Difference between Republican and Democrat

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, like between Obama and McCain?

McCain was off his rocker on foreign policy, but aside from that he was pretty centrist. Very few people would really regard him as "right-wing."

What enemies will the US suddenly have then that will begin military aggressions against US trade lines if the US withdraws? Most powerful nations are our trade partners, and trade partners usually aren't enemies. Not only that, but on what grounds will we have these enemies? After all, the realist reason for enemies to exist is because we either interfere with their goals, or we are a threat to their power or security. Traders tend to be neither, and the most war-torn areas also do the least for our economy, so I don't really see the problem.

The only reasonable argument I can see for continued enemies are the people we've pissed off, but the problem is that military efforts usually aren't effective when dealing with terrorism and the kind of warfare that those enemies would engage in anyway, so I don't see the issue.

Also, military action will just piss more people off.

marriage was made AND defined by religion, the unity between man and woman.

not only that but it says that you should abstane from sex and that if you can not then you should get a wife.

Marriage is there to keep you from commiting the sin of adultery, commiting the sin of being gay AND trying to use a tradition thats for an entirely different purpose

well theres the religious arguement the way christians could never put it lulz. probly didnt word it well but idc


gay marriage is ONLY for the financial benefits of marriage. GREED
something purely motivated by greed shouldn't be allowed. Also if they are christian then they should abstain.

Hey Mikey, I think this is not the thread you meant to post that in.

Of course. As we all know, Japan is a nuclear superpower and projects its power all around the world.

Which big businesses are controlling the country at the time.

Oh really, why does a straight married couple get all these legal rights and not gay couples. The way things are right now if somebody in a gay couple dies well than they have a burden for the rest of live. Also its not greed, especially when even married straight couples have financial issues. Its called legalizing gay marriage helps out when something happens to the couple and also makes it easier on taxes and paperwork. Straight people do the same thing.

America is for the free!! ! If somebody wants to be gay let it be. As long as they are not harming somebody and they are happy why should it matter. In fact our founding fathers were a bunch of Universal Deist. Which is a person that believes in a Universal God, however not all the stuff in the bible, miracles and the rise of the dead. Yes the puritans and founding fathers were extremely spiritual. However they were not what you would call "Religious" in the Judo-Christan since. It was the sole believe of a universally god. However they also believed in the law of science and the fact that god make everything out of science. However in Deism you are free to be gay and so on. Even if a lot of the deists beliefs can be based on the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Well, according to the hookers who 'serviced' both conventions one year, the Democrats are kinkier, but the Republicans are better tippers...

The two party system is a system, in that they've kept third parties down from the days of the Whigs, Free Soilers (doesn't that sound like a diaper problem?..., Free Silverites, etc. The election laws are set up to prevent the rise of a 3rd party challenge to either side. The original framers didn't trust their electorate that much (Electoral College? how....quaint...

As for minorities, the Democrats won't do anything to you, and the Republicans won't do anything for you...

Lawd help us if the US had a Parliamentary system, we'd make the Israelis and Italians look like a dictatorship...

und zo weiter...

when two parties are conflicting they use the conflicts in order to grow, in this case the conflict is artificial, watch the votes in the senate, they change their votes in order to just barely pass bills, (change from yes to no with the click of a button)

also an amendment is NOT an amendment unless its either ratified by a 2/3 vote of congress OR ratified by votes within 3/4 of the states by a vote of 2/3 within each state

half of the laws and bills they pass are ILLEGAL AS HELL and nobody says anything, politics is full of it and there is no two parties, they feed off each other, making the other party stronger, ignoring other parties, no conflict no media coverage, the other parties stay small.

there were 6 official write-ins during the last election but nobody knows who they are, which shows both the incompetent news reporters as well as the ignorance of 98+% of america, I'm ashamed of my country.

Constitutionalists, liberaterians etc.

you hear about right wing extremists nowadays, when bush was in office it was liberaterians (left side weren't they?) keeps changing for some reason, I just dont bother anymore

the logos are from poltical cartoons, the elephant because GOP never forgets any slights done it and remebers forever and the dems are stubborn as asses.

Actually you're close - they came from 19th Century Political cartoons by Thomas Nast (the same guy who came up with the current image of Santa Claus.) It was for some 19th century issues he was calling Democrats "jackasses" in one case and comparing Republicans to "Rogue Elephants" in another.

I think they should change the image of Republicans to a condom - because both halt production, destroy the next generation, give you a sense of security and protect a bunch of pricks.

I do not talk so much about the real big powers, like the EU or China, they share some basic interest with the US regarding a relative peaceful world. But I am taking about smaller powers, especially in those regions where the Westphalian System of states is already weak. A small glimpse you see currently at the coast of Somalia.

Those regions are important for the economy - one fine example is Congo with its tantalum ores. Any nation above a certain power has to play here a role.



To understand this regions you may should not look into the post 1648 system of European states, but much more in the situation prior the consolidation of government structures in the centuries prior 900 in Europe. I would recommend Widukind of Corvey, The history of the Saxons (Res gestae Saxonicae), where you see a bunch of warlord (called "dukes") where struggling in constant war for power.

But: When in 850 Germanic tribes were killing each other, it wasn't a problem for well organized China. In global world it would be a problem for anyone. This is the reason why NATO-troops are fighting in Afghanistan.



There is a general problem in this respect: The well proven and extreme brutal methods to establish the absolute authority the state as the basic cornerstone of modern society, as exercised in Europe in the 16th and 17th century, are by their nature to able to sell within a democratic society. We need to find other methods: The military intervention can only serve as a first step.

That's utterly wrong: The current laws (also within the Common Law system) of marriage are based on the Roman Law. The Roman Law saw marriage not as primary religious issue, but as a contract between two families.

You hardly will find in the Bible anything that e.g. a man can only marriage one wife. Those ideas are based in the Roman Legal tradition, not the Christian tradition.



First "greed" is seen in a capitalistic system, like the USA, as the very basis of progress in society and state. Why in this respect it shall be not moral.

Also: Marriage was always in history primary a economic union. This was the case with the Roman Law (which even promoted marriages - e.g. Lex Iulia), but also was reality over centuries. When the oldest and most skilled bachelor of a craft married the widow of a master of the craft it had not nothing to do with "love", but with raise in society and having an earner. Within the ruling houses this was even more obvious.

You hardly find the marriage out of love prior the 19th century.

Let's see, some small pirates are occasionally attacking ships? Doesn't require much power to deal with the situation. Given how weak the pirates are, I wouldn't be surprised if the shipping companies could find a way to deal with the situation if it became essential for them to do so.

Who says that a nation must play a role? It isn't as if any nation can set up a government for another nation, so what role is rational to play?


So, we just have random barbarians? Random barbarians usually don't have the power to be a threat given their relatively weak technology. This isn't the bronze age, where the weapons are all equal, or even where masses of people are effective, but rather a modern era where standing armies can be obliterated, and where guerrilla tactics are very difficult to ever break.


Nation building generally doesn't work. Societies don't work in a Leviathan-ish manner. Next steps after military intervention generally fail, and often times the military intervention either causes a new problem or just leads to a temporary quick-fix that bites us in the ass later.

I said it is glimpse of what will happen: Think about terrorists, think about atomic and biological weapons. It is dangerous enough to have such means in the hands of nations, but the risk that such means would be under the control of groups outside the established system of international law and conflict solving (as it developed since the Peace of Westphalia 1648) would a catastrophe in making.

Therefore it the task of all state to maintain the system of states as the sole actors on the world stage and to allow any free groups to act in any way.



The "nation" does not matter - the state matters. I am talking about the "Club of sovereign States". It is the task of this club to maintain a basic order within the world (a world government would better, but currently utterly unrealistic). If they fail in this task the future of the human race is more than just uncertain.

Also: History is full of examples when this "Club of sovereign States" agreed to reshape or establish new states to stabilize order. Again the most important examples: The Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna 1813/15.



9/11 was done with simple low-tech knifes for a few $. Our civilisation is highly vulnerable against low-tech attacks. You don't need high technology to destroy London's or New York's tube system.



No - we need new methods: We can't use the Tudor-Method of just hanging a few 100s within some weeks to show how serious the claim of the central government is. But what we can do is establishing a modern justice system forcing modern law into each village - if the first few 100s Afghani men are sentenced to years in prison for abusing their wives, a lot will change quickly.

The very first step must be the establishment of the absolute power of the state down to each single individual. That we live today in relative peaceful societies is the result of ruthless (and sometime very bloody) process of enforcing this power of the state.

Right out of Thomas Hobbes. Without the State the life of man would be nasty, brutish and short. It took me a long time to realize just how right Hobbes was.

ruveyn