Dem Vs. Rep, Rep Vs. Dem

[OutHouse]

Is there anybody else beside me that feels the whole battle between the two primary political parties is non-productive for our country? I am sick of the partisan crap, its one side against another. If a republican disagrees with a certain view that the rep party has is he going to stand up and say something? Noooo he will vote for the party. The same goes with the Dems. but In MHO think the dems are a bit more fanatical about it.

The members of the party have to remember that they represent all the people in their district, state, county... and not just the view of what ever stance their party mandates they follow or vote for. This is a country for the people, by the people, of the people. Not a country for the party!

 

[konichiwa]

It's easy to say all that but obviously there's something wrong with either our system or the politicians, because everyone is always yapping about "crossing party lines" but when the time comes to show face, everyone sinks back to the left or to the right.

 

[Wingznut]

Yeah, it's really silly.

The dihard loyalists will back their party, no matter how stupid the idea is. And if the other party were to do the exact same thing, the loyalists would bash them.

 

[woodie1]

It is impossible today to find a congressman with a spine. Instead of voting for the country's well being they have to stick to the party line. Then, of course, look at all the pork spending they each vote for.

 

[iceliquid]

<< Dem Vs. Rep, Rep Vs. Dem >>



when they close the door to the public, it's more
Dem = Rep, Rep = Dem

Sad but true.

 

[Lvis]

Some would say that all that gridlock is good, let'm fight. The less they do, the better off we all are.

 

[Ornery]

Silly huh? I don't see any way around it. Just watched a history special about Lincoln last night. About how Lincoln got nominated by the new Republicans because he wasn't quite as far right as the favorite candidate. The Democrats were too split to overcome the united Republicans. Lincoln won with only 40% of the vote. The moral of that story is, stick with your party or get run over!

The other funny thing about that division, was that the Democrats were for the sovereignty of the states. That the states should have the last say in whether slavery be allowed. Majority rule and all that. Lincoln maintained that majority rule fell by the wayside where civil rights were concerned. Kinda reminds me of the current abortion issue! The Southerners didn't want to confer civil rights to the &quot;non-human&quot; Negroes, and the pro choicers don't want to confer civil rights to the &quot;non-human&quot; unborn. Interesting, eh?

&quot;...non-productive for our country?&quot; Tell that to the freed Negroes! Tell that to those about to be born!

 

[Dofuss3000]

Reform Party!!! j/k

 

[JellyBaby]

The two main political parties are the keys to the Throne. Why? Money and influence. You need both to win elections.

Joe and Jane Q. Public have no clue who to vote for. So they buy off the rack (established parties). Voting for a third-party requires extensive research -- Joe and Jane are too busy working 50+ hours a week, BBQ-ing with the Jones's on weekends, and making up for poor parenting by buying things for their kids. No time, no time.

So where does this leave us? In the Land called Status Quo. Most are happy here. What they fail to realize is they could be much happier but for a little effort.

Circa 2030. Poor Joe and Jane are old. Their kids face 70% taxation rates, crime is at an all-time high, employment is hard to come by...but hey they have their social security. It handily pays for their one-bedroom apartment in the sh!tty part of town. And they still vote for Rs and Ds.

 

[Ornery]

&quot;For a little effort&quot; we could have a utopian Communist society too!

• Imagine
  John Lennon 1971
  
  Imagine there's no heaven
  It's easy if you try
  No hell below us
  Above us only sky
  Imagine all the people
  Living for today...
  
  Imagine there's no countries
  It isn't hard to do
  Nothing to kill or die for
  And no religion too
  Imagine all the people
  Living life in peace...
  
  You may say I'm a dreamer
  But I'm not the only one
  I hope someday you'll join us
  And the world will be as one
  
  Imagine no possessions
  I wonder if you can
  No need for greed or hunger
  A brotherhood of man
  Imagine all the people
  Sharing all the world...
  
  You may say I'm a dreamer
  But I'm not the only one
  I hope someday you'll join us
  And the world will live as one

 

[Raspewtin]

I think partisanship has been useful for this country. while Democrats had the presidency and Republicans had Congress, it created an impass that served as an excellent check n' balance to control bad legislation. While i don't agree with every decision, and felt some worthy bills were neglected b/c of partisanship, the benefits were worth it I feel. However, it seems the parties are moving in a converging direction that I feel will only diverge again once we see campaign finance reform and lobbying reform.

 

[Ornery]

What is &quot;bad legislation&quot;? If I were being taxed in the upper income brackets, I'd think that graduated taxes were &quot;bad legislation&quot;!

• Tax Reform Now!

Was Lincoln wrong for abolishing slavery against the will of the majority? With the &quot;check n' balance&quot; we have today, he may not have been able to do it then!

 

[noproblems]

The Ornery propaganda link: Ornery's Bogus Republican Propaganda

 

[JellyBaby]

Ornery,

I noticed Mr. Lennon didn't need Big Gubment to write that song either.

 

[Ornery]

Facts suck, eh noproblems?

JB, people are just inherently too selfish to vote for what's &quot;right&quot;. I hope poor John didn't really think he'd live to see his dream start to take.

Honestly, if you could devise the perfect one world order, put on paper and show the world, what do you think would come of it? The &quot;perfect&quot; solution would be dumped in a heartbeat, because some would have to give up too much. I'm afraid the folks in the USA would be the biggest feet draggers!

 

[Ornery]

The point RD, is that being legal and being supported by the majority, doesn't make it any more &quot;right&quot; than the majority supported slavery. Lincoln only got elected to the Republican ticket because of his moderate stance on abolition, or non abolition as the case may be.

Was he wrong for pursuing that end? I don't think there were any other means available to anyone, do you? Of course hind sight is 20/20, but it was bound to be a bitch either way. Allowing the South to secede may have been an option, but how do you think that would have panned out over time?

 

[JellyBaby]

You don't even need to determine what's &quot;right&quot;. Just vote for what you know is wrong. I boggles my mind how so many people continually vote in Rs and Ds, believing their lies yet again, and go through the disappointment cycle when their party fails to deliver. Oh well maybe next time. Duh!

The freedom to decide one's own destiny is the &quot;right&quot; solution and that's what I vote for. If that's selfish then let me be guilty.

 

[Ornery]

&quot;...believing their lies yet again...&quot;

The biggest lie GWB could have perpetrated during the election would be to promise a tax cut and then not deliver. That is probably the cornerstone of his platform. Now, does it look to you like he is trying to side step that cut? Don't you think he would keep that promise in a second if we didn't have to claw through the Dems to get it?

I'm all for 80% of the balance of his platform and I don't see why you would think that he wouldn't follow through with it if given the chance.

 

[Moonbeam]

The difference, Ornery, is that outlawing abortion is INSLAVING womem and would be going backward not forward.

The Republicans have earned a turn in the barrel.

 

[JellyBaby]

The largest hypocracy of the republican party is it's &quot;smaller government&quot; propaganda. Everytime Dubya tossed out that platform cliche during his campaign I cringed. Government increased tremendously in size under Reagan. It did so again under George Sherbet (who I voted for btw) and it will do so under Junior George. That's an example of what I mean by &quot;believing their lies yet again&quot;.

Tax cuts? Bush will fight hard for cuts for the wealthiest first, the rest later. It's the &quot;rest later&quot; part that worries me and the final amount. But things are looking good so far and I believe rate cuts are most certainly in order. The Ds are whining about details to save face but are conceding. And at least they're reminding the Rs they ought to be responsible about it.

 

[Ornery]

Funny Moonbeam, but as a parent, I don't feel enslaved by not being allowed to do as I see fit with my kids because the Feds &quot;outlaw&quot; killing them.

I do know they're responsible for too much spending JB, but I think &quot;smaller government&quot; to them means less interference by the Fed.

And I still don't see how an across the board cut is &quot;cuts for the wealthiest first&quot;. That seems like sound bites from the Dems, &quot;believing their lies yet again...&quot;

&quot;This is a country for the people, by the people, of the people. Not a country for the party!&quot;

I'm still trying to figure out how this is supposed to be done differently, Citrix!

 

[JellyBaby]

Ornery.

Hi again. The last time I looked the R estate tax plan, for instance, began with full abolishment for the top 1% first followed by relief for the bottom rung at the end of a 10-year adoption cycle. I'm always concerned with plans like this because it gives Big Gubment 9 years to reverse the decision.

If smaller government means a less intrusive government then Rs should just say &quot;less intrusive government&quot;. Why the shell game?

 

[Ornery]

Hi again. OK with me. Maybe old Citrix will stick his nose back in, since he started this!

Less government was synonymous with less spending because so many of the big government programs consume so much of the budget. Yeah, they ought to change their catch phrases once in a while.

 

[Moonbeam]

Right, Ornery, maybe a jail term chained to a bed till the baby is born, or the death penalty afterward. That would be a sight for your sore myopia.

 

[Ornery]

Hmmmm, I don't remember women spending jail terms chained to a bed before 1973, do you?