What does "Democrat"/"Republican" mean to you?- Page 4

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:02am

I'm saying why should people live on welfare for years when honest working people can only have unemployment for 6 months. It seems like welfare rewards the lazy and unemployment punishes the hard working.

[LadyGuenevere]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:02am

Ah...lo comprendo.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:08am

RodneyK: You know, not all Democrats are in favor of affirmative action, including this one.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:17am

And "privatization" also has the added benefit that it is a BUSINESS for someone who is then making a profit, getting a cut, of the government money invested, thus lessening what the targeted population is receiving. And I just cannot imagine who would have the money or the connections to start those businesses......

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:17am

jrb, I never said I hated gays. Disapproving of someone's behavior doesn't mean that you hate them. When I was growing up, I did some stupid things. My parents disapproved of my behavior but they didn't hate me.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:20am

Interesting link you've got there, LadyG....the Communists for Kerry link, that would be... Yet another sleazy Republican attempt to create a false impression. My question is whether you appreciate who runs that site... If not, shame on you. And if you do know and feel comfortable identifying with them, well, then, that tells me all I have to know.

I'll save you time.... Communists for Kerry is a creative project of the Hellgate Republican Club — "the conservative version of Billionaires for Bush," says its founder, James Finney, in New York.

[LadyGuenevere]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:21am

I think that it's funny at face value. They have some errors on there- but for a big part of it, they are stating what's true.

And I DO know about who they are, and who the Billionares for Bush are as well. I just think that it's cute and clever. (spoken like a true teen, LadyG)

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:39am

well, i know these guys aren't lying. 'specially about hat flesh eating virus thang...

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:48am

Type a Tiff, generally Republicans have been the supporters of business and a smaller government,less regulation and fewer Federal programs, while Democrats have been the party of the "working people",who believed that society, through it's government, had a responsibility to pro-actively help the less fortunate members of that society. 50 years or so ago, that was the major difference... Republicans believed in building the society and economy from the Business community with benefits spreading downward as the businesses prospered. (There was not the situation of multi-internationals, off-shore headquarters, out-sourcing at the time, the resources at least mostly stayed within the country.) Democrats believed that the wealthy American society as a whole had a responsibility to help the less fortunate rise up the economic scale through special help such as targeted education, health care, etc., before the families had the wealth to provide such for themselves (as they might not ever reach such goals without help). They were two different ways of looking at the problems and needs of society, but the exchanges were usually civil and often compromises could be reached.

Within the last 20 years or so, though, the Republicans have increasingly brought a strict Christian fundamentalism into their policy development. Policies are being set on strict Biblical interpretations of a particular sect of Christianity. To many of us, this is anathema, beyond the mere disagreements about how best to meet the economic and social needs of the populace. It defies the separation of church and state, sets a dangerous divide between the righteous and those without rights, and completely ignores the fact that this is a country built by people of many religions, many varieties of Christianity, but also many devout non-Christian populations. It makes policy discussion or debate impossible, because one side is convinced they are led by God and thus no one else can have a valid opinion or thoughts worth considering, and they are not worth listening to anyway, because they have not been "saved". They are not "chosen" and are inconsequential.

The economic and social differences are enough to make me a Democrat, but the move towards folding fundamental Christianity into governmental policy are what make me a RAVING Democrat. Frankly, I see it as the greatest internal threat to this country since the Civil War.

Sorry you asked???

(Edit was a typo, there are probably more...) Updated On: 9/26/04 at 01:48 AM

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:51am

You must really love that site, papa, how many times are ya gonna post it?

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:51am

^^^^^^^^^^^Nailed It^^^^^^^^^^^ Updated On: 9/26/04 at 01:51 AM

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:52am

Don't know...at face value, it is pretty obvious that BlameBush.com is an anti-Bush site. CommunistsforKerry.com keeps it's little light hidden under a bushel.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 2:17am

Thank you Sunfish, for that. It was very insightful.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 3:02am

Well, for the record, I don't care what anyone thinks of my "behavior". And, what one believes for themself and for their church is fine. But, I wish that supposedly enlightened people would realize that they can support my legal right to marriage even if they do not wish for their church to support that marriage. And, frankly, I do not consider any of those college friends who do not support gay marriage to be friends any more. If they can not support the love in my life, they are not my friends. I will not be their or anyone's novelty--"oh, but I have gay friends..." BS

And, I will say again that I am unashamedly intolerant of racism, sexism, and homophobia/anti-gay bigotry. If this were a fight to stop interracial marriage, people would be having a sh!t fit on this board and rightly so. I do not excuse people for anti-gay anything--especially when they should know better.

Updated On: 9/26/04 at 03:02 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 3:09am

Amen, Sunfish.

And it is quite true that the parties have evolved over time. It was the Republicans who ended slavery. But somewhere along the way the party flip flopped with the Democratic party as the beholder of pushing a bigoted platform. I imagine this came with the evolution into a predominantly conservative Christian party that has reached its zenith in this election year.

[Right Said Rick]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 8:32am

I'm a Republican and I believe in rape for procreative purposes only.

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 8:43am

Lady G, there are so many fallacies in what you seem to believe about the welfare system and who receives federal assistance, I don't even know where to begin. Frankly, I'm taken aback by and sad about what you write. You seem to be complaining about a system which no longer exists in our country.

In the latest poverty numbers, the largest growth in poor Americans (1.3 million) was among children (700,000). Should they just go out and get a job? Maybe in your world, you would like to return to the sweat shops of the industrial revolution where poor 10 years olds were forced to work 12 hour days. Or, should we punish them and their parents (usually a single mother) by cutting benefits, putting stringent time and work restrictions on cash payments to lift them out of poverty.

In 1996, the "welfare" system -- now called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) -- was reformed and rightly so. I agree that we should encourage people to move from welfare to work, and to ease bureaucratic roadblocks that seem to keep some people trapped in a cycle of poverty.

Part of the reform was increasing flexibility of the system by providing block grants to states and minimizing the federal component. And the record of some states has been very spotty -- Mississippi, for example, a state of huge poverty has diverted many of its TANF dollars to other issues. Is it right that by freak of birth a poor child born to a woman in Mississippi receive a start in life less fair than that of a poor child born in Minnesota? As for the feds, the Bush Administration is trying to divert money meant to help poor families to a program designed to promote marriage, at a cost of $600 million. Good idea, huh? Good use of your taxpayer money? This intrusion of the government into personal domain fit with your libertarian ideas?

Further, 1996 was part of the economic boom years of the Clinton Administration where jobs were plentiful and legislators knew that the real test for TANF would come at the first economic downturn. That was 2001 -- and poverty rates and extreme poverty rates (living at half the poverty line) have grown for the past three years.

You write here about people staying on "welfare" for four or five years. As usual, you and your CATO friends tell half the story. Here's the rest: the reforms of 1996 state that with few exceptions, recipients must work after two years on assistance. Single parents must participate for at least 20 hours per week the first year, increasing to at least 30 hours per week the second year of assistance. Two-parent families must work 35 hours per week.

As for jobs, let's consider the Republicans consistently blocking Senator Kennedy's efforts to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.00. Do you understand that a working family of three (single mother, two kids), playing by the rules, paying taxes, and making minimum wage lives below the poverty line. Do you think that's just?

My strong suspicion is that you're the type of person who believes what she believes, doesn't ever question it, and finds "proof" from sympathetic sources to back it up.

Ahhhhhhhhh, why do I bother??????

Updated On: 9/26/04 at 08:43 AM

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 9:37am

I know why you bother, Zola. BEcause you have underlying faith in the American people to wise up to the ways in which they screw over their fellow man. Because you believe that you can love our country without loving everything about it and holding up a mirror to show it its shortcomings and help it grow.
And because you don't want a Republican running roughshod over our country for 4 more years.

[LadyGuenevere]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 9:40am

"Ahhhhhhhhh, why do I bother??????"
Zola, you bother because I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

To the contrary, I don't take everything liberals say, and slam it in two seconds because Sean Hannity doesn't agree with it. How do you think that I came to agree with gay marriage?

You make some good points, I can respond to quite a few, but it'll take a lot of typing, and I have to go to Church (gasp! ) soon so you wouldn't mind waiting an hour and a half...would you?

Bother, Zola, bother. I do for absolutely no reason, because many of you are the same way.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 9:47am

i do love that site, sun, becaue it's hilarious. and flit, it's not an anti-bush site. it's much more insidious! i'm a http://blamebush.typepad.com/ shill!!

did anyone see the mad tv bit last night about the reality show where kerry and bush switch wives? frank caliendo does the best, far and away not even close, bush impression out there. they started with a parody of the debate, oh man...brutal and hilarious.

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 10:49am

I just got back from Mass with my dad (gasp!) and browsed the news on the web and lo and behold there is an article in Washington Post on the very issue of welfare reform. And our social safety net is in tatters. The people who suffer the most are children.

As you will see in the article, people have moved off the welfare rolls (thanks to the reforms of 1996) but not to jobs. They moved from welfare to poverty. This was the fear in the mid-1990s: the real test of welfare reform would not come during an expanding economy, it would come during downturns.

Other industrialized nations have nowhere near the child poverty we do: in fact, Belgium, Japan, Ireland, the UK and others have signed off on plans to eliminate child poverty by 2010 in order to safeguard their economic future. Why shouldn't we do the same?

That would be the strongest pro-life message any party could put forward. It is unacceptable that one of every five children in America is born into poverty and that 9 million children lack health insurance. The only thing we seem to guarantee a child here is a jail cell when they get in trouble.
Have a Look at this...

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 12:31pm

Well, now that it's starting to look like everyone is getting home from church... (Yep, me, too...most Sundays. I like to keep my religion and politics separate.)

I'd just like to point out that having a religious affiliation does not necessarily imply that the person in question is conservative, homophobic, or anti-choice. The far right is polarizing the issues.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 12:42pm

iflit, the Republicans are trying to claim "religious" along with "patriotic" as their specific domain. Don't let 'em!!

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:52pm

In this case, the Democrats own a huge amount of blame for conceding communities of faith to the Republicans. Huge mistake. The religious right didn't claim anything -- we gave it away to them.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 2:09pm

Perhaps because the Dems believe in the separation of Church and State? To the Dems religion is a personal matter, and should not impact one's ability to govern. I would not have been happy if the Dem's had become the Christian party, or the even the Party of Faith. It is a personal matter and has no place in politics.