The difference between a Rep. and Dem.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by truth, Feb 7, 2004.

  1. gregoftheweb Registered Member

    Messages:
    28
    zanket do you actually believe what you say?

    Republicans serve a tiny minority. Democrats serve the rest????

    You have no clue how out of touch you are do you?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    I can defend anything I claim. You don't give me enough to respond better than that.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. buffys Registered Loser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    blah, blah, blah ... in reality a democracy (for good or bad) the leaders serve what is believed to be the sentiment of a given time. The "leaders" aren't the leaders, consensus leads (in other words us).

    We whine and complain continually about leadership but the leadership (in any party) couldn't survive ten minutes without our approval, or our apathy ... you can pretend that a party matters all you want, it usually makes people feel better.

    democracy is a bitch.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. truth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    643
    No it was a Democrat using the Republican ideas put in place by a Republican Congress, it had nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton rode on Reagan's effectiveness, we were in a recession when Clinton left. Please point out any original idea that Clinton had on his own that contributed anything beneficial. I will make it quick for you, none.
    ---------------------------------------
    No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody. -Andrew Jackson
     
  8. shrubby pegasus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    the country was not in a recession when he left office
     
  9. bandwidthbandit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    But you forgot to mention that the reason the guy was homeless in the first place was because the Republican supported the export of the guy's job out of the country to a sweatshop so the company he worked for could make a few more dollars profit. He made such low wages that he put some medical bills that his company's poor medical insurace didn't pay for on to a credit card. With no job he couldnt pay his credit card bill and the Credit card company started charging him 21% interest and the guy was buired in debt, while the Credit card company seizes his house to sell it off for a quick little profit. Also when he lossed his job the social safety net had been so devasted by the Republican's policies that he had no where to go but the streets when he lossed his job and house.
     
  10. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Riiiight, Clinton could just sit back and still be enjoying Reagan’s work 12 years after he left office. The prez who tripled the deficit no less. The Republican party loves people who believe that. How come Bush Sr. didn’t enjoy Reagan’s success? The S&P 500 reached its peak value of all time on Nov. 6, 2000. Hmm, wasn’t Nov. 7th election day, when it became apparent that Bush Jr. might actually win? You can’t blame Clinton for people responding to that bad news. Unless you're a Republican I guess.

    Of course you will think that since anything good that happened during Clinton’s reign you automatically don’t attribute to him. Let’s see, he began the phase-out of welfare, created some national parks and a giant monument, strengthened environmental law, phased out logging, balanced the budget, applied the surplus to the debt, was a huge optimist to create millions of jobs, brokered the peace deal in Yugoslovia. That’s just a start.
     
  11. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    I can cite 50,000,000 reasons why your statement is false.
     
  12. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Republicans don’t really serve most of those people. In their ignorance they only imagine that. For example they think they got a tax cut when in actuality the consequent decrease in average wages and services exceeded the gains from the tax cut. They get value perceived, not real value. They don’t even get the character or patriotism Republicans are fond of claiming they inherently have.
     
  13. gregoftheweb Registered Member

    Messages:
    28
    hmm, my wages didn't go down with the tax cuts, my pocket book got a nice boost, we got the fastest growing economy in 20 years in the 3rd quarter because of the tax cuts, tax revenues are projected to increase in a year to year comparison between 2002 and 2003 due to the always predictable Laffer curve...hmmm sure appears to have worked to me.

    What world do you live in zanket?
     
  14. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Again you base on quarters and now projections that have been a joke in the past. How about actual net performance? Bush’s net performance is a very big loss. He borrowed lots of money they taxpayers will have to pay back and wasted it. You may not have lost but the average worker did lose more than he/she gained by the tax cuts. His economic strategy has not worked; it has made the country worse. And it’s no surprise since the only purpose of it is to make his wealthier friends wealthier. Any financially-savvy person could have predicted what would happen. That’s why the market took its dive on Election Day 2000 and has not recovered.

    The real one.
     
  15. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Haha, yeah, but that's because the economy was so far in the shitter that the only place left for it to go was up. All Bush could possably hope for is to show that he can begin to clean up the mess he made, but the way things are going it seems he won't even manage that. Remember, the economy is in a worse position then the one he inherited.
     
  16. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    moderate selfishness is ok, but if you look at the all-out moneygrabbing of Bush bussiness asociates at the expensive of everybody else in america, including many Republicans(!) not living in Beverly Hills, then I conclude these voters have really shot themselves in their own foot.

    Let's just say i've seen better Republican presidents.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2004
  17. Don Hakman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    619
  18. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,793
    How very noble of them.
    Perhaps, just possibly, they only serve themselves. They are all, both reps and dems, Americans and lets face it, altruism has never been well promoted as an American virtue.

    Politicians don't serve they rule.
    It's in the job description.
    Dee Cee
     
  19. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Democrats do serve themselves just like Republicans do, but the way they both do it is by serving those to whom they’re beholden. Democrats are beholden to half the country whereas the Republicans take their orders from the elite. Democrats can’t help but also serve the ignorant half of the country who incorrectly think they are better served by Republicans; by helping one-half of the country the other half benefits too (except for the elite, who are indeed better served by Republicans).

    Nice one Don!
     
  20. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    Zanket, your posts always make me think of RATM.

    "the elite"?

    You make it sound like we have membership cards. I promise you, we're not that well organized.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    They may not have membership cards, but you're naive (and are not one of them) if you think they are not well-organized. They are in fact organized enough to run the country despite being a minority, while hoodwinking half the populace. What do you think a lobbyist is for? Let’s take one example of many, regarding cheap (legal) drugs from Canada. These are the same US brands dependent Americans love. But Bush has half the country convinced that buying these drugs at a cut-rate from Canada--which got a better deal negotiated by their government--is somehow dangerous for the American consumer. Who do you think Bush is really serving in this example? Why?
     

Share This Page