Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Difference Between Republicans & Democrats
A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street one day when they happened upon a homeless beggar. The Republican stops, gives the beggar $20 and his business card with the opportunity of employment. The Democrat, not wanting to be left out, reaches into the Republican’s pocket and takes $50, gives the beggar $30, and directions to the nearest welfare office.
Oh for cryin' out loud! This again! Libertarians are anarchists, blah blah blah! Libertarians are the TRUE conservatives, and realize that morality CANNOT be legislated, or forced on others! But I digress. This thread is about the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Well, I see no differences. Both parties have authoritarian factions in them, want bigger government, and want to control other peoples lives. Two different sides of the same coin!
Some libertarians are anarchists. If you don't believe in any form of taxes, you would necessarily be an anarchist as you can't have govt. without revenue. Anyone who believes all taxes are theft are anarchists.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,417,861 times
Reputation: 2397
0. There is absolutely no difference between the two. They will paint themselves as being different, but when they are elected they do the same things.
In the simplest of terms, Democrats believe in "We" and the Republicans believe in "Me". Democrats believe that we all do better when we see ourselves as a community. Republicans believe we all do better if we see ourselves as a bunch of individuals and are only concerned about ourselves.
I think despite your attempt to spin this in a negative light, you are right. I'm a Republican and I am concerned about me and my friends and family only. To be blunt, I don't care about you....I don't know you, I don't care to know you, and I'm not overly concerned with what goes on in your life. I obviously don't wish misfortune upon you...but I just am not concerned with your day to day or your material wealth. As I'm sure you aren't concerned with mine. American society is much more individualistic than most...definitely more than Asian cultures and formerly eastern European cultures. But, I don't see a problem with it. The context of your post is clearly negative, so I assume you are liberal and concerned about this theoretical "we."
I am concerned about the wellbeing of my friends and family only. It isn't my responsibility, nor the responsibility of the federal government (imo) to ensure that we ALL are doing "well." The government should facilitate an environment in which we all have an opportunity to thrive...it shouldn't ensure that we thrive. At some point we have to take our destiny into our own hands in opposition to subsidizing it for those less willing or able to do it themselves. Now, I understand that some circumstances arise that mitigate ones ability to perform...and I believe that a basic social safety net should exist for those people. However the context of your post implies that the only way our society can be "ideal" is that if we are all achieving a high level of success and that just isn't realistic. Income inequality and Gini coefficients are worthless metrics. What we need to look at is economic freedom indicies that measure one's ability to pursue their dreams and the performance of the government in terms of their ability to facilitate an environment in which business thrives. If the market is set up in a fashion that allows all an opportunity to perform, and they choose not to, then so be it. We can't be expected to ensure all people have enough drive to perform...it just isn't plausible.
I think despite your attempt to spin this in a negative light, you are right. I'm a Republican and I am concerned about me and my friends and family only. To be blunt, I don't care about you....I don't know you, I don't care to know you, and I'm not overly concerned with what goes on in your life. I obviously don't wish misfortune upon you...but I just am not concerned with your day to day or your material wealth. As I'm sure you aren't concerned with mine. American society is much more individualistic than most...definitely more than Asian cultures and formerly eastern European cultures. But, I don't see a problem with it. The context of your post is clearly negative, so I assume you are liberal and concerned about this theoretical "we."
I am concerned about the wellbeing of my friends and family only. It isn't my responsibility, nor the responsibility of the federal government (imo) to ensure that we ALL are doing "well." The government should facilitate an environment in which we all have an opportunity to thrive...it shouldn't ensure that we thrive. At some point we have to take our destiny into our own hands in opposition to subsidizing it for those less willing or able to do it themselves. Now, I understand that some circumstances arise that mitigate ones ability to perform...and I believe that a basic social safety net should exist for those people. However the context of your post implies that the only way our society can be "ideal" is that if we are all achieving a high level of success and that just isn't realistic. Income inequality and Gini coefficients are worthless metrics. What we need to look at is economic freedom indicies that measure one's ability to pursue their dreams and the performance of the government in terms of their ability to facilitate an environment in which business thrives. If the market is set up in a fashion that allows all an opportunity to perform, and they choose not to, then so be it. We can't be expected to ensure all people have enough drive to perform...it just isn't plausible.
I did spin the post as negative. If you perceive it as negative, then maybe that is your conscious trying to surface. I posted it as an honest observation. My post is entirely consistent with Ayn Rand. I appreciate your honesty. Question...do you teach your children to share?
I have not seen where Romney stated he will fix social security on the backs of the 50 and under crowd. Do you have a link? I ask because to date he hasnt released details of his golden path to salvation. That is a page he took from Obama's playbook.
No links, sorry. Etch-A-Sketch is erasing the past, but the story is this: the RNC sent out a request for contributions (I'm registered and receive their garbage still), but this request for contributions was couched as a poll to help guide the campaign.
In this poll, the RNC essentially lists all the socially tyrannical crap that I thought that they had been apologizing about for the past four years. One of the questions was do I approve of changing the SS age on everyone below fifty.
A few weeks later, Romney started using this line that no person whom would be drawing SS before 20xx would see a change in their anticipated SS date. That year was consistent with the fifty question.
But now he's flipping on it. So, who knows what Romney will do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
OK. I have to agree with you here.
Build some credibility; then I might care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli
Wrong: If a Republican doesn't know what he's talking about he becomes a democrat.
That's not very good trolling.
Last edited by The Homogenizer; 10-16-2012 at 06:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Libertarians are anarchists, blah blah blah! Libertarians are the TRUE conservatives, and realize that morality CANNOT be legislated, or forced on others! But I digress. This thread is about the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Well, I see no differences. Both parties have authoritarian factions in them, want bigger government, and want to control other peoples lives. Two different sides of the same coin!
