Are you Dem or Republican?

Just a question that I had not yet asked at this site yet.So I am asking right now.As for me I am a Republican!
And prolife and I think Bush is doing quite good as our President and hopfully he will win in 2004!If I could vote I would vote for him!
So what party is everyone here?See you around!JM

__________________
Jackie Malfoy
Fourteen
Slytherin
Favorite Movie of all time:Star Wars!
Online offline boyfriend:AdarkSideJedi(brad)
Other Sites I belong tooeathcurse.com Darkmark.com and StarWars.com and Adult Swim.com!

I'd never have guessed

I belong to the Mystics-yelling-there's-helpful-inspiring-cooperation-and-love Party.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Kong is neither. Both of those parties are disgusting, and corrupt.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

I agree with you here Kong, but if you had to side with the mainstream ideas of either , which would you choose.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Heheheh. Too true. But for God's sake Kong - please vote Bush out - take the most pragmatic course available to achieve this. Clinton showed the Democrats at least knew how to engage with the world on the whole. It seems to me, from a distance, that amongst the divisive "left", the only option is to unite behind the Democrats - then pursue them rigorosly once/if they get into power. Lesser of two evils. And Bush's actions have shown him to be basically just that. Evil. And idiotic (not stupid, just idiotic). Him and the hawks and the whole creaking Reaganite-regime still knocking around need to be knocked out. Go on - hit 'em with some clout - then push for electoral reform methinks. Oh yes, and a HIGH-LEVEL INQUIRY INTO THE WAR IN IRAQ. It's time some people got more than the sack.

Kong's political beliefs tend to be liberal so Kong is more in tune to the Democratic rhetoric (not necessarily policy, mind you) as oppose to that of the Republicans.

In the end though, the pair have built a system which requires them to play the same games in order to maintain the duopoly. The depths to which both parties are willing to sink is often shameful.

I am probably by far and away the most political inept person here. I'm about as familiar with it as I'm with the mind set that is Michael Jackson. A definition of democrats and replublicans would be nice.

Don't get me wrong though I know enough that Bush is the sort of person I would never ever in the entirety of my life make a world leader. His attitude towards certain subjects makes my blood boil. His stance of refusing to sign up America for the Kyoto agreement is a serious flagrance of responsibilty towards our planet that gave us life and the environment not to mention his lack of concern for the needs of future generations and non Americans citizans.

His, what I believe a highly biased and deaf view of abortion, does not show a stable and responsible individual prepared to digest and break down a subject in a fair and sane light.

I guess I'm not that Politically incompetant but I'm still not that aware of the definement of a democrat or a republican. So can't say which I am, if either.

__________________

EDIT: Oops, missed Revie's post. This was to Kong.

Agreed. And the same seed flourishes over here. (if anything they're worried that the opposition have slipped down too many tiers and can't sustain the illusion of choice). I feel the main solution could be electoral reform, tho i'm not clear enough on the details (and if there was a referendum, i doubt anyone else would be either )

But it seems to me that many other countries have systems that are more democratic than the British and American models (which have numerous similarities - the most striking being the existence of "tactical" countys/states that decide elections). I'd rather see a system that allows votes to be cumulative for parties, but perhaps with a reworked system of local-representation with more power, but more accountability to local residents. The first part would perhaps require a consensus on blocking completely rabid minority parties (like neo-naze/racist style groups for a start - tho it's always possible that there presence in parliament would be so minor [and it would be], and so ridiculous, that it would only inspire a razing of awareness of their nuttiness, humiliation, or even potentially a drop in their support [which mainly comes from targetted canvasing anyway]). The point is - you wouldn't want to see another Nazi party sneaking in in times of depression (as the-most-democratic-system-ever allowed to happen in Post-WW1 society)....but i think it would only help democracy to have Natural Law party members bouncing on the benchs, and Greens piercing the odd smoke screen.

We can hope - and we can do . It's better than stewing Society is one big pot to brew things in

In a nutshell:

Democrats favor a larger federal government that would aspire to provide services to "We the People". In general, a Democrat will raise taxes on the populace to collect a public pool of money that will be re-distributed back out to the people via social programs etc. Democrats are more likely to spend more $ in public schools, the arts etc but are also more likely to cut spending on defense.

Republicans favor a smaller, leaner federal government with more focus and power at the state level. Federal programs like welfare, social security, etc are effected by this as the Repubs would rather these programs be minimized. Repubs tend to favor a large military and a large defense budget. Repubs will most likely favor privatization of almost everything including schools, health care, airlines (already done), etc. Their basic premise is that less $ spent on government is more $ in your pocket.... and thusly the economy is stronger for it.

Democrats take a basically socialist approach, whereas Repubs seek to maintain a capitalistic approach.

Just some basic ideas.

Tho i suspect the Democrats are similar to the Labour party over here - grown from socialisty-roots, but more and more steeped in capitalist "pragmatism" these days (i.e. they cow-tow to industry and the profit-motive etc, while still pursuing socialist agendas).

Interesting to note that the bedrock of modern US lifestyle and success seems to be things like the big projects of the 50s - i.e. the freeways etc. But after that the industries won the battle with government over who would dictate "best" practice in society - and goverment's ability to limit negative socio-industrial trends, or generate positive society-benefitting/individual-protecting ones never seems to have bounced back. From what I can see.

Competition and cooperation. They've both got to have their say for things to do more than just stay this way, or get worse, i say. - Bush's/the-Republican's policies are a social-death dart to the heart as far as i'm concerned. But the poison seeps out slowly. How long before the social-cooperation that keeps it in check gets brought too low to be anything but ineffectual flecks consumed in the fire of i-want-i-want desire? I don't know. But these necessary and beneficial "norms" are taking regular blows methinks.

Well I am not American, but instead of Democrats and Republicans we have Liberal and Labour. Both of whom are Right of left, Although Labour Claims to be the lefter of the two.

Anyway I would class myself as a

Free-Green-Marxist-Socialist-Democrat

And one thing I can’t stand is being called Anti-Australian, I am extremely patriotic and would die for my nation, I am however disgusted at the way my nation supports Bush blindly. I am also disgusted how my government treats its minorities and how they view money and power more important than life.

__________________
It's a god-awful small affair, To the girl with, the mousy hair, But her mummy is yelling "No", and her daddy has told her to go, But her friend is nowhere to be seen, Now she walks through her sunken dream, To the seat with the clearest view, And she's hooked to the silver screen, But the film is a saddening bore, For she's lived it ten times or more...

I am a registered Democrat since age eighteen, but I think I am further left than any of the candidates the dems will ever run for office, and I honestly voted for Ralph Nader in the last election. This year I will have to suck it up, avoid the temptation to vote for third party candidates, no matter how good, and vote democrat just to get Bush out of office!!!

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

S'gotta be done - come what may, i'm sure the Democrats can't cause as much dismay as Bush-beast and the other greed-feast-ers. (they'll be too busy tidying up his mess anyway )

I now know the difference between democrats and replublicans, thanks.

Can't say I agree with the republican view. Being as I live in GB I've seen the state that privatisation brings. Corporate ownership unless you have a model moral citizan running the companies is a corupt way with dealing with things. A chance for Country leaders to fob off a certain amount of responsibilty for any incidents of incompetenacy too. Our rail service is a major victim of privatism, all those various companies running an entire system just doesn't completely work. Delays, exorbenant ticket prices, a fallible communication all are a result of the greed of these business men.
I may possibly be a little too harsh.

In the end privatisation frees up government money for less austere means like warfare. With a war minded individual like Bush with a short fuse and an eagerness to prove how much a force America is, its like handing a loaded weapon to a monkey (appologies to those whose names refer to apes of any kind )

It does have its plus points though like preventing those in charge of the country a monoply of everything and improving the economy but to me these are only little advantages to the majority disadvantages.

The democratic ways is not ideal either but is the better of the two. Coruption within its members is still possible, money pulled in from taxes could get lost in the system.

It also adds extra strain on the public in the monetary sense, an additional weigth on the already frazzled purse strings. Britain already pays way too much for items (a whole 'nother subject matter which I think would stray a little far off topic here). Not ideal but better.


However I do think a system is only as good as the people behind it. Money hungry business men and war relishing leaders are not the way to go about it.

Oh, and in the last American presidancy campaign, even though I'm not American, I was rooting for Al Gore. Bush has lived up to most of my expectations of him and none of them was in the affirmative of his ability.

Well Rev... it's been a bit different over here.

Hardly anyone could afford to fly over here until the airlines were deregulated. In the price of the ticket were all of the governmental add-ons that amounted to layers of fat. Once that was stripped away then airline travel became commonplace.

I don't see how you can trust a government to NOT be corrupt. They have no competition to keep them honest. Most government jobs really have no accountability factor... or if they do there are so many levels of bureaucracy to cut through it's ridiculous.

Finally, the 'monkey' and 'stupid' calling of GWB is growing very tiresome. I think from now on it should be required that anyone who chooses to use those descriptions should post their own academic transcripts so that everyone can witness and know their genius.

Sorry, didn't cover government corruptibilty though I should have done. I agree with you. Most people even those in government if the opportunity arose would line their own pockets.

I appoligise. I didn't mean the example (a bad one I admit) to infer that Bush is stupid, of course he isn't. I just wanted a comparison of a war minded individuals eagerness to start shooting when the opportunity arises. Perhaps a changing to '....a loaded gag gun to a comedian with a live audience'? Or does that sound worse?

I am not an expert on american political history, but I am pretty sure that the Democrats doesn't originate from the socialist ideology.

This left wing right wing thing I guess is a little different in America compared to for example Sweden. Just because someone is left wing in America it doesn't mean that person stands for the exact same viewpoints as a left wing from Sweden. And the swedish christian right appears to be marxist leninists compared to the american christian right.

Personally, when I talk to americans they tend to think that I am extremely left wing, which I probably am concerning the issues I've discussed with americans. But on the swedish political map I would place myself somewhere in the middle. A socialist liberal if you so will. I voted for the Social democrats, which is a sister party to british Labour. I have voted three times and for three different parties every time though.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Sure didn't.

I don't know what planet they're from. J/K... the Democrats of the 1950's 1960's are pretty closely aligned to the Republicans of today. The whole socialist swing didn't really occur in the Dem party until after the Reagan years.

The Repubs were actually quite a bit less militant (especially about pushing religion) in their public faces as well until fairly recently.

The two parties continue to move further right or left and as they do I continue to run faster away from both of them. Eventually they'll become radicals and a new centrist party will form. Watch.

That's actually not a bad idea. To me it seems like the two president candidates always stand for more or less the same politics so let the middle form a party of their own. Then the centrist party wouldn't have to worry about gaining the votes of the nutty far right and at the same time you would perhaps have a left wing party that actually stood for some real radicalism other than just on paper.

Oh, we can but dream. But the two big-boys will have to become so entrenched they don't realise they've got lazy and fallen off their benches. Oh, wait, guess that's happening