POLL: GOP Leadership in the US

Remove all ads!

reepnorp ... GOP = Grand Old Party, aka Republicans. The party that brought you Ronald Regan & George Bush (both of them)

 

And Iran Contra and Watergate. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

Actually Latches, aren't Ronald Reagan and George Bush (Snr and Jnr) far more damning?

[ December 07, 2002, 01:58: Message edited by: Viking ]

 

And now all those crooks from Iran/contra are getting their payback with nice cushy jobs spying on all of us.
There's a Grand Ole Party for ya.

 

scampy ... not to mix it up with you .... but wouldn't you rather have people in office who got in trouble trying to further the interests of democracy around the world instead of the folks who brought us the great phrase "That depends on what "is" means"....and "I did not inhale that woman!" (or something like that )

Gotta admit, at least when the Republicans sin, its more like a Tom Clancy novel than a Soap Opera!

 

Er... people who make mistakes involving missiles instead of mistakes involving sex? Actually, no. I do prefer sex to missiles, even where politicians are concerned. And I'm not even a Democrat!

 

The true mistake wasn't even the sex - that should have been entirely between Bill, Hillary, and Monica (and anyone else involved in the exchange of bodily fluids outside of marriage). Clinton's real mistake was lying about the sex - and having DREADFUL taste in tarts.

When will public figures learn that the consequences are generally much easier when you 'fess up to your mistakes right away, rather than trying desperately to cover things up? Even toddlers figure this out pretty soon.

 

rally... good point.

Sprite, I was kidding .. mostly. The truth is, the Iran/Contra thing was way over-blown by the media. We could do a thread on that... but its old news.

 

US sponsored death squadrons and terrorists overblown? People have different priorites on what is important.

 

'further interests of democracy around the world'?!!!
With the spin coming off that statement I could blow dry my rather long mane of hair!
My gosh, how does operating a government with complete disregard to the law and its governing principals help democracy?

 

scampy ... glad to assist with some blow-drying!

Confused Jerk (I can't spell Jocquin )...seriously, the Sandinistas (sp?) were an oppressive, totalitarian regime. They were killing thousands of civilians and needed to be stopped. Clinton would have waited until he needed the pressure off of his personal life and lies, and then bombed them. The Reagan administration took a slightly different approach.

Hard to defend either side 100%, but its much harder to lionize either side when you know the facts (and not just the so-called facts that you'll get on CNN or ABC news)

 

Math, I could think of better things for you to do with my hair

and, on topic- the ends do not justify the means

 

could someone around here explain the difference between republicans and democrats to me? I mean seriously? The one party is on the right side of the table and the other party is on the ground at the right side of the table (due to falling of)

IMHO the only difference between the two parties is the different prodent smile!

but perhaps it is just my european "America is our big bad brother" opinion playing up, so enlighten me please!

 

aegorn ... today the republicans are more conservative, small government, big military with a world view that peace is best promoted by force. The democratic party is more liberal, promoting a large government, small military and a world view that peace is best promoted by diplomatic intervention and appeasement. Republicans are stereotyped as white & rich, while Democrats get painted as minority and union.

It was not always so. A famous republican (Abe Lincoln) brought the aboloition of slavery. They also brought the end of Jim Crow laws (which were promoted by Democrats) the end of poll taxes (when southern states would charge african americans extra money just to vote), and segregation in the schools (civil rights amendment, supported Brown v. Board of Education, etc. etc)

Honestly, I don't live & die by the republican party, but I do tend to agree more with them than I do with the democrats.

Hope this helps.

 

ok I still don't think either one is such a great option (ever heard of social democrats or christian parties?). but if i had to choose one it would be (grudgingly)democrats. But I really think the system in Holland works better = a coalition goverment.

:ducks and runs for cover while the Britons and the Americans start frothing and kicking around:

[ December 11, 2002, 17:52: Message edited by: aegron ]

 

So, if Republicans are for less government as well as states rights, why aren't they up in arms right now? It's like you guys want your cake and eat it too.

A number of initiatives were voted into state law which have been shot down by Ashcroft i.e. medical marijuana, doctor assisted suicide come to mind. I guess when it comes to issues Republicans don't agree with it's OK for the Government to intrude?

I'd say anti-union would be a fair description of the current administration.

 

scarampella ... exactly!

the republicans are not perfect...just less evil than the democrats

 

What about Trent Lott?

After all your associating the Rep's with freedom for blacks, what do you think of that creep?
He sounds pretty evil to me. Rsallying up with white supremacists..

 

/Me guards Aegron

Agreed. In Holland (and yes, probably a lot more countries) we have lets say 12 (?) parties. If 2 is not enough, then there are 10 more to choose from. Problem is that they must form a coalition and that doesn't seem to work well allways (something to do with the LPF and 87 days).
I voted on a christian party, neither lefts, nor rights, not even middle.

Oops, didn't notice there were already 2 pages of posts. heheh

[ December 11, 2002, 22:50: Message edited by: Master of Nuhn ]

 

but that not the fault of the coalition system, that the fault of choosing a leaderless list to join in the coalition.