Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

Ragnar,
If you do not wish to offend anyone whilst discussing religion in a political thread, why keep bringing it up? The fact that you have problems with religion as an animating force in people's lives, and hence their politics, should not preclude you from commenting on their politics, while leaving their motivations aside.

The scary thing about our government is that we are getting pretty much just what we ask for! As Pogo, the late philosopher, said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

[Giulietta]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

It's supposed to be like that Giu, a traditional type of thing, Called the Press Club dinner. Go to CNN website and you can read about it.

What about all the other times???? is it tradition also??

Just joking...ok??

I don't really have an opinion about him..(well I do but am not telling)....

[RAGNAR]

lll

[sailaway21]

Rags,
I thought you were rolling along fine, until you broached and capsized under the weight of religion. I really can't see why you brought it up (again).

And, unless I am mistaken, you expressed the desire not to offend anyone of religous belief. The only "facts" I am referring to are your posts.

If you do not think there is anything to a Judeo-Christian heritage to this country and/or it's founders, that's fine. Some may disagree. I find it irrelevant to the current thread.

What's all this claptrap about a nation brought to it's knees and philosophical emergencies? This nation has many conflicting opinions and problems, but "brought to our knees"? ain't happening. Everyone who knew anything saw quagmire as far as the eye could see in Afghanistan, the 'nation' that brought the USSR to an impasse. Many of us are still awaiting the on-slaught of the brutal Afghan winter destined to aid in driving us out of that country. A matter of months accomplished what the Russians could never get done. Doesn't sound like a nation on her knees. The last time someone put America on her knee was 1776, and the resulting unpleasantness served to validate the original US Navy ensign, "don't tread on me". the fact that we do seemingly everything here by fits and starts should not be confused with inherent weakness. Prior believers in that canard include the Kaiser, the national-socialist party of Germany, Tojo, Mr. Gorbachev and his General Staff, Moammar Khaddafi, and Manuel Noriega. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are still in the process of getting the message. They will. I will concede it is an awfull lot like watching sausage being made, though. I anticipate, the result will be flavorfull in the end, if not the production.

[tdw]

I guess I'm opening myself up to a bit of foam speckled ranting from the RWWs but......last evening on the Daily Show Bill Richardson was interviewed. Seemed like an intelligent, articulate chap but I know nothing much about the guy. Any comments ?

[camaraderie]

Rags:
At present, the Right accepts altruism, duty, self-sacrifice, etc, as ideals -- as does the Left.

To stay on point...I think this core statement of yours is fundamentally in error. The only ideal the Right accepts is that of limited government and the freedom of the individual to make choices. I've never once thought that altruism,duty, self sacrifice etc. were ideals of the Right. They may be personal ideals...but i would say that the word GREED (and I mean that in a good way!!) has more to do with the philosophy of the right than anything you mentioned.

On the other hand, the left talks a lot about altruism, and the sacrifices we all have to make as they reach into our pockets to make sure that our slice of the pie is the same size as everyone else's...even if it is rather small.


I agree that religion is largely irrelevant to this topic except insofar as answering the original question about "what is the difference" between republicans and democrats....and I think it is quite evident that the MORE religious, church going Christians tend to gravitate to the Republican Party and take an active part in the shaping of the social agenda of the party.
The dems seem to get more of the Easter Sunday Christians, and Jewish vote along with the entire Church of Secular Progressivism.
I do wish that the Reps were not so dominated by the more fundamentalist Christian right on social issues as I think a lot of people that would support the economic and defense stances of the party are driven away because they cannot agree with the social stuff.

Now here is something I would like to understand better. Why does something on the order of 90-95% of black population vote democratic?
I get that there are income disparities and that poorer people are generally gonna vote for dems. But we have a nicely growing, well educated black middle class...we have a Republican admin who has appointed more blacks and other minorities to important roles than any other president...we have a strong religious communitiy within the Black community. We have a total failure of inner city schools and vouchers being backed by Republicans as a solution that would allow black parents to get their kids out of those bad schools. And...we have a Democratic Party which talks a good game but whose policies have been a dismal failure when you look at what has happened to the billions spent on "the war on poverty". So why is the Republican Party not getting a larger share of the black vote?

[RAGNAR]

nnn

[PBzeer]

"Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm." On the British hostage situation in Iran, explaining why House members were not given the opportunity to pass a resolution about it.

Heaven forbid we hold anyone but our own President's feet to the coals.

[sailaway21]

Rags,
I find that I would agree with most of your political points in your long post. I also find, again, that your apparent obsession with the Christian Right obscures, for you, the salient fact that they, for the most part, would agree with your political points. Speaking for myself, and hopefully to end the religous conversation between us, I find that the entire basis of Christianity, in particular it's expression in the New Testament, to be ENTIRELY based upon individual freedom. Christians who's entire faith is based upon the idea that they are free to choose to believe, or not believe, are naturally strong proponents of freedom in every arena. These people believe that it is their choice, and only their choice, that makes them Christian. There are no other requirements for Christianity but free choice. And, at risk of prolonging the topic, those countries with the most active Christain populaces tend to value freedom far more than any others.

I would certainly be interested in discussing the differences between republicans and democrats, irrespective as much as may be possible of their religous beliefs.

[sailaway21]

Camaraderie,
Regarding the black and Jewish votes I must confess to the same bafflement you express. The only conclusion I can draw is that they vote democrat out of tradition and loyalty. Tradition originating around 1936, no earlier.

I have had the pleasure to be present for an Alan Keyes speech and found him to be tremendous. He is a fantastic orator and, unlike the Rev Jackson, there is intellectual weight to his oratory, and not just demogogary. The reason that, I think, he has not been successful in the political arena is that he is a polarizing figure. He tends to be a political preacher, not blessed with the politicians gift for 'finessing' certain points. That's part of why I like him, but death to a broader audience. He is much like Bill O'Reilly to a lot of people. You can agree with him on a lot of things, but not like the way he gets to where he's going.

I was listening to the radio this afternoon, while installing the new auto-pilot, and the topic of discussion was infant mortality, specifically in our local community. It wasn't 5 minutes into the discussion, before the designated socially aware person laid a large measure of blame at the door of institutional racism! I cracked my head a good one on the overhead upon hearing that one, and the rest of the broadcast passed me by.

The Republican party is the color blind party of the two. As I see it, color doesn't matter so there is little need to discuss it on a regular basis, unless it is the matter at hand. I, like the Republicans, see no purpose to 'hate crime' laws. Shouldn't a conviction for aggravated assault be enough without dignifying the cretin convicted by an examination of his motives? On the other hand, the Democrats, especially when in political season, wish to talk of little else. To my eyes, there seems to be little difference in their views of blacks in America than the condition of the Kurds under Saddam Hussein. I suspect that blacks, who don't buy into the endless victimology, are probably like most of the 50% of Americans who don't vote. Another words, life is comfortable enough that there is little need to get off the couch and down to the polls.

The Jewish vote seems to be taken for granted by the dems as well-for reasons that escape me. The Democratic party's treatment of Joe Lieberman may, hopefully, cause a sea-change in that regard. Hard to believe the guy was their vice-presidential canidate just four scant years before!

I suspect that the first woman or black president will be a Republican, on the theory of "only Nixon could have gone to China". We'll see. J.C. Watts must have got tired of being broke or something.