z
Daftar Depo Pulsa BCA: Cara Mudah dan Praktis
15 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
remember
Andrew Breitbart...American Hero
My Blog List
-
-
-
What is FREEDOM OF SPEECH?7 years ago
-
An Epidemic Of Biden3 years ago
-
-
FOR ME - MORE BLOG LESS F B2 years ago
-
-
Kid's Creations3 months ago
-
The Old Breed4 days ago
-
His Name Was Charles4 years ago
-
-
-
Project Reconquista Commences10 years ago
-
Memorial Day 20159 years ago
-
-
-
-
Goodbye, Mom9 years ago
-
-
-
-
I'm on a roll tonight.7 years ago
-
-
No Hard Feelings7 years ago
-
Can You Hear Us Now?4 weeks ago
-
VALENTINES DAY! :-)4 years ago
72 comments:
Repubs are the party of no ideas, and the Dems are the party of bad ideas. Very bad ideas.
Take a look at each party's approach to the size and power of government, and you'll uncover their core philosophy about the purpose of government.
When a Republican wants to reduce the size and power of the federal government, he will deregulate businesses and industries, and defer to resolution of issues at the state level.
When a Democrat wants to reduce the size and power of the federal government, he will disband Army and Marine divisions and scuttle Navy ships.
The Republican believes the size and power of government is measured in its influence and ability to impose regulations.
The Democrat believes the size and power of government is measured in how many guns it has.
I think Beamish is spot-on here!
Dems are complete socialists, and Repubs are the diet version.
Beamish is absolutely right.
And so is Brooke.
The GOP has been moving away from true conservatism since 1989.
GWB's "compassionate conservatism" is BS. A form of neo-liberalism, IMO.
A return to the principles of true conservatism is now impossible for us. FDR saw to that.
Given that both parties act solely to justify their own existence and maintain their own power, I see little substantive difference at the end of the day.
How they get there, to this equal position, is always different, but the end result rarely varies.
The worse would be seeing Ron Paul running against Barack Obama.
It would be a Lose, Lose situation.
We would lose either way.
There isn't much difference. Both serve their corporate masters.
Dems are occasionally more interested in civil rights, that's really about it.
Originally, the names reflected the philosophical differences between the Parties, politically.
Democrats believe that "the majority must always rule" (as in: OWS), which always leads to anarchy.
Republicans believe that a representative republic is a better way to govern.
Ds emphasize the "people of, by and for the government." while Rs emphasize a government "...of, by and for the people...(Abe Lincoln).
Ds seek control of freedom through government. Rs seek freedom from control by government.
However, I must admit that in far too many cases (RINOS) the differences have been muddled.
Sadly, I must agree with Ducky.
Somebody mentioned "reducing the size and power of the federal government."
Huh? Neither party wants to do that, and neither party has done that.
They're all statist Neros fiddling* while Rome burns.
* - I hate that phrase because it impugns fiddle players. Nero played a lyre.
SF: Correction. Nero was a lyre.
"Dems are occasionally more interested in civil rights, that's really about it."
Ducky, you're incorrect and being short sighted. Civil rights apply to everyone, and in this country, the most important civil right, is individual freedom, for everyone.
The Dems more so than Republicans, believe that Government has the right to control and micro-manage the people, thereby undermining our most important of civil rights.
Without individual freedom we are no more than subjects to an overbearing, regulation obsessed, leftist governance!
Republican/Democrat
Less government/More government
Private Solutions/Gov Solutions
Individual freedom/personal servitude
Indiv responsible/communal responsib
Minimum regulation/max regulation
Free market/Socialism
Advocates success/Jealous of success
The basic fundamental philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats is the Following:
Republicans stand for Freedom; Democrats want Equality.
Freedom and Equality are often non inclusive. Republicans want people to reach Equality through the freedom of choice, personal effort and personal responsibility. Democrats want Equality to be given to the people by the government. They want to "Impose" Equality. The Imposition of Equality often takes away people's freedom.
Ducky, you're incorrect and being short sighted. Civil rights apply to everyone, and in this country, the most important civil right, is individual freedom, for everyone.
-------
No Pris, you deny conflicts of interest.
Gay marriage for instance, you perceive your freedom abridged because someone else doesn't conform to your dogma.
In it's pure form you favor a majority tyranny or at least a tyrannical oligarchy, which is what we have now only you ain't part of it which is what really sticks in your craw.
Ducky, I was wondering where you've seen Pris argue against gay rights.
z, that's pedantic.
I started with the premise of denial of the real problem of conflict of interest and gave an example.
The example need not be a personal reference but I picked it because even the most vocal Libertarians here are going to stop short on this issue.
My point stands and I consider it applicable and well formed.
John Galt said it best. Republicans are about Freedom and Dems are about equality,but according to democrats equality is abut people all being poor which to them is better than some being rich.
I am sure Kim Jung Un will continue to deliver more equality to his citizens in the coming years.
Ducky, you questioned Pris on that subject. Where have you seen her deny gay rights? Where have you seen anybody here say gays shouldn't have rights to do anything they want that's legal?
And yes, I know you're always very well assured that your points are applicable and well formed.
Lisa...excellent comment; sad, isn't it. Better to have everybody mediocre than to have cream rise to the top. Imagine how different this is than the founders (and all AMericans since then till the Left got nuts these last few years) intended...and how dangerous this is.
Did you know there are those now saying that employers asking for high school diplomas are being discriminatory? Apparently, NOTHING our kids can do now and try to achieve is welcome in AMerica.
I'll probably blog on that tomorrow..
There is no appreciable difference between the two parties. Both have merged to serve corporate-statist interests -- aka "Crony Capitalism" -- in what-amounts-to a conspiracy against the individual citizen and American sovereignty in general.
That all the powers that be -- Republican Establishment, Democrats in general, Democrat-controlled State Media (which includes FOX News, whose supposed "conservative bent" is a cynical sham) -- have pushed for the nomination of Mitt Romney -- a candidate that no Republican, Conservative-Libertarian I know likes or trusts -- proves it is not We, The People, who select our candidates but rather The Government-Corporate-Media Conglomerate that does the job.
Whether we realize it it or not we are being DICTATED to by very rich, very powerful BULLIES who own and operate virtually everything that "counts." They include the Owners and Suppliers of Raw Materials, the Directors of the International Banks, the CEO's and Board Members of huge international Corporations.
"Democracy" has become a sham. The political Process is nothing more than A Punch and Judy Show staged to DISTRACT the populace from what's really going on -- the de facto Rule of an Unelected, Self-Appointed, Largely Unknown OLIGARCHY.
Ron Paul may leave a lot to be desired, but he's the ONLY candidate who opposes the rotten system which has us by the short hairs. The others are either PART of the problem or absolutely CLUELESS as to what truly ails us.
Despite all that, I hope everyone gains wisdom and experiences personal fulfillment in this New Year.
~ FreeThinke
Ducky,
Except for the personal tone of persistent prickliness and implied contempt you tend to exhibit, you're absolutely correct in your observation so far today.
It has become apparent to me seeing you post elsewhere that there are many points on which we agree. I agree with you, for instance, that the doctrinaire approach to discourse leads only to petty quarrels and pointless grudge matches -- a reductio ad absurdem.
SO, may I please suggest that in future we [meaning all of us] should try to find -- and emphasize -- whatever thoughts we may have in common. Not always to agree, of course, because nothing is more stultifying than the atmosphere in a Mutual Admiration Society, but at least to do our best to avoid the outward show of scorn, belligerence, contempt, condescension and dismissal that too often pollutes the blogosphere and destroys The Rule of Reason.
I'm not scolding you, Ducky. Please don't take it that way. I'm merely expressing my fondest hope for the New Year, which is loosely based on the premise "We must all hang together, for if we don't, we shall surely hang separately."
I've been very glad to find that you seem to agree most heartily with most of us on the right that we have been headed in the wrong direction for a long time. The issue on which we should concentrate from now must be how to find a way to agree on what the RIGHT direction might be.
It AIN'T gonna be found in dogmatic, intransigent FACTIONALIZING I'm pretty sure of that.
Cheers!
~ FreeThinke
I have to sadly admit, that anymore, I don’t see DEFINITIVE differences anymore with our “two-party” system. The D’s and R’s are interchangeable. They are too quick to compromise their principles, if they even have any, twist, turn and stomp on the Constitution, lie, steal and cheat to get re-elected for their own political and financial gain and detriment to OUR country and her vested interest.
It’s all about power over the people and money. They ALL talk a good game, but once in office, the talk turns to broken promises and it’s the status quo once again.
That's easy:
Republicans (and not RINO's) believe that rugged individualism made this country great.
Democrats (and not Reagan Democrats) don't believe that at all. They don't think this country is great, honestly. And those that claim they do have no idea why.
There are no significant differences between the two parties. They all get in there and start running for reelection.
Any minor differences are just in how each individual sees as his or her best chance to make a career out of their job.
It is WAY PAST time for term limits!!!!!
FT, you agree with Ducky so often!? But, what could be more doctrinaire than a socialist unaware of how to implement his pipe dreams for a country he disdains?
This blog is dedicated to discourse of all types except the smug, condescending,lecturing type you yourself mention. please let's ALL keep that at a lower level.
thanks.
Everyone, I think there are more differences in the parties than some of you seem to think.
Yes, politicians of both parties are zebras with similar stripes; their motivation being getting into office..some young enough to think their work might help this country go in the direction he or she thinks it ought to go, most old enough to want a big hefty paycheck at the end of their cushy money-making endeavor of 'serving the people.'
But, putting that aside, the right's goals are trying to be realistic while trying to shake loose from the socialism we've been getting since FDR. Now that there is such debt, one party wants to keep borrowing to shore their president's record up, the other wants to tighten belts and get us on the road to recovery.
THere are other differences but I have to get going.
Please, concentrate on the platforms, the stances, the ideology and less on "those stinkin' politicians have to all be thrown out" (which they do, of course, but focus on the philosophical differences.
Somebody mentioned "reducing the size and power of the federal government."
Huh? Neither party wants to do that, and neither party has done that.
Heh. It's true enough that both parties have increased the size, scope, and power of the federal government over the years. An interesting case study would be to determine which party backed various amendments to the Constitution. State governments lost their representation and their check and balance on power at the federal level with the 17th Amendment behind the efforts of William Jennings Bryan and other Progressive Democrats, for example.
But when you look at times when a politician claims to have reduced the size and power of the federal government, the Republican will be an advocate of deregulation and the Democrat will be an advocate of disarmament.
That breaks down to Republicans defining government as regulation, and Democrats defining government as firepower.
Check out Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton. He eliminated more Army and Marine divisions, more Air Force fighters and bombers, and more Navy ships than any other enemy of the United States.
Now that I'm awake, The differenes between the dems and repubs can only be expressed by what they've done to us imo. So, in that vein:
Money sucking, negative return on investment departments created by:
DEMOCRATS
HUD - The department was established on September 9, 1965, when Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act
Fannie Mae, was established in 1938 by amendments to the National Housing Act[5] after the Great Depression as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal.
The United States Department of Education, also referred to as ED or the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. Recreated by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979, it began operating on May 16, 1980
The 1973 oil crisis called attention to the need to consolidate energy policy. On August 4, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed into law The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (Pub.L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565, enacted August 4, 1977), which created the Department of Energy.
Federal Reserve – Created in 1913, - Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States, from 1913 to 1921. A leader of the Progressive Movement, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. Running against Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt and Republican candidate William Howard Taft, Wilson was elected President as a Democrat in 1912.
Many more that are flying under the radar, but those are the big hitters.
REPUBLICANS
EPA – Nixon
DHS, TSA – GW Bush
My opinion is that the differences between the republican and democrat parties have blurred in the recent couple decades, with John McCain reaching across the aisle more than he goes to the bathroom and George Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism, and who also created the absolutely useless DHS and TSA.
Notable - Civil Rights Act of 1964 – See below
Votes By party
The original House version:[13]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[14]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[13]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[13]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
Also note that: On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.
It would seem the democrats are not for civil rights at all.
Also,
All federal departments and agencies. Take an extra blood pressure pill and have a look through this list.
Lastly, and off topic a touch, think what you want about Ron Paul, but he has the only plan that makes sense in turning this 15 trillion ton freighter around from full on socialism, though Michele Bachmann would also make some good strides also. The rest of them aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
There seem to be flavors of Dems and flavors of
GOP-ers ..guess we
can pick and choose?
Kid,
Ron Paul's plan to deal with the impending beasts of Social Security and Medicare debts and defaults is to gut the military and defense spending to prop them up without reform.
Ron Paul wants to turn us into a Euro-socialist state faster than Obama.
[/end Ron Paul rant]
Yes, there are all sorts of Reps and all sorts of Dems and there's still an underlying difference between them.
I've been remembering some of the things I"ve thought over the years about this...
one major point is that the Republicans understand bad things happen and go with the flow; perhaps giving advice, but always depending on common sense.
The Democrats seem to think that if bad things happen to even one in a million people, there has to be a new law against anything that could possibly let that one bad thing happen ever again.
Kid, you're right about the amazing hubris of the Left and how they toot their horns on social issues but can't support their back slapping with facts.
Robt Byrd...in the eyes of Dems is WONDERFUL tho he was a Klan RECRUITER.
Any Republican who even hints that someone like Strom Thurmond could atone for having been pro segregation in his young years (but fathering a child by a black woman when he was 22) must be an evil person who hates Blacks!! (that'd be Trent Lott, of course)
Check out Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton. He eliminated more Army and Marine divisions, more Air Force fighters and bombers, and more Navy ships than any other enemy of the United States.
I don't know, Beamish. Truman did a bang up job by the time North Korea decided to play hopscotch across the 38th parallel. If not for the Marine Corps propensity for mothballing old amphibious equiptment, MacArthur wouldn't have had any amphibious capability to play with.
Republicans Believe: the preservation of our rights and freedoms must be entrusted to a strong national defense and of the ability of the United States to negotiate with other nations from a position of strength.
Democrats Believe: we can afford to drastically weaken our military despite the threats present in an unstable, post-Cold War international environment and the United States must subjugate its interests to those of the United Nations.
I got this from a cool website.
"
Conservative Political Spectrum"
I'll take this any day over limp wristed, eco fruit loops, anarchists, commies, traitors, tofu munching, bean eating, tie dyed trust fund whiners and a dem party that can't escapee it's racist past with the "Byrd's in their nest as well as their betrayal of America on every front.
98ZJUSMC,
Truman? Isn't he the guy that decided not to send men to do the job of an atomic bomb?
Doesn't that pretty much encapsulate Democrat strategic thinking? "We'll just nuke 'em?"
Thank God Al Gore wasn't President on 9/11.
Thank God Al Gore wasn't President on 9/11.
In hindsight, maybe he should have been.
There'd be no damn need for the TSA I'd bet. Nor would we be facing the terror we are today from the ongoing jihad to kill all of us.
beamish, I hope you read UNBROKEN, yet another take on the fact that Hiroshima was better the Western world capitulating to the Japanese. It was a tough decision and it doesn't matter what anybody says, to me it was the right decision. Probably the most difficult EVER but somebody had to realize what the Japanese had the capability of doing and as absolutely HORRIFIC as it was, Truman put us first. And probably saved many Japanese while he was as it, considering how long the war might have gone on.
Imp: very well said!
Leticia...bravo, really good stuff there.
Imp, re Gore, how do you figure?
"DHS, TSA – GW Bush"
Kid, I'd like to add, that "W" wanted the DHS to be an agency.
It was Congress, which pushed for it to be a Cabinet level position.
Unfortunately Congress had it's way and Bush didn't fight it. Another example of piling yet another bureaucracy on top of other bureaucracies.
Here's a quotation just received through email. I think it's worth sharing.
"All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed;
Second it is violently opposed;
Third, it is accepted as self evident.”
~ Schopenhauer
Kid, that was a great post. Wish I knew where to find facts and figures like that. Would you like to share your secret?
Have a good evening.
~ FreeThinke
FT, do you consider SOCIALISM a 'truth' by some and that the need for it becomes 'self evident'?
or murder, or pedophilia, ...
How so "Truth"? Defined how?
interesting quote, that's for sure!
Beamish - http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
Actually freezes the DOD budget, ending the wars. I believe there would still be plenty for normal DOD and military operations, such as equipment maintenance, R&D for new equipment, training etc.
The Dems would cut all of that, so this part of Ron Paul doesn't bother me. I think I'm going to do a quick post asking what benefit it is we feel we have by having loads of our sons and daughters living in hellholes in the middle east. We won't accomplish anything in Afghanistan. It's a bug hunt with an endless supply of cockroaches (taliban). Or in Germany, of Japan. I honestly don't see any good from us being there. We're not in Iran, even if we were boots on he ground aren't going to stop them from creating a nuke.
All we need are Carrier Battle Groups stationed around the hot spots.
But I'm not going to argue the point further because you are free to your opinion sir.
Free Thinke, that was all wikipedia.
Pris, Thanks for the addition.
Yea, looking back, it seems GWB didn't do anything positive domestically. ANd it should be noted, he had a Dem congress the last two years. (and a repub congress that did nothing for 6)
"Imp, re Gore, how do you figure?"
Oh...I was just wistfully thinking that ole Al would ( might ) have visited some serious, local "global" warming on them. Ya know...raising the surface temperature to about 6000k?
I'm convinced it has to happen someday there anyway. Ummmm....maybe here too?
"Yea, looking back, it seems GWB didn't do anything positive domestically. "
Kid, we can't forget Bush's tax cut across the board, that was big, IMO.
That was pretty positive to me.
For the most part, the less the feds do domestically, the better, unless it's cutting regs, spending, and taxes.
Pris, I'm with you there. Though, At this point, I don't think the White House has any effect on taxes.
The dems have had the Congress since 2007 and obama has been in 3 years, and taxes have not gone up. They make a lot of bleating noises but the taxes remain where they are.
I think the tax decision is made by the 'situation on the ground' and both sides politicize the hell out of it.
I am truly at a loss for words.
A few months ago, a college freshman asked my friend (her uncle) and me, "What's the difference between a conservative and a liberal?"
That was an easy question for me, 20 years ago. But this time, I found myself stammering to answer the young woman's question.
Distinguishing Republicans from Democrats is even more difficult.
Perhaps the difference lies in the rhetoric. GOP-ers TALK like they believe in free markets. Dems TALK like they want better conditions for the common man. GOP-ers TALK like they believe in freedom. Dems TALK like they believe in equality.
And of course, they both TALK like they want a better education for our children.
But when it's all said and done, we seem mired in perpetual crony capitalism, an increasingly disgruntled middle and lower class, fewer freedoms, less equality, and a workforce that is continually lagging in skills and education.
My apologies if I sound a bit cynical =)
net observer, I faced the same situation recently.
Dem, repub, liberal, conservative. So much has been attached to all of the labels we use, communication seems almost impossible now.
I, for example, am a Neo-con, Lefty, Moderate, Anti-War, Warmonger.
Wow, you guys ARE cynical.
I've got to say that the differences between people like Paul Ryan or Chris Christie and Obama or Reid are pretty clear to me and some of those commenters here who've weighed in.
Have you read their comments, Kid and net?
Just hearing the differences in the debt ceiling discussions or the situation with Fast and Furious or closing borders, etc...I see them.
Z, given net and my comments, the 2 above yours, I don't understand.
But no, I haven't read all the comments. I have to say a lot of the issues being discussed are symptoms of a much larger problem, the one I generally focus on, which is the relentless implementation of the democrat communist agenda.
No offense to anyone please. It's not like symptomatic things aren't worth talking about but I've done that for years, and simply don't see anything positive in communicating at that level anymore. It's like discussing whether romney the liberal or newt the liberal would be the best pick for the WH.
David Miller, Ducky and SF ... thumbs up. No real difference between Dems and Repubs when it comes to structural problems that are going unaddressed.
Hey Z,
I'm startin' to think Kid is my brother from another mother =)
I concede it's probably unfair to say there are "NO differences". But more and more it seems to depend on what issue and which Republican or Democrat you're talking about.
Under Obama, the Democrat, Wall Street has done well and the so-called working man hasn't. Sounds ironic, considering his words and the words of his colleagues.
Again, I ask, how much different would America be today if McCain were president? Seriously. Besides the push for universal healthcare (yes, I know that's a big one), I'm not so sure. Would the unemployment rate be lower? Would we be "safer"?
And the fact that McCain in 2008, and probably Romney in 2012, two so-called RINO's, was/will be the GOP's nominee for president (in the era of the TEA PARTY) is one of several examples that suggest a lot of the hardcore rhetoric we hear from our politicians is, well, rhetoric.
GOP Family Values? McCain, Newt, Gingrich?
Dems, Champions for the Poor? "The Rich Must Pay Their 'Fair Share'!" Pelosi, Kerry? Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan CEOs?
I also know something about the media and entertainment biz. Big productions are receiving massive tax breaks at the state level these days. Liberal Democratic producers love these tax breaks and conservative Republican governors love the jobs and recognition they bring, even if the subject matter doesn't fit their expressed socially conservative values.
I remember back in the 80s, Asian-Americans were notorious for not voting, even though they were also notorious for building successful small businesses and outscoring everybody else in the classroom.
Maybe politics ain't ALL it's cracked up to be =)
Kid "...which is the relentless implementation of the democrat communist agenda."
No doubt about that, but I don't see it as strong in the Republicans. YOu may be right...you usually are :=)
KP..."Structural problems"...?? YOu mean like things inherent in our system , like earmarks, etc., which are wrong and continue?
net "Big productions are receiving massive tax breaks at the state level these days. Liberal Democratic producers love these tax breaks and conservative Republican governors love the jobs and recognition they bring, even if the subject matter doesn't fit their expressed socially conservative values."
Hypocrisy strikes its beat, doesn'it...well put, by the way...and really sad to hear, though it's not too surprising.
I don't think many of the candidates LIVE Conservative family values... Some do, but as many as the Dems do. Obviously, many Dems have good values, too.....
I think "family values" is hard to define and nothing we can attribute to Republicans anymore. Though I know that more Republican friends of mine believe in strong family, try to prevent divorce, care about mothers not working but raising their children, anti abortion,etc...than my lib friends. But, those are Christian friends, the ones who have these values, so...
By the way, Republicans are 'champions of the poor,' too, they just believe in the poor more than the left does; believing that they need opportunities, not handouts (except while they get on their feet, for example).
WHat's your point about Asian Americans, net? I'm interested and don't quite follow you...
Oh, my point was the emphasis we place on politics, particularly at the divisive GOP vs Dem level.
What is the true value of politics at the day-to-day individual level? The Asian-American experience during the 80s suggests a very real limitation.
The overriding values of politics are obvious and undeniable. But most Americans are just working to have a decent life ourselves. Issues like "Iran" and "economic policy" tend to fly over most of our heads if we're honest about it.
I don't think most Americans can say they would personally be better off if X or Y were in this or that office. Ergo, sometimes I wonder if too many regular folk devote excessive energy to these matters.
I think it is as simple as two words that start with the same letter;
earn
entitled
None. There are no differences. At their cores, they are the same in desire to control, rule, and reign over America.
Don't believe the hype.
Z: "Structural problems"...?? YOu mean like things inherent in our system , like earmarks, etc., which are wrong and continue?"
Earmarks have a nasty appearance to voters, can encourage ethical problems among politicians and business entities at home - and I am against them. However, there are arguments for them. I don't agree with the arguments for them so I won't defend them.
Still earmarks are part of the smaller stuff. I would add Congress living life under their own set of laws and rules is another. They don't pass the eye test or smell test.
I was referring to big things that are not party issues and both parties refuse to address. Like whoever raises the most money wins an election 94% of the time. Or money blatantly shaping political policy toward wall street; Too Big To Fail; failed trade agreements; policy with China; tax code reform. This is what I mean when I say the difference between Dems and Repub is blurred.
But the left and right are very vocal about things that highlight our differences. Some are relatively minor issues that have real merit but are often used as tools protect the differences between parties.
Stuff like solar energy, small tax breaks, unemployment benefit extensions, card check, PBS funding, racism, super committees, voter ID, talks on debt reform that are a farce; reductions in spending that only slightly decrease the rate of explosive expansion of debt.
Tom Coburn has some great ideas. I think he is one of the thoughtful guys on the hill.
This just fell into my lap straight out of the Daily Email Can.
See if it doesn't resonate with you as it did with me:
THE FENCE
On which side of The Fence do you feel most at home?
1. If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
2. If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
3. If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated recognition and respect.
4. If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
5. If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrat's demand that those they don't like be shut down.
6. If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democratic non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
7. If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
8. If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended."
I shared it.
~ FreeThinke
In God's Love
Billy Walker
THE FENCE
You can't get any more accurate than this!
Which side of the fence?
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrat's demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it..
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
I forwarded it.
Thanks, KP...what a very very thoughtful comment. Yes, that's what I thought you meant by 'structural', just wanted to make sure, and you are so articulate about it...thanks for the insight.
I think Tom Coburn is fabulous, too...love to hear his thinking; I'm afraid he's so turned off by what's going on, he might retire. I hope not.
FT.. I forgot that email, have rec'd it several times, and that's the perfect comment for my post, thanks.
It is SO very true.
Z, GW Bush did double the size of the Dept of Ed with the no child left behind, which btw leaves the smartest kids behind and bored stiff as teachers are forced to teach to the dumbest kid in class.
Beside DHS/TSA and Medicare Drug. We'll see what happens in the next episode.
Net observer. I Knew I had another brother !
I once again agree with you 100%.
Z: I would vote Tom Coburn for President in a flash.
You know who else I like to listen to up there? When it comes to Wall Street and finance I like hearing Bernie Sanders speak. He is on fire. He gets all red faced and I love it. He is passionate and I trust him when he speaks -- even if I don't agree. At least I know he is telling me what he really thinks. I hate listening to politicians and thinking "oh really" or "right".
And while I am at it; Dennis Kucinich; I know he's out there but he makes 'out there' fun, even when I disagree. Great sense of humor too. He and O'Reilly together are a riot. He's a stretch on the list as his past history as an across-the-isle irritant when it comes to some compromise runs deep.
In my view, the most courageous of all of them right now (even more than Coburn) is Paul Ryan. The guy understands what men on the Titanic knew: do the right thing. You are probably going to die a slow death -- but if you can make a difference; and we will all remember you for that. If not elect you President.
Kid, I think Bush was wrong with No Child Left Behind but it sounded good at the time........we never know what he got for signing that bill, either...Iraq?
KP...I agree. Coburn and Paul Ryan are my dream team!
And yes, as much as I can't stand some opinions, hearing them given without smugness, and with passion and fairness is appealing as it gets.
Z, Iraq? My final analysis is that saddam Was a WMD.
It may work out there as they do have a unified government. We gave them a chance. (Look at the USA for the first 100 years?) Now it's up to them.
Saddam and his sons being removed from the Earth is/was worth something valuable.
Just for fun, My dream team is Marco Rubio and Allen West, either as VP.
GOOD article for some of you to see:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/02/morning-bell-new-years-resolutions-for-conservatives/
Kid, what I meant was, did Bush have to give in to the Left in order to go into IRaq and kiss bottoms? Not sure... There are a LOT of bills (like No Child) that presidents have to sign though they don't like them.
And yes, I think Saddam was a WMD, too...well put, by the way!
I think Rubio and West are both fairly inexperienced but I'd SURE vote for them!
How about Tom Coburn/West or Rubio?
Z, I don't know anything about Tom Colburn
Kid: Can I convince you of Pence/West?
Rita, I don't know much about Mike Pence. I will say I'd vote for anyone I truly believe to be a tea party member.
Kid: Pence will be Indiana's next governor. Even tonight I heard his name mentioned among the wished for candidates for 2012.
IMHO, he is the perfect TEA Party candidate. I have never heard him speak where I didn't agree with him 100%. He's bright, articulate and (although I find this quality to be a stupid reason for electing a President) looks good.
He's a true conservative. Look for him in 2020 or in the worst case 2016.
Post a Comment