Can someone pls give me a clear, concise definition of the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Having a 'disagreement' with a buddy and could use some input from you guys...
Thanks
Thanks
Republican v. Democrat
- Thread starter pacerfan
- Start date
Damn you guys, you pull me in, everytime I try to get out, you pull me back in!
There was a time when the difference between Republican and Democrat was like night and day. When I was studying political science, I recall the days of Tip O'Niel and Ronald Reagan -- both of which embodied their party's identity.
Republicans back then were generally in favor of individual freedoms, states rights (over a federalized system), and had a carefree attitude towards business.
Democrats back then were generally in favor of promoting public welfare, redistributing wealth with staggered tax codes, and were in favor of a federalized system of governance.
(Note: Of course, there were many conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who voted across party lines -- but this was essentially the political divide.
Now, 20 years later -- both parties are almost indistinguishable. Both parties are the puppets of big business and special interests, cater to narrow-minded proponents of pet issues, and are more interested in spin control and sound bites that formulating a sound domestic and foreign policy.
Republicans have COMPLETELY ABANDONED the concept of "less government" and advocacy of individual freedom in favor of adapting strict moral codes against certain behaviors (Republicans are generally anti-choice, anti-gambling, and anti- anything that doesn't suit the religious right).
Democrats remain entrenched in outdated New Dealism and Great Society failures that seek to make Washington the center of all decision-making. However, they have moved to the center on many important economic issues. Yet, their social agenda is defintely liberal (liberal, not to be confused with "libertarian").
On foreign policy issues -- there isn't a dimes' worth of difference in the two parties. Both are so hog-tied to special interests, various ethnic groups, and big business (free trade) that serious debate on many vital questions of national policy has all but ended.
Both parties are political prostitutes who whore themselves out regularly to win votes and stay in power.
I have long been a "Libertarian" and am determined to promote the REAL agenda for personal freedom and responsiblity whenever and wherever I can.
Nolan Dalla
There was a time when the difference between Republican and Democrat was like night and day. When I was studying political science, I recall the days of Tip O'Niel and Ronald Reagan -- both of which embodied their party's identity.
Republicans back then were generally in favor of individual freedoms, states rights (over a federalized system), and had a carefree attitude towards business.
Democrats back then were generally in favor of promoting public welfare, redistributing wealth with staggered tax codes, and were in favor of a federalized system of governance.
(Note: Of course, there were many conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who voted across party lines -- but this was essentially the political divide.
Now, 20 years later -- both parties are almost indistinguishable. Both parties are the puppets of big business and special interests, cater to narrow-minded proponents of pet issues, and are more interested in spin control and sound bites that formulating a sound domestic and foreign policy.
Republicans have COMPLETELY ABANDONED the concept of "less government" and advocacy of individual freedom in favor of adapting strict moral codes against certain behaviors (Republicans are generally anti-choice, anti-gambling, and anti- anything that doesn't suit the religious right).
Democrats remain entrenched in outdated New Dealism and Great Society failures that seek to make Washington the center of all decision-making. However, they have moved to the center on many important economic issues. Yet, their social agenda is defintely liberal (liberal, not to be confused with "libertarian").
On foreign policy issues -- there isn't a dimes' worth of difference in the two parties. Both are so hog-tied to special interests, various ethnic groups, and big business (free trade) that serious debate on many vital questions of national policy has all but ended.
Both parties are political prostitutes who whore themselves out regularly to win votes and stay in power.
I have long been a "Libertarian" and am determined to promote the REAL agenda for personal freedom and responsiblity whenever and wherever I can.
Nolan Dalla
I guess staying a independent is not all bad. Only problem seems to be, who ever gets in to what ever office. They all start to look and talk the same. Nolan Im afraid a geat deal of what you say. Is on the money. I know we have those that just will never buy into that. But it seems to stand out more and more.
Last edited:
thinking that an unborn child is a human and deserves basic human rights is not anti-anything......if in fact, there is even a question as to whether the unborn child is human the error of the decision MUST lie in the hands of life.....it MUST.....that is the position of pro-life individuals.....they are not anti-choice.....you choose to have a baby.....or you can choose to use birth control -- plenty of options out there for your choosing......if you choose not to, then there are responsibilities to deal with.....all choices in life lead to consequences and this is one of them
I am a conservative and as lassez faire as you can get UNLESS it interferes with those unalienable rights which are dealt with and the right to be brought into this world and protected in your most vulnerable state in the womb is one of them
the liberal media has failed to illustrate the pro-life position in the past few years and instead would rather cast them in a bad light as a bunch of uneducated extremist nuts living in trailers......
I am a conservative and as lassez faire as you can get UNLESS it interferes with those unalienable rights which are dealt with and the right to be brought into this world and protected in your most vulnerable state in the womb is one of them
the liberal media has failed to illustrate the pro-life position in the past few years and instead would rather cast them in a bad light as a bunch of uneducated extremist nuts living in trailers......
Dr. Freeze:
I see no point in debating the merits of the pro-life position versus pro-coice in this forum because it won't be resolved and will only led to more devisiveness. But, I do want to clear up any misunderstanding about my text above -- I used the word "anti-choice" because it fit consistently with the Republicans "anti-things we don't believe in" agenda. I did not mean to imply the argument you make for pro-life is negative. I have many good freinds who feel the way you do on this issue, and their postion deserves to be heard and respected, although I happen to disagree with it.
Best,
Nolan
I see no point in debating the merits of the pro-life position versus pro-coice in this forum because it won't be resolved and will only led to more devisiveness. But, I do want to clear up any misunderstanding about my text above -- I used the word "anti-choice" because it fit consistently with the Republicans "anti-things we don't believe in" agenda. I did not mean to imply the argument you make for pro-life is negative. I have many good freinds who feel the way you do on this issue, and their postion deserves to be heard and respected, although I happen to disagree with it.
Best,
Nolan
Nolan Dalla said:
I know I got bad grades and dont pay a whole lot of attention in class...but what word is that. is that pronounced "da-va-ca-vinces"
damn Iam dumb
What the heck you guys stay up all night. And no spelling contets because my computer ssmels real bad anf i don't have a chance.
Well stated Nolan on the background of the 2 parties. Dr freeze hit on something also about the LIBERAL MEDIA not representing an objective stance in their reporting.
This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason that the Reagan Era Republican party has lost their identity. They figure after getting pummeled over the last 20 years by the media and finding that sticking to their agenda only got them ridicule in the public's eye, the only thing to do to survive is "join 'em".
Facts and truth are no longer the standard by which the media is held. They have one purpose in today's culture and that is to set the liberal agenda, no matter how they do it and believe me objectivity and truth is not in their book of ethics.
So we are left with a growing population that want handouts instead of opportunities and 2 parties that are falling over themselves to give it to them so they can get elected and stay in power.
I keep hearing that we have to keep our liberties and freedoms intact from the third world zealots and extremists, when everyday in Congress and for the last 10 years we have this liberal agenda doing more harm to our freedoms than any outside influence could ever do. Dashle, Gephart, Hillary, etc etc are also the enemies of liberty and freedom, only they do it from a position of power and influence with a ready made PR Firm at their beck and call, OUR GREAT PRESS AND MEDIA.
As long as the LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA is allowed to set the agenda in this country, we are nothing more than a socialistic society run by ELITISTS under the disguise of a democracy RUN BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.
This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason that the Reagan Era Republican party has lost their identity. They figure after getting pummeled over the last 20 years by the media and finding that sticking to their agenda only got them ridicule in the public's eye, the only thing to do to survive is "join 'em".
Facts and truth are no longer the standard by which the media is held. They have one purpose in today's culture and that is to set the liberal agenda, no matter how they do it and believe me objectivity and truth is not in their book of ethics.
So we are left with a growing population that want handouts instead of opportunities and 2 parties that are falling over themselves to give it to them so they can get elected and stay in power.
I keep hearing that we have to keep our liberties and freedoms intact from the third world zealots and extremists, when everyday in Congress and for the last 10 years we have this liberal agenda doing more harm to our freedoms than any outside influence could ever do. Dashle, Gephart, Hillary, etc etc are also the enemies of liberty and freedom, only they do it from a position of power and influence with a ready made PR Firm at their beck and call, OUR GREAT PRESS AND MEDIA.
As long as the LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA is allowed to set the agenda in this country, we are nothing more than a socialistic society run by ELITISTS under the disguise of a democracy RUN BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.
Facts and truth no longer a standard? Ha, since when was it ever? Also, unless your head has been buried 20 f*cking feet under the sand Ashcroft and his like are just as much a threat to our liberties and freedom as the Clintons of the world. Finally, as I have said before big media is a business and no business is truly liberal. Mother Jones is liberal not Fox and CNN. I agree about everything being manipulated by the elitists, however. Of course one could get into all that conspiracy stuff also but that is another story if you believe it.
Nolan Dalla said:
yeah i know......i don't like the position i represent called anti-choice though because it twists the premise on my stance.....both parties are anti- whatever for many reasons because of $$.....dems are anti-smoking, anti-guns because that $$ goes to Repubs....these two stances along with the anti-gambling stance by teh Repubs are clearly unconstitutional IMO
the media elitists are all, with the recent exception of Murdock, a bunch of idealist liberal Marxists and try to portray the conservative, free-market agenda as being either extreme, greed driven, or uneducated and ignorant......any time i see my side misrepresented i will take exception but also have the dignity to respect the other sides with respect as long as they do the same
Nolan/dr. freeze/et al,
In this day and age when "twentysomethings" are s-l-o-w-l-y starting to outnumber the "old farts" (I use that term with great respect) in the Republican party, I think its dangerous to continue the use of the Republican=ProLife, Democrat=ProChoice line. My problem isnt with either side. I have tons of Pro-Life friends, and we accept each other for it and get into spirited debates constantly. Hell my brother, who is my best friend in the whole world, is Pro-Life. MY PROBLEM, is with people who label the other side as wrong. There is no right or wrong. If you want to debate at what point an embryo is a life, if at all, you could line up 100 of the top scientists in the world on both sides of the issue. So dr. freeze, I respect your beliefs. I respect that people have a right to be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. I would be happy to debate them, but lets keep in mind, regardless of the issue, there is no right or wrong. There is what you believe in and the path of beliefs you follow in life. As such, there can be no one right answer.
But due respect Nolan, isnt the very definition of a political party these days is to be anti what you dont believe in. I mean isnt that the whole point of voting one way or the other? Bush/Gore/LaRouche/Nader or whoever you choose to vote for?
Believe it or not, you can be a Pro-Choice, pro-environment, pro-gambling Republican. Its possible. Though whether or not you can get people to recognize that is another matter. If I told you I was a Republican, most would automatically think, well hes pro-life, pro-bigbusiness, probably pro-gun, and probably anti-fun (defined as gambling, infavor of music censorship etc).
THIS is the major fault with the political system and the perception of politics in America today.
In this day and age when "twentysomethings" are s-l-o-w-l-y starting to outnumber the "old farts" (I use that term with great respect) in the Republican party, I think its dangerous to continue the use of the Republican=ProLife, Democrat=ProChoice line. My problem isnt with either side. I have tons of Pro-Life friends, and we accept each other for it and get into spirited debates constantly. Hell my brother, who is my best friend in the whole world, is Pro-Life. MY PROBLEM, is with people who label the other side as wrong. There is no right or wrong. If you want to debate at what point an embryo is a life, if at all, you could line up 100 of the top scientists in the world on both sides of the issue. So dr. freeze, I respect your beliefs. I respect that people have a right to be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. I would be happy to debate them, but lets keep in mind, regardless of the issue, there is no right or wrong. There is what you believe in and the path of beliefs you follow in life. As such, there can be no one right answer.
But due respect Nolan, isnt the very definition of a political party these days is to be anti what you dont believe in. I mean isnt that the whole point of voting one way or the other? Bush/Gore/LaRouche/Nader or whoever you choose to vote for?
My problem as a Republican these days lies not with Democrats or one party in general, but with people who are dead set on lumping younger, more open minded Republicans with old crank, Regeanite crazy zealots like Bob Barr. The same way that I dont lump literate, published, intelligent Libertarians as being the same as the homeless wackjob handing out Lyndon Larouche brochures at the intersection near my house. Identifying with one party does not mean you necessarily swallow their platform board by board.
Believe it or not, you can be a Pro-Choice, pro-environment, pro-gambling Republican. Its possible. Though whether or not you can get people to recognize that is another matter. If I told you I was a Republican, most would automatically think, well hes pro-life, pro-bigbusiness, probably pro-gun, and probably anti-fun (defined as gambling, infavor of music censorship etc).
THIS is the major fault with the political system and the perception of politics in America today.
Last edited:
Phil (Acehistr8):
I think we are pretty much on the same page here.
I left the Republican Party (as a worker, volunteer, fundariaser, and voter) about ten years ago when I came to the realization that much of the party is hypocritical with regards to what they perportedly espouse idealogically (indivudual and states' rights) versus their true political agenda (quite the contrary).
The party that supposedly champions "state's rights" wants the Federal government to decide what's good for you with regard to gambling. Republicans sponsored the bill to set up the bogus National Gambling Impact Study Commission (a $10 million boondogle to satisfy the religious right). Republicans are leading the wave to STOP states from exercising their rights by criminalizing Internet gambling (Rep. Frank Wolfe and Bob Goodlatte are the leaders -- both Republicans). Republicans want to infringe on Nevada's right to have legal sports betting on college events (Sen. Kyl and Sen. McCain -- both Republicans). The Democrats aren't much better (they are certainly not pro-gambling). However, for the party that always seems to say they advocate states rights over federal control, these people are proven to be liars.
I could get into other issues -- such as the election and results in Florida (where the pro- "state rights" Republicans essentially went to the Supreme Court at the Federal level to overturn the election results -- Note: I'm not arguing the Florida election again, just to say that for the Republicans to have to resort to the Supreme Court when it suits their intersts is hypocracy).
Republicans (specifically President Bush) broke a cmpaign promise to Nevadans when he said the nuclear waste site was something which should be decided upon by the voters of that state. Of course, when he became President and didn't need Nevada's electoral votes any longer, he said "screw you, Nevada." So much for letting the state decide if they want radioactive material buring in their back yards. Uncle Sam knows best.
Republicans say they are in favor of individual freedoms. What a laugh. What about the freedom of a woman to do as she choses with her own body? What about same-sex lifetime partners and thier rights, rebuked by Republicans (again -- I don't care whether you support gay rights or not, the issue is if you are pro-individual liberties it should not be the government's business how people live their personal lives). Republicans have increased the legal drinking age to 21 in most states (because former Transportation Secretary. Liz Dole, threatened to cut off funding to states -- how she ramrodded those changes is a PRIME exmaple of the federal government misusing its authority). Now, a 20 yer old can get killed in a war in Iraq, but BY GOD DON'T LET HIM DRINK A BEER!
I could go on and on. Don't even get me started on the legal issues and civil liberties were are losing -- much of it supported by the Republican rank and file -- because of this so-called "war on terrorism."
One Final Point -- you are quite correct that twentysomething Republicans are more open-minded and in favor of individual freedoms. But these element does not have any influence over the national party. Look at the delegates to the national convention (I've attended two national conventions in person) -- rich contributors, blue haired widows, and political fatcats. When I was a twentysomething in Republican politics, I might as well have been on the outside looking in. Looking at the national leadership (Armey, Bush, et. al) -- not much seems to have changed.
Nolan Dalla
I think we are pretty much on the same page here.
I left the Republican Party (as a worker, volunteer, fundariaser, and voter) about ten years ago when I came to the realization that much of the party is hypocritical with regards to what they perportedly espouse idealogically (indivudual and states' rights) versus their true political agenda (quite the contrary).
The party that supposedly champions "state's rights" wants the Federal government to decide what's good for you with regard to gambling. Republicans sponsored the bill to set up the bogus National Gambling Impact Study Commission (a $10 million boondogle to satisfy the religious right). Republicans are leading the wave to STOP states from exercising their rights by criminalizing Internet gambling (Rep. Frank Wolfe and Bob Goodlatte are the leaders -- both Republicans). Republicans want to infringe on Nevada's right to have legal sports betting on college events (Sen. Kyl and Sen. McCain -- both Republicans). The Democrats aren't much better (they are certainly not pro-gambling). However, for the party that always seems to say they advocate states rights over federal control, these people are proven to be liars.
I could get into other issues -- such as the election and results in Florida (where the pro- "state rights" Republicans essentially went to the Supreme Court at the Federal level to overturn the election results -- Note: I'm not arguing the Florida election again, just to say that for the Republicans to have to resort to the Supreme Court when it suits their intersts is hypocracy).
Republicans (specifically President Bush) broke a cmpaign promise to Nevadans when he said the nuclear waste site was something which should be decided upon by the voters of that state. Of course, when he became President and didn't need Nevada's electoral votes any longer, he said "screw you, Nevada." So much for letting the state decide if they want radioactive material buring in their back yards. Uncle Sam knows best.
Republicans say they are in favor of individual freedoms. What a laugh. What about the freedom of a woman to do as she choses with her own body? What about same-sex lifetime partners and thier rights, rebuked by Republicans (again -- I don't care whether you support gay rights or not, the issue is if you are pro-individual liberties it should not be the government's business how people live their personal lives). Republicans have increased the legal drinking age to 21 in most states (because former Transportation Secretary. Liz Dole, threatened to cut off funding to states -- how she ramrodded those changes is a PRIME exmaple of the federal government misusing its authority). Now, a 20 yer old can get killed in a war in Iraq, but BY GOD DON'T LET HIM DRINK A BEER!
I could go on and on. Don't even get me started on the legal issues and civil liberties were are losing -- much of it supported by the Republican rank and file -- because of this so-called "war on terrorism."
One Final Point -- you are quite correct that twentysomething Republicans are more open-minded and in favor of individual freedoms. But these element does not have any influence over the national party. Look at the delegates to the national convention (I've attended two national conventions in person) -- rich contributors, blue haired widows, and political fatcats. When I was a twentysomething in Republican politics, I might as well have been on the outside looking in. Looking at the national leadership (Armey, Bush, et. al) -- not much seems to have changed.
Nolan Dalla
Last edited:
All excellent points Nolan, I have a feeling we could talk about this for hours.
/rant on
My biggest beef with the Republicans recently has been the god damned Reaganizing of this city (Washington, DC). Personally, I didnt care for the man and his economic politics, his deficit spending ran this country into a serious recession in the late 80's and directly contributed to the collapse of the housing market. Though surely the man and his policies could be another page of threads alltogether. Anyway, the Republicans decide he should get a MONSTROSITY of a building complex named after him, an airport, a Metro stop and if they get their way, an aircraft carrier and a monument on the Mall. Oh and by the way, THE GUY IS STILL ALIVE!!! Bob Barr is a god damn nut job, and good riddance, as he just got his ass handed to him.
/rant off
But as an almost thirty something politico I am happy to report that our numbers are growing. Walking the halls of the Capitol, friends of mine are not just mail opening assitants anymore. They are Press Secretaries, Chiefs of Staff and even Congressmen in some cases. Its not a quick process believe me. But shit these old people sure know how to live long. (How can Strom Thermon live, but Darryl Kile die? Explain in 500 words or less.) But not one of the parties in this country right now, major or minor, has all the right answers. Neither party can claim to be a champion of anything right now.
Keep in mind I grew up in New Hampshire. I went through 5 presidential primaries that I can distinctly remember. I've met diverse guys from Jack Kemp to George Bush sr to Bob Dole to Mario Cuomo. Aside from DC, I would argue the place in the country where you hear more on a daily basis about presidential politics is N.H., simply because of the primary.Year round, every single year, the news is full of issue stories about new/current candidates. As far as 3rd party candidates there is NO doubt in my mind, if you want to learn about them, you should go to N.H. one winter before a February primary. Thats all you hear about. Guys like Lamar Alexander get more play up there than probably all the other states combined. Mostly because they have enough money to run in one state, then they drop out. The only reason, honestly, that I never got into third parties that much is eventually I would find an issue that I found so outrageous, so over the top, that I could not take the party or candidate seriously from then on. But then again, you could probably argue that's the case for ANY candidate, not just third parties.
I couldnt tell if you had "Libertarian" in quotes because you were a party member or just because. I dont know whether or not you support him or read a lot about him, but for instance one thing I would enjoy talking with a Larouche supporter about would be Lyndon Larouche's view of a return to a fixed rate exchange system ala Bretton Woods 1945, rather than the "dirty" float regime we operate today. I imagine this would be offline as I could count on a half hand the number of people that may find that intesting. Coming off several semesters studying international economics and trade, this would be a *huge* disaster. Christ I am falling asleep already just thinking about it. But I digress. And I ramble.
Politics is full of hypocrisy. No party is exempt from it. But fvck, even with all its filth and grime, isnt that whats great about this country? We have the freedom to talk about policies we may or may not like, parties we may belong to or not, and people we may think are crazy or not. We have the chance to form third parties and support candidates like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.
I'll take this system on its worst day over any other system in the world on its best.
/rant on
My biggest beef with the Republicans recently has been the god damned Reaganizing of this city (Washington, DC). Personally, I didnt care for the man and his economic politics, his deficit spending ran this country into a serious recession in the late 80's and directly contributed to the collapse of the housing market. Though surely the man and his policies could be another page of threads alltogether. Anyway, the Republicans decide he should get a MONSTROSITY of a building complex named after him, an airport, a Metro stop and if they get their way, an aircraft carrier and a monument on the Mall. Oh and by the way, THE GUY IS STILL ALIVE!!! Bob Barr is a god damn nut job, and good riddance, as he just got his ass handed to him.
/rant off
But as an almost thirty something politico I am happy to report that our numbers are growing. Walking the halls of the Capitol, friends of mine are not just mail opening assitants anymore. They are Press Secretaries, Chiefs of Staff and even Congressmen in some cases. Its not a quick process believe me. But shit these old people sure know how to live long. (How can Strom Thermon live, but Darryl Kile die? Explain in 500 words or less.) But not one of the parties in this country right now, major or minor, has all the right answers. Neither party can claim to be a champion of anything right now.
Keep in mind I grew up in New Hampshire. I went through 5 presidential primaries that I can distinctly remember. I've met diverse guys from Jack Kemp to George Bush sr to Bob Dole to Mario Cuomo. Aside from DC, I would argue the place in the country where you hear more on a daily basis about presidential politics is N.H., simply because of the primary.Year round, every single year, the news is full of issue stories about new/current candidates. As far as 3rd party candidates there is NO doubt in my mind, if you want to learn about them, you should go to N.H. one winter before a February primary. Thats all you hear about. Guys like Lamar Alexander get more play up there than probably all the other states combined. Mostly because they have enough money to run in one state, then they drop out. The only reason, honestly, that I never got into third parties that much is eventually I would find an issue that I found so outrageous, so over the top, that I could not take the party or candidate seriously from then on. But then again, you could probably argue that's the case for ANY candidate, not just third parties.
I couldnt tell if you had "Libertarian" in quotes because you were a party member or just because. I dont know whether or not you support him or read a lot about him, but for instance one thing I would enjoy talking with a Larouche supporter about would be Lyndon Larouche's view of a return to a fixed rate exchange system ala Bretton Woods 1945, rather than the "dirty" float regime we operate today. I imagine this would be offline as I could count on a half hand the number of people that may find that intesting. Coming off several semesters studying international economics and trade, this would be a *huge* disaster. Christ I am falling asleep already just thinking about it. But I digress. And I ramble.
Politics is full of hypocrisy. No party is exempt from it. But fvck, even with all its filth and grime, isnt that whats great about this country? We have the freedom to talk about policies we may or may not like, parties we may belong to or not, and people we may think are crazy or not. We have the chance to form third parties and support candidates like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.
I'll take this system on its worst day over any other system in the world on its best.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
Ace--I have a friend that works in the office of the Press Secratary. It's a little weird to get faxes from the White House every now and then. It seemed, by the way you spoke, that you work in or near the White House sometimes. if so, it would be interesting to see if you know her. She is very much Republican, obviously. I will actually be in DC for her wedding on New Year's Eve.
dawg,
Physically my office is a block from the White House, but no I dont work in politics. Couldnt stomach the salary However my brother is a Press Secretary in the Senate so over the past few years thats how I've gotten to know people. I'm sure he would be interested in meeting her sometime though, hes always looking for new contacts. My email addy is on my page if you ever want to get in touch.
-Phil
Physically my office is a block from the White House, but no I dont work in politics. Couldnt stomach the salary
However my brother is a Press Secretary in the Senate so over the past few years thats how I've gotten to know people. I'm sure he would be interested in meeting her sometime though, hes always looking for new contacts. My email addy is on my page if you ever want to get in touch.-Phil
dr. freeze said:
But isn't that exactly what the free market agenda is -- greed driven and to the extreme? That's the whole point in our society anymore, make as much money as you can. When we say someone in our society is "successful," 99% of the time don't we mean that that person has made a lot of money? Investors wouldn't be too happy if in the next quarterly report Dell anounced that they were no longer attempting to secure as high of a profit margin as possible, but rather were cutting into profits in order to donate money to soup kitchens across the country. Whilst this would be a sound moral move in many people's eyes, it's not a smart financial move, which is what this entire country is based on -- greed. It's THE number one force in a free market society.
Phil:
One other point -- I agree that NH voters are the most educated in the nation. It must be a political junkie's dream to live in NH in February, every four years. You can practically talk to all the candidates face to face.
One question I have -- who does your brother work for (as Press Secretary)?
Another question -- as a Republican, what is your take on George Bush as President?
ND
One other point -- I agree that NH voters are the most educated in the nation. It must be a political junkie's dream to live in NH in February, every four years. You can practically talk to all the candidates face to face.
One question I have -- who does your brother work for (as Press Secretary)?
Another question -- as a Republican, what is your take on George Bush as President?
ND
texasbc6 -- my point is that liberal media chooses to use slogans such as greed instead of profit motive.......pro-choice instead of pro-murder (the equivalent to anti-choice as pro-lifers are referred to by the left)
the media says things such things as "then pro-lifers want to take away the right of the woman to do what she wants with her own body" instead of saying that as ANY scientist will tell you -- her own body stops on the other side of the chorion -- her own body has its own genetic makeup -- that is what determines her own body and nothing else.......if I put someones hand in my mouth and eat it, -- the argument which says i can do what i want with my own body carries about as much weight to rationalize that as it does abortion
acehistr8 -- saying that there isn't a "right" side of the issue totally contradicts my beliefs.....I believe as do many people that there are rights and wrongs and that your position on abortion is wrong.....I believe that hitler was wrong when he declared the Jews, gays and other minorities as something as less than human and also believe that the abortionists are wrong when they declare the fetus as something less than human....i believe in a moral code and in natural law and i completely and furvently disagree with moral relavitism
the media says things such things as "then pro-lifers want to take away the right of the woman to do what she wants with her own body" instead of saying that as ANY scientist will tell you -- her own body stops on the other side of the chorion -- her own body has its own genetic makeup -- that is what determines her own body and nothing else.......if I put someones hand in my mouth and eat it, -- the argument which says i can do what i want with my own body carries about as much weight to rationalize that as it does abortion
acehistr8 -- saying that there isn't a "right" side of the issue totally contradicts my beliefs.....I believe as do many people that there are rights and wrongs and that your position on abortion is wrong.....I believe that hitler was wrong when he declared the Jews, gays and other minorities as something as less than human and also believe that the abortionists are wrong when they declare the fetus as something less than human....i believe in a moral code and in natural law and i completely and furvently disagree with moral relavitism
