlayer? Oh, my, two new voices, wunnerful, wunnerful....welcome!

Amicus...
 
amicus said:
This thought came to mind during an episode of Ken Burns, ‘The War”, that described the reaction of Americans at the death of FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1945, near the end of World War Two.

What follows is a simplification and a wide generalization, of course, which I am well known for, but bear with me, even that method of exposition has benefits.

From the inception of the American Nation, place that date where you wish, there has been a conflict between those Colonists who desired a semblance to a Monarchy, from which they migrated, and those who desired another, ill defined form of government, called a Republic.

That which we call individual freedom, the implementation of which is Capitalism, was a new discovery, a new path to explore, an uncharted horizon, as it had never been traveled before.

Everyone knew what a totalitarianism Monarchy, rule by Kings and Courts, would entail, but no one knew, because it had never been tried before, what a Constitutional Republic would bring about.

It has been a long and winding road (McCartney song), as to how those two opposite desires would conflict and continue, and it continues, yet today.

Each generation seems to face a reaffirmation of those differences and we are no different as opposing forces battle for supremacy.

Here on the AH forum, a microcosm of world events, we spit and spat to define left and right, liberal and conservative, right and wrong, good and bad, freedom or slavery and although you may think, little changes, it does, but very slowly.

Perhaps unintended, for those of you who followed the entire Ken Burns series, ‘The War”, left an impression that one should be prepared to defend human rights at all costs and be prepared to pre-empt efforts by tyrants to annul those basic human values.

In 1933 there were 9 million people of Jewish ancestry in Europe, two thirds were exterminated, 6 million humans eliminated, at the direction of a centralized, totalitarian dictatorship. The answer to the question, could that have been prevented?, is inconsequential; what is of consequence is if we are will willing, as a people, to prevent it from happening again.

Democrats, the left, the modern Liberals, advocate a strong central government, that has absolute control over human affairs; that is where the danger lies. Not in those who give value to human individual rights.

~~~

I know…I go ‘off’, every once in a while…what else is new?

Amicus…

I am inclined to agree with you more than I disagree, but your definitions are rather simplistic.

A business owner says: "I want to hire the best people I can to work for me."
Republicans say: "Good for you. Everybody should do that."
Democrat say: "No, no, no! WE will decide whom you should hire."

The family says: "This is a nice house we bought (or place we rented). There is an excellent school just a block away and our chldren can walk there easily."
Reps say: "Good planning. Do the best you can for your children. They are our future."
Dems say: "No, no, no! WE will decide what school your children attend, even if they have to travel two hours a day on a bus.

At the same timne:
The young pregnant woman says: "Oh, dear. I can't afford to have a baby, I'm not married, and I can't afford to take off from work. I wish I could do something about it.
Reps say: Oh, no you don't. It is your own fault for sinning. You must have that baby, regardless of anything.
Dems say: We'll help you get an abortion.

The young gay couple says: "We want to get married and share our love and our lives together."
Reps say: "No, you cannot. We must defend the sanctity of marriage from sinners like you.
Dems say: "Of course. Do you prefer a civil or church ceremony?"

There are other differences, of course, such as what Neb describes. Neither group has a monopoly on freedom or on oppression.
 
Back
Top