• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democrats Are More Honorable Than Republicans

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nitemare,

This is no relation to the Baldwins you are thinking of. This guy is just slightly right of Pat Robertson.

And in the case he makes, he is correct. Read the article... he makes his case, ON THIS POINT.

Of course, there are many more issues than the point he makes, and in my opinion, neither party can be trusted with our freedoms, or our money.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
what a poorly written article.... pathetic really
Click to expand...

Agree...both major parties have contradictions in what they do. It is not relegated to just the Republicans. They have both gotten to the point where one is almost indistinguishable from the other but for a couple of points. The author takes a wholly one-sided view and does not acknowledge that the fault lies with both.
Click to expand...

The country is taking a small slow swing back to center/right. It would be nice if we could undo the past 50 years of going left overnight, but it is not going to happen since too many rely on goverment now.
 
Originally posted by: AmusedAnd in the case he makes, he is correct. Read the article... he makes his case, ON THIS POINT.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's his position that Republicans are dishonorable because they don't agree with laws enacted by Democrats but are not working to repeal those laws. In my humble opinion, I'd say that is a weak argument. You don't see either party working to repeal laws. Why? Becuase it's a losing proposition. Let's just assume for a moment that the population is evenly split 50/50 between each party. In each party, there will be those that are happy with the status quo. So if either party moves to repeal a law, they're going to see an immediate 50% of the population (the other party) against them, plus the conservative side of their own party that hate change. It's a no-win situation.

Gun control is a sore spot with me. For years the anti-gun political movement has been to create stricter and stricter laws, but the whole time no focus is made on enforcing existing laws. What's the point of creating new laws if you ignore the current ones?
 
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Originally posted by: AmusedAnd in the case he makes, he is correct. Read the article... he makes his case, ON THIS POINT.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's his position that Republicans are dishonorable because they don't agree with laws enacted by Democrats but are not working to repeal those laws. In my humble opinion, I'd say that is a weak argument. You don't see either party working to repeal laws. Why? Becuase it's a losing proposition. Let's just assume for a moment that the population is evenly split 50/50 between each party. In each party, there will be those that are happy with the status quo. So if either party moves to repeal a law, they're going to see an immediate 50% of the population (the other party) against them, plus the conservative side of their own party that hate change. It's a no-win situation.

Gun control is a sore spot with me. For years the anti-gun political movement has been to create stricter and stricter laws, but the whole time no focus is made on enforcing existing laws. What's the point of creating new laws if you ignore the current ones?
Click to expand...

From the op-ed piece:

"I would even argue that if one wants to gauge the veracity of the two major parties, the Democrat Party is more honorable than the Republican Party. Why do I say that? Because Democrats are honest and upfront about wanting to increase the size and scope of the federal government; whereas, Republicans tell us they want to limit the size and scope of the federal government and then proceed to deliberately do just the opposite. In my opinion, an honest liberal is more honorable than a dishonest conservative!"

He is spot on. I do NOT see the Republicans limiting spending growth, much less decreasing it. I do NOT see the Republicans limiting the growth of government, much less reducing it's size. On THIS POINT, they are patently dishonest, and the author is correct.

Now, you can make excuses for Republicans all day long. That does NOT change the fact that they run on a platform of reduced spending, reduced size of government and reduced taxes. Well, one out of three aint bad... except when it bankrupts the country.

Now, on the other hand, the Democrats promise to increase the size of government with more social programs, rarely (if ever) advocate tax cuts and never promise reduced spending. And they hold true to those promises.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Originally posted by: AmusedAnd in the case he makes, he is correct. Read the article... he makes his case, ON THIS POINT.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's his position that Republicans are dishonorable because they don't agree with laws enacted by Democrats but are not working to repeal those laws. In my humble opinion, I'd say that is a weak argument. You don't see either party working to repeal laws. Why? Becuase it's a losing proposition. Let's just assume for a moment that the population is evenly split 50/50 between each party. In each party, there will be those that are happy with the status quo. So if either party moves to repeal a law, they're going to see an immediate 50% of the population (the other party) against them, plus the conservative side of their own party that hate change. It's a no-win situation.

Gun control is a sore spot with me. For years the anti-gun political movement has been to create stricter and stricter laws, but the whole time no focus is made on enforcing existing laws. What's the point of creating new laws if you ignore the current ones?
Click to expand...

From the op-ed piece:

"I would even argue that if one wants to gauge the veracity of the two major parties, the Democrat Party is more honorable than the Republican Party. Why do I say that? Because Democrats are honest and upfront about wanting to increase the size and scope of the federal government; whereas, Republicans tell us they want to limit the size and scope of the federal government and then proceed to deliberately do just the opposite. In my opinion, an honest liberal is more honorable than a dishonest conservative!"

He is spot on. I do NOT see the Republicans limiting spending growth, much less decreasing it. I do NOT see Republican limiting the gorwth of government, much less reducing it's size. On THIS POINT, they are patently dishonest, and the author is correct.
Click to expand...

Yes, he is right, but if Bush does hold the goverment to 4% annual growth, that is at the very least slowing the size of goverment growth. I would rather see the goverment held to 0% growth, but maybe we can have that another year. The goverment did not get this screwed up overnight, it wont get unscrewedup overnight either.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Originally posted by: AmusedAnd in the case he makes, he is correct. Read the article... he makes his case, ON THIS POINT.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's his position that Republicans are dishonorable because they don't agree with laws enacted by Democrats but are not working to repeal those laws. In my humble opinion, I'd say that is a weak argument. You don't see either party working to repeal laws. Why? Becuase it's a losing proposition. Let's just assume for a moment that the population is evenly split 50/50 between each party. In each party, there will be those that are happy with the status quo. So if either party moves to repeal a law, they're going to see an immediate 50% of the population (the other party) against them, plus the conservative side of their own party that hate change. It's a no-win situation.

Gun control is a sore spot with me. For years the anti-gun political movement has been to create stricter and stricter laws, but the whole time no focus is made on enforcing existing laws. What's the point of creating new laws if you ignore the current ones?
Click to expand...

From the op-ed piece:

"I would even argue that if one wants to gauge the veracity of the two major parties, the Democrat Party is more honorable than the Republican Party. Why do I say that? Because Democrats are honest and upfront about wanting to increase the size and scope of the federal government; whereas, Republicans tell us they want to limit the size and scope of the federal government and then proceed to deliberately do just the opposite. In my opinion, an honest liberal is more honorable than a dishonest conservative!"

He is spot on. I do NOT see the Republicans limiting spending growth, much less decreasing it. I do NOT see Republican limiting the gorwth of government, much less reducing it's size. On THIS POINT, they are patently dishonest, and the author is correct.
Click to expand...

Yes, he is right, but if Bush does hold the goverment to 4% annual growth, that is at the very least slowing the size of goverment growth. I would rather see the goverment held to 0% growth, but maybe we can have that another year. The goverment did not get this screwed up overnight, it wont get unscrewedup overnight either.
Click to expand...

OK, that's fine. But if you're going to promise something, do it. If you're going to do something else, promise that. But don't blow smoke up our asses.
 
This guy does make some good points, but dammit, I could have pulled a better opinion piece out of my ass. He needs to take an english class or something.

 
Excellent article and sentiments I've voiced before here. I'd take Pat Buchanon over any moderate republican because at least he's honest. Also If you can't trust them with thier spending, campain lies, etc how can you trust them on anything else? Like iraqi evidence? Then when someone in thier administration wants to tell the truth they are fired. (200 billion estimate war dude)... Never liked Bush 1.0 never liked Clinton either for thier lies and charater issues.
 
Now, you can make excuses for Republicans all day long. That does NOT change the fact that they run on a platform of reduced spending, reduced size of government and reduced taxes. Well, one out of three aint bad... except when it bankrupts the country.
Click to expand...

LOL good one amused almost sig material🙂

OH or except if they lie yet again "read my lips"😉

 
He certainly cherry picks his examples to make his point, which I suspect may be because his sympathies lie with the libertarian party and thus wants to discredit both democrats and republicans; democrats by their openness about standing for everything that is wrong, and republicans by their 'ostensible' stand for all that is right.
rolleye.gif




 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Now, you can make excuses for Republicans all day long. That does NOT change the fact that they run on a platform of reduced spending, reduced size of government and reduced taxes. Well, one out of three aint bad... except when it bankrupts the country.
Click to expand...

LOL good one amused almost sig material🙂

OH or except if they lie yet again "read my lips"😉
Click to expand...

we got a (D) fanboy onboard
 
Originally posted by: tbates757
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Now, you can make excuses for Republicans all day long. That does NOT change the fact that they run on a platform of reduced spending, reduced size of government and reduced taxes. Well, one out of three aint bad... except when it bankrupts the country.
Click to expand...

LOL good one amused almost sig material🙂

OH or except if they lie yet again "read my lips"😉
Click to expand...

we got a (D) fanboy onboard
Click to expand...

weee, come on over at least we're honest🙂

 
308nato:

There are many points he is correct on, but, as usual his arguments are full of holes so obvious it isn't really worth discussing.

Gobadgrs:

what a poorly written article.... pathetic really

JoeBaD:

boring

SegaLore:

that "article" is stupid. yea whatever.

conjur:

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
what a poorly written article.... pathetic really
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MartyTheManiak:

This guy does make some good points, but dammit, I could have pulled a better opinion piece out of my ass. He needs to take an english class or something.


----------
-----------

I was going to defend the article, but after reading the devastatingly penatrating refutations above, I can see my cause is hopeless.

 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam:

I was going to defend the article, but after reading the devastatingly penatrating refutations above, I can see my cause is hopeless.
Click to expand...

:Q I get what Moonbeam means, and agree.
 
Originally posted by: 308nato
Heh. Keep in mind while mixing the napalm that the author is to the Right what Gore Vidal is to the Left.


**Just an FYI to do your homework before yelling about the Leftist Liberal that wrote this".**



There are many points he is correct on, but, as usual his arguments are full of holes so obvious it isn't really worth discussing.
Click to expand...

When I first saw the link, followed with "by Chuck Baldwin"... I thought it was one of Alec Baldwin's brothers of something...
 
For example, both President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft say they are pro-gun. At the same time, however, they both say they support existing gun control laws that were put on the books by liberal Democrats. They can't have it both ways! If they were really pro-gun, they would work feverishly to remove existing gun control laws. That they don't proves, once again, that Republicans are deceitful and duplicitous.

Take the issue of abortion. Again, Democrats are upfront about supporting a woman's "right" to kill her unborn baby. Republicans claim to be "pro-life." However, during 30 years of legalized abortion, Republicans have done nothing to overturn Roe v Wade. All the pro-life rhetoric uttered by Republicans has not saved a single baby from the abortionist's scalpel.
Click to expand...

You have to pick your battles. And this guy is talking in general terms. Republicans can't commit political suicide by trying to pass a bill to overturn Roe vs. Wade 100%. You state your position, and pick your battles carefully. Republicans would be stupid to jump the gun and try to overturn abortion. And his comments about gun control are wrong too. Republicans disagree with outlawing guns from American citizens, but they can't agree to measures that ensure ex-cons don't get their hands on guns? It's not all or nothing. This is typical Liberal hogwash. Trying to take things out of context to make a point. Most Liberals don't think past the surface level on most issues anyway, so it doesn't surprise me that Liberals agree with this guy. As for the thinkers in the crowd, we can see through this BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top