Democrats Suck

Originally Posted by Brady's Article

Hey, he signed off on welfare reform, a capital gain tax cut, and decentralized speed limit control. Also, he at least had the acumen to pull out of wars gone wrong (are there any other kind?). He cut government payrolls and reduced the deficit dramatically. Would that Republican presidents show such restraint!

Yet he also raised income tax in all brackets, put forth a superficial ban on assault weapons, and engaged in military conflicts to detract from his failure as a chief of state.

Originally Posted by Brady's Article

Let us remember that the core problem, in the end, is ideological and not personal. Uproot the underlying anti-liberal assumptions of the Democrats, make them Jeffersonian once again, and you would have a viable party. Until then, they will be hopelessly stuck in the mire at the national level, as depressing as that is to admit.

In order to become Jeffersonian on some level, the Dems need to undergo 100 years of reactionary movement. Jefferson's attitudes towards central gov't compared to that of modern Dems is 180 out.

Originally Posted by Devo

The problem with any of this party-line thinking is many are ignoring the fact that we have major blowback coming our way. The CIA's incursions into other countries are going to bite us back in the ass and we need a president who can handle the fallout.

You're still reading that Chalmers Johnson book aren't you.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Also I guess everyone's in agreement that Republicans suck or what?

Nah, I can't say that I'm in agreement with that. Republicanism has undergone some changes in the last 10 years or so that I'm not thrilled about. They really need to get back to their roots and decrease the reach of central government and continue to keep private business as unregulated as possible.

Thanks for the link.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

I seem to recall the national debt actually stabilizing under the Clinton administration. Not to mention his foreign policy was kick ass compared to Bush, both Jr. and Sr. We had actually met with Kim Jong Il, got him to sign Agreed Framework and, oh wait, he wasn't starting wars to fill corporate coffers.

These are all duties as a chief executive. A chief of state is a figurehead... the embodiment of a great American... basically what you do in your personal life. The sex scandal deal resulted in his impeachment for perjury, making him a lousy chief of state.

And no he didn't fill corporate coffers, but he did get involved in Bosnia in order to take attention off the Lewinsky scandal. I also don't credit Clinton with the economic success of the nation as many do. If anything, he probably stifled some of the economic growth that took place during the 90s with his tax hikes.

The roles of chief of state and chief executive are seperate in other world gov'ts. Like in the UK, the Queen embodies all that is noble and prim and proper, yet she has virtually no real authority. The chief executive then, is the Prime Minister, as he's the guy who's actually responsible for getting the job done.


And Pang, modern republicanism has undergone such change, that it's difficult to even label it as republicanism anymore. To make a blanket statement like "Republicans suck" is far to overreaching. To say that would imply that Abe Lincoln sucks cause he was a republican. Modern republicans are such in name only. Their ideology has changed to the point, where they should be labeled as something else entirely. Really, the same goes for the Dems as the views of Hillary Clinton and say Harry Truman (both Dems) are drastically different.

I remember reading a Regan speech or interview once where he talked about his early involvement in the Democratic party. He said that he didn't leave the party, but that the party left him.

To answer the question more clearly though, yes, the current republican party sucks.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RainMan

It isn't a question of bullshit, but misreading my statement. I wasn't being literal.

As for what I was loosely referring to, I think I am stuck back in 04-05 and was loosely speaking rather loosely (and possibly through my hat since NO, I have not taken a class in Economy) based upon such years in which employment rates were not very high.

Perhaps if you say what you mean, it would save you all the delicate backpeddling.

Originally Posted by RainMan

Besides this, and again, I don't think its too much to ask to consider alternatives for providing worldly assistance than offering up only economical support. As I've mentioned that doesn't do a thing for undeveloped countries, where financial support is oftentimes most needed.

So what in your view exactly qualifies as aid since economic support doesn't count? Are you talking specifically with regards to medical assistance? The sharing and donation of technology?

I think it's a difficult task to render true aid to any underdeveloped country. What we determine to be valuable in terms of rendering aid may be devastatingly destructive to a culture that we may not have taken the time to fully understand. When a state achieves the economic power, military force, and global influence on a level of the US, China, and the former Soviet Union, ethnocentrism is basically assumed. Countries like these look at undeveloped states as primitive in comparison crippled by a technological and industrial gap. For powerful states -who tend to be heavy handed- to bestow "aid" unavoidably results in an imposition of foreign unwanted values upon the undeveloped state. Even if they mean well, the difference in values is in contrast enough to create discord on some level.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?