why Rupublicans or Democats hate each other, or no?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AnyMal

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
15,780
0
76
LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLL!!!!!

I can't believe you guys are falling fot his :laugh::laugh::laugh:


<--------- ukrainian
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: chcarnage
I'm wondering if some descriptions here aren't a bit overdramatic? Aren't the two big parties more low-profile? Is there really one dominating wing in each party?

ha ha go look who is the DNC chairman...
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Forsythe
I'm afraid to say that this is a fairly hard post to read. But i didn't really try that hard :)
Besides, being in this forum actively is sure to improve your english.
Yes but he does write better in English than most of us would in Ukranian!

What you're seeing is the democratic process taking place in real time. There has never been absolute agreement among all the citizens as to how the U.S. should be run. Hence we have a messy, conflicting situation at times.

Edit: Took the rebuke of Forsythe out since I was late to the party.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
If they didn't spend so much time and mental effort hating each other, they might find solutions to problems.

However, good solutions likely involve getting them out of power, so the ones in office hate that idea.

Then, the MSM is sensationalist, and blows everything that's minor out of proportion, while not saying much about things they should really be reporting (it's probably easier and cheaper). So much of it is nothing more than posturing.

Neither party wants to make difficult political and economic decisions nor face up to the nation's real economic and social problems. The result is gridlock and economic decay.
I was going to try to elaborate on how I see the way the current taxing and spending is going, but I think WhipperSnapper summed it up quite nicely.

We need some good introspection on all sides, individually and on a mass scale. We need some officials who would actually try to act as care-takers--people who actually make decisions that are good for their people, more than just their re-election. While I wholly disagree with his politics (especially as far as church/state goes), our former gov Zell Miller would be a good example of this kind of politician.

Sometimes, I wonder how threads like this to not ignite.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: VladSlayer
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Americans want best for America
Debt bad for America, yes?
Why ALL American want NO debt? Why less taxation assesment?

Who likes owing money?? Who likes paying taxes?? Nobody, but we all like spending money though don't we. :)
Yes, sorry, I make the edit late, mean, "Why NOT ALL American want NO debt? Why (they want) less taxation assesment? (which makes the more debt?)
Some Americans say, oh, debt ok, or debt not make important, yes? Some think not bad, right? But here, we have BAD debt, and everyone agree, debt VERY bad for economy (of course, Americans make HUGE economy, so they know). I just curious, if ok, or no?

See, the real deal is that both parties spend like fools. The argument is about what the money is spent on. Democrats want it spent on social programs and Republicans want it spent on strength. Whe Democrats who want it spent on society, need more, they just take it through taxes and give a little less back. They call that balanceing the budget. Republicans spend it on military and science. They are pretty disgusted with our very capitalistic juices being taxed away, so they lower taxes to increase commerce and figure the payoff is that there are more jobs and less need for social programs. Couple that with the fact that liberals seem to have no concept of economics and you get a lot of confusion on that side.

Your wrong as usual. Your fearless leader's approval rating is about to drop off the chart, yet you still get on your soap box and start preaching like the bleeding heart liberal that you mock.

Bleeding heart liberal? You on drugs? Basic econ text. Buy one and read at least the first chapter.

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: VladSlayer
See, the real deal is that both parties spend like fools. The argument is about what the money is spent on. Democrats want it spent on social programs and Republicans want it spent on strength. Whe Democrats who want it spent on society, need more, they just take it through taxes and give a little less back. They call that balanceing the budget. Republicans spend it on military and science. They are pretty disgusted with our very capitalistic juices being taxed away, so they lower taxes to increase commerce and figure the payoff is that there are more jobs and less need for social programs. Couple that with the fact that liberals seem to have no concept of economics and you get a lot of confusion on that side. The fact is that economics is such a huge field that no one knows it very well at all. Both perspectives are probably equally correct, just time will have to pass before we know for sure. The variables change daily. Economics of the 1800's don't work today and todays economics won't work in 3010.
I like the social help for the people, but I like the science too - America top there, yes!? Good to help the people too I think. too much taxes bad I agree (like Deudalus say), but must be enough to pay for what state spend, yes? Ok.

Thanks, ok!

Having a good wife and rich cabbage soup, seek not other things.

Vladimir



[/quote]

If our tech and science programs are so good, why do we have to hitch hike to the space station on the Russian Volga? No, sorry to say that we let our space program lag in favor of social spending. Gave them welfare, not engineering jobs!

My housekeeper in Kiev was known to make the best borsch in all of the former Soviet Republic.

As I remember, Ukraine approved a flat tax in 2003. Is that correct?

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Yes, sorry, I make the edit late, mean, "Why NOT ALL American want NO debt? Why (they want) less taxation assesment? (which makes the more debt?)

The less money you take from people via taxes the more money people have.

The more money people have the more money people spend.
LOL, then just quit overspending. See how simple it really is.

The goverment has to live within it's means or raise taxes if it spends more then it earns. There is no free ride.

That word overspending again? Circular, not flat!

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Yes, sorry, I make the edit late, mean, "Why NOT ALL American want NO debt? Why (they want) less taxation assesment? (which makes the more debt?)

The less money you take from people via taxes the more money people have.

The more money people have the more money people spend.
LOL, then just quit overspending. See how simple it really is.

The goverment has to live within it's means or raise taxes if it spends more then it earns. There is no free ride.

This where liberals expose their lack of economic understanding. There is no such thing as overspending. Economics is circular and what goes around, comes around. It works like a huge servo loop. So if you horde currency, gold, stocks, etc., all you do is take the commocity out of circulation and that portion of the economy gets distorted and eventually dies.


So when the goverment spends money it doesn't have then that is good? LMAO, right. That is just inflationary. When inflation gets out of control, somebody is going to be left holding the bag. I've seen it happen to people. Their defense was that they only spent the going rate when they bought it. They neglect to mention that they were willing to spend more then anyone else was.

Much like the private citizen, the government borrows, pays back with interest, and uses the money to do things. The gains are at least twofold: Wages get paid and interest gains are produced as well.

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: VladSlayer
Originally posted by: Condor
There is no such thing as overspending. Economics is circular and what goes around, comes around.
If true, this is BIG important concept, I think. But why not justly fix ALL problem with spending, ok? I mean, I think it seems it can't be the real true fact, or government can just fix the social problem with spend and make subsidy to farm, and make war and make more pay to soldier, and make all people happy with job. If all comes around through economic movements, then money come back to government in taxes. But then how deficit? People, newspaper, talk, debt, deficit, debt, deficit, but why if all much spending ok?

Vladimir

Issues are often problems. The economic engine is not truly efficient and social programs pay back the least into the system through taxes. The money circulates best when used in commerce. Social does pay back into it, but a lot in the US is siphoned off in the direction of Columbia and Bolivia, and that commerce is not taxed. That makes it a loss and takes it out of circulation. The machine then slows and could stop.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Yes, sorry, I make the edit late, mean, "Why NOT ALL American want NO debt? Why (they want) less taxation assesment? (which makes the more debt?)

The less money you take from people via taxes the more money people have.

The more money people have the more money people spend.
LOL, then just quit overspending. See how simple it really is.

The goverment has to live within it's means or raise taxes if it spends more then it earns. There is no free ride.

This where liberals expose their lack of economic understanding. There is no such thing as overspending. Economics is circular and what goes around, comes around. It works like a huge servo loop. So if you horde currency, gold, stocks, etc., all you do is take the commocity out of circulation and that portion of the economy gets distorted and eventually dies.


So when the goverment spends money it doesn't have then that is good? LMAO, right. That is just inflationary. When inflation gets out of control, somebody is going to be left holding the bag. I've seen it happen to people. Their defense was that they only spent the going rate when they bought it. They neglect to mention that they were willing to spend more then anyone else was.

Much like the private citizen, the government borrows, pays back with interest, and uses the money to do things. The gains are at least twofold: Wages get paid and interest gains are produced as well.
All they have to do is print some money and if the suckers take it, there home free.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: VladSlayer

Ho! Real good funny!!! The Ukraine politician kick with hind feet while licking with tongue.
I like it. See, politicians (all sides) are the same in this regard. Well, that is my low opinion of them anyway. Not all are really bad.

Yes, I want this - they say your woman very beautiful, and most the good Ukrainian woman in EU or American now, so I only have the cow (I not rich, see? If you not rich, or American, the non-cow Ukraine woman not want you. I come visit all the AT friends some day, go to Democratic convention and Republican convention in 2008, ok? Fun! Wow, how would that be?!
hehe. It is said that men want young beautiful women and women want older powerful and rich men. The AT friends could meet at the Super Dome.... but then they might have to repair it all over again! :) Nah, mostly people get along once they get off the hot topics.

My most liberal friend writes books. His books are geared toward the destruction of all humans in order to save the plants and animals. He believes that humans should commit suicide in order to save them. When I've had enough I simply tell him to set an example. We change subjects and laughing the next minute.



Russian Proverb: Fear the goat from the front, the horse from the rear, and man from all sides.
I like it, thanks. :D


BTW, during my life I have met two Russian immigrants. One got their US citizenship during the time I knew them. They and their Father loved America. Her Father was not allowed to leave Russia and because of the political pull he had he was able to get her out of the country.

The other hated America and considered us all capitalistic pigs. We also had many discussions. One of his biggest complaints was having to find a place to live. It took him a full day to find an apartment and move into it. In Russia he applied for a bigger apartment when his wife was pregnant and they moved into a two room apartment many years later. But, he didn't have to find it since the Government provided it.

Having known people from all over the world when I was in high school and college I have learned a lot about other countries as seen through their eyes. It was amazing to know my two Russian friends and how different their attitudes were to their country. The woman was young and the man older. That may have had something to do with it.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: VladSlayer
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: Thera
The current trend in American politics started around 1995. It's basically the politics of hatred. It's not about what your party stands for; it's about how much you hate the other guy. It doesn't solve the problems government is facing but it really boosts media ratings and makes for good theater.

As I have repeatedly stated, that is what of the mainstream media and eiltes, on both sides, want you to believe.

Divide and conqur.

However, espousing hatred works well with the emotional and those who like violence.
This sounds of truth - media make big money in US, make more money, where the big controversy resides, yes? So big deal, hate you here, this thing hate, hate, then people say, I watch tv to see what happen today! Important if so much hate, yes? So people see the tv and make the money for tv company. This what meant here, yes? Has sound like true.

thanks to all! good helps!

Vladimir

You got it. Unfortunately some people watch and read the same news as their friends. After talking with their friends they become convinced that what the media says is true.

Here is a good one, although off the subject it does show how people think.
A poll was conducted about the educational system in the United States.
The majority thought it was in bad shape.
The majority also thought their schools were good.

In other words, they heard so much about how bad it was they assumed it was true but having not seen it in their schools they assumed the negative reports were wrong.

We do the same in politics.

This is the primary reason I don't watch CNN or read the NYT or any of their clones. It is also the reason I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or read News Max.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: VladSlayer
Originally posted by: Deudalus
This is exactly true which is why I say that unions, higher corporate taxes, and higher taxes on the rich in general doesn't help the poor.
Other things don't know, and I NO COMMUNIST NO WAY, OK? But, to the Unions, I see good work for the worker man. I in good Union that I know if no Union, owner don't come to me, "Vladimir, let us talk about you money pay - you need more money Vladimir? Well, if want more, need, call and I make increase ok? Oh, you want to make the vacation? OK, Vladimir, why not, that ok, all should make the vacation, Relax!" I don't believe history like that ever.

"...higher corporate taxes, and higher taxes on the rich in general doesn't help the poor." - this I don't know about.

Thanks for time to all AT people! Good fun and information!

Vladimir



Unions were very necessary in the past. I suspect the Unions in the Ukraine are much like those in America. More interested in power and money then helping their members.

They may get them a raise but the time they are forced to strike means that it takes years to recoup the loss. I have seen cases (haven't paid attention lately) where union members were paid less than non-union members once the dues were deducted.

 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: AnyMal
LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLL!!!!!

I can't believe you guys are falling fot his :laugh::laugh::laugh:


<--------- ukrainian

Maybe they are. Maybe they are not.

Does it matter?