OT - Republican Democrat - Spot the difference?

kineticUk · Post by **kineticUk** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:40 am

Whats the difference between these ? .. I am just interested.

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:42 am

not a whole lot.

.lm.

kineticUk · Post by **kineticUk** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:44 am

See lm thats what I had always thought, I never really understood it all. I was in high school in America but never lived there long enough to grasp the republican/democrat thing. Its interesting though.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:51 am

The basic difference is that Republicans follow a conservative philosophy and Democrats follow a liberal philosophy.

A liberal would say that a proper role for government is to regulate and oversee the economy. Liberals say it's proper for government to ensure that companies do the right thing (such as pay minimum wages), and to ensure that people act responsibly in their finances (such as requiring contributions to retirement savings).

A conservative would say that a proper role for government is to regulate and oversee morality. Conservatives say it's proper for government to ensure that people are punished for immoral acts (such as taking drugs), and that people act appropriately in their marriages (such as banning homosexual marriage).

A libertarian would say that neither of those is a proper role for government. Libertarians say that the only proper role is to maintain an army for defense against invasion, to maintain a court system for ensuring justice, and other constitutionally defined roles.

A populist would say that both economic and moral intervention are proper roles for government.

Some people classify libertarians as conservatives and some classify populists as liberals. Those definitions fall apart when libertarians talk about moral issues like abortion (pro-choice) or drugs (pro-legalization).

Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan both consider themselves "populists," but the press usually classifies Nader as liberal and Buchanan as conservative. Yet they agree entirely on their most important issue, opposing free trade and globalization.

The problem with a one-dimensional definition like liberal and conservative is that it doesn't define well political reality. The two-dimensional definition is better.

kineticUk · Post by **kineticUk** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:59 am

Thanks knotkranky..
Yeah so I am more liberal or maybe populist. I don't like hardcore conservatism but do believe the government has to sort out social problems (Thats a bit conservative then?).
It is actually very interesting...thanks alot.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:23 am

Cheers Kinetic, one more for ya.

http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

kineticUk · Post by **kineticUk** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:44 am

Based on my answers I most closely resemble a Liberal ... yes !!!

Seriously mate I have learnt quite a lot from this forum today..Its good stuff.
Thanks again knotkranky for the schoolin'

Proper Interesting.
So who's representin the liberals in this US election...are they sound ?

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:26 am

kineticUk wrote:Based on my answers I most closely resemble a Liberal ... yes !!!

Seriously mate I have learnt quite a lot from this forum today..Its good stuff.
Thanks again knotkranky for the schoolin'
Proper Interesting.
So who's representin the liberals in this US election...are they sound ?

Yes is right. Liberals are cool, they get laid way more and are in better physical condition. Less uptight too. An overwhelming majority of liberals are musicians and artists. Hot chicks included. It's a good thing.

No, very few are sound, thats why were all bitching at each other. Many point out that all the politicians are ineffective elitists. There is a lot of truth to that. But not entirely, and thats the part I like to focus on. There are many civil servants killing themselves to change what is wrong with our government. Follow the money.

cheers

D DAS · Post by **D DAS** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:34 am

you might as well just call them REPUBLICRATS

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:31 am

leisuremuffin wrote:not a whole lot.

.lm.

allot of truth in that.....

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:34 am

D DAS wrote:you might as well just call them REPUBLICRATS

again, yes

I'm a "liberal" who always seems to vote "conservative" because it's the lesser of two evils.

However........I believe in my right to vote!

12micsn1 · Post by **12micsn1** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:42 am

Some may think i been smoking up alot of shit but this is a idea i discovered learning about the Egyptian Pyramid and the HOLY TRINITY but this concept can be applied every where.

I would like to interject some metaphysical science and esoteric knowledge from the mystery schools to help those understand politics. Explaining Politics is like explaining the ATOM to a science student learning math and religion an being totally confused about GOD an everythingelse around them like so many sheeple being lead astrayed by corruption these days.

The ATOM is define both by math and science by ELECTRONS(NEGATIVE or -), NEUTRONS(NUETRAL or 0), PROTONS(POSITIVE or +) or simply mathematical - 0 +. If the ATOM was define in religion which the name ATOM has a direct relation its define this way Electrons(Wrong, EVIL or DEVIL), NEUTRONS(Nuetral, 0 or GOD), PROTONS(Righteous, GOOD or ANGEL) or simply evil GOD good. Now in POLITICS the ATOM is clearly define as Left (ELECTRONS), Center (NEUTRONS), RIGHT (PROTONS) or simply - 0 +. The way humans look at the world an how everything is define is always the same - 0 +. The judgement of human behavior is define always the same as the ATOM - + but never 0 because of GOD which is reserved for him an his side of mathematical judgement. There are 90 known kinds of naturally occuring ATOMS. Scientists in labs have made 25 more.

The ATOM explains everything.

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:10 pm

knotkranky wrote:
The basic difference is that Republicans follow a conservative philosophy and Democrats follow a liberal philosophy.

A liberal would say that a proper role for government is to regulate and oversee the economy. Liberals say it's proper for government to ensure that companies do the right thing (such as pay minimum wages), and to ensure that people act responsibly in their finances (such as requiring contributions to retirement savings).

A conservative would say that a proper role for government is to regulate and oversee morality. Conservatives say it's proper for government to ensure that people are punished for immoral acts (such as taking drugs), and that people act appropriately in their marriages (such as banning homosexual marriage).

A libertarian would say that neither of those is a proper role for government. Libertarians say that the only proper role is to maintain an army for defense against invasion, to maintain a court system for ensuring justice, and other constitutionally defined roles.

A populist would say that both economic and moral intervention are proper roles for government.

Some people classify libertarians as conservatives and some classify populists as liberals. Those definitions fall apart when libertarians talk about moral issues like abortion (pro-choice) or drugs (pro-legalization).

Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan both consider themselves "populists," but the press usually classifies Nader as liberal and Buchanan as conservative. Yet they agree entirely on their most important issue, opposing free trade and globalization.

The problem with a one-dimensional definition like liberal and conservative is that it doesn't define well political reality. The two-dimensional definition is better.

Where did you find this quote? Or is it your own?

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:26 pm

knotkranky wrote:
kineticUk wrote:Based on my answers I most closely resemble a Liberal ... yes !!!

Seriously mate I have learnt quite a lot from this forum today..Its good stuff.
Thanks again knotkranky for the schoolin'
Proper Interesting.
So who's representin the liberals in this US election...are they sound ?
Yes is right. Liberals are cool, they get laid way more and are in better physical condition. Less uptight too. An overwhelming majority of liberals are musicians and artists. Hot chicks included. It's a good thing.

No, very few are sound, thats why were all bitching at each other. Many point out that all the politicians are ineffective elitists. There is a lot of truth to that. But not entirely, and thats the part I like to focus on. There are many civil servants killing themselves to change what is wrong with our government. Follow the money.

cheers

Cute stereotypes.

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:17 pm

A liberal would say that a proper role for government is to regulate and oversee people's lives. Liberals say it's proper for hardworking people to subsidize lazy people (such as through unaccountable welfare systems), to remove people's rights to make their own financial decisions (such as forcing healthy non-smoking non-drinking athletic people to pay for the medical results of other's self destructive vices), and by enforcing racist and sexist policies (like hiring quotas or lowering university entrance requirements for people based on the colour of their skin).

A conservative would say that a proper role for government is to subtly protect of the system that has brought us all freedom and prosperity. Conservatives say it's proper for government to ensure that we have a healthy economy and the capability in the long term future of providing essential services (by avoiding crippling taxation and restraining government spending), that people have the freedom to worship, but that people also have a social responsiblity to contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of society.

...Yes this definition is biased. However, my point is that your oringinal definition of liberal vs conservative was also biased just in the other direction.