Jump to content

Republican or Democrat?


yochillout

Recommended Posts

The only thing worse than the parties fighting each other, is when they agree.  American's were duped into the war with Iraq because it became a "lets bash France" affair.  Remember Freedom Fries, dumping wine in the streets, etc?  Both parties jumped on that bandwagon, now neither one will take responsibility for what has happened.  Why doesn't anyone care?  Well that's because they are still lost in the my party vs yours fights. 

America is fu cked

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again Metro, your words of wisdom have helped focus this discussion in a more positive and thought provoking direction. You are correct to mention that people need to question their choices more, and to think about the consequences of these choices. Its not a vs contest. The dems and reps are so damn similar, its hard for me to tell them apart. They differ on very few issues. It is, IMO a woeful mistake to label yourself a member of any of these political parties. They dont stand for anything. The dems are too afraid to be left wing, and the reps are fear-mongers.

I'm still bitter about the rampant francophobia that has gripped the nation in recent years. Its absolutely uncalled for. But that seems to be the trend lately. America is not united in freedom... its united in hatred directed towards the rest of the world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

They dont stand for anything.  The dems are too afraid to be left wing, and the reps are fear-mongers. 

I'm still bitter about the rampant francophobia that has gripped the nation in recent years.  Its absolutely uncalled for.  But that seems to be the trend lately.  America is not united in freedom... its united in hatred directed towards the rest of the world...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with the overall message LeTaureau, I wouldn't go so far as to say the parties "stand for nothing" but I can understand where that comes from--the promise one thing deliver another, flavor of the political day type actions by both. As far as fear mongers theres plenty to go around to both sides on that, the Dems with the elderly on their social security (all valid claims but where is the alternative?) and the GOP with the Bible Belt on morality issues (again all valid claims but its no long 1950 so where's the alternative solution?).

As far as Francophobia, I really hope it hasn't gotten that bad yet, from what I've seen there is a weak boycott and France isn't being visited as much (which I suspect owes much more to the strengthening Euro rather then anything against the French). The French people are wonderful, and share many of the same values and hopes as Americans, so it is sad that current politics is getting in the way in some minds. A few points on the French Government however, many of us "middle Americans" have been fed the fact that France is the nation with the most spies in our midst--not China, not Cuba, not North Korea or Iran, France? If you were told that about a nation you'd wonder why. It is also getting huge airplay that wether or not you think the war was right, Colin Powell yielded to the French on several occasions to help both parties see eye-to-eye, instead of just coming and facing the Secretary of State, the French waited till the last moment and droped the 800 lb. gorilla on us in the middle of the U.N. assembly. Say the French are right (and they very well might be) then why not just call Bush and say it to his face or work with Colin Powell to moderate the position or plank. It wasn't done that way, putting American GIs in greater harm. Colin Powell was surprised at the French reaction that day--not exactly the best diplomatic way to put it for the French. The Oil for Food scandal and French contracts with Iraq AFTER sanctions also is a thorn in the relationship. I know that in the world of politics much is propaganda and pagentry and when its not pure its usually to polish off a t*rd. The French are a powerful and resilent people--similar to the Americans and we'd let each other down if we the people let politics and misunderstanding rule the day, the cloak and dagger stuff on both sides needs to be stopped though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still bitter about the rampant francophobia that has gripped the nation in recent years.  Its absolutely uncalled for.  But that seems to be the trend lately.  America is not united in freedom... its united in hatred directed towards the rest of the world...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just re-read that last part, if its happening it shouldn't be but Americans don't start to distrust for lack of reason, the reasons are the ones I've mentioned above. If you feel they don't hold water, please feel free to share it, I for one am here to learn how the world is doing today :).

As far as united in hatred . . . Tsunami relief? Immigration? Charities? Largest donor to the UN? The military we pay for serving South Asia right now? I can go on. The war in Iraq is not making me happy but do you honestly feel they would be better under 30 more years of Saddam--yes it's very ugly and inhuman in some areas there but for much of the country peace and prosperity is taking root.

LeTaureau "united in hatred" when Detroits infrastructure is collapsing and Pittsburgh can't pay it's bills but hundreds of billions are going overseas for relief, food etc. dilutes the strong points you bring up earlier in your statement. Just as America has extremists that call for nationalism, protectionism, dropping the bomb, cutting off aid etc. France needs to tune out the "America hates" crowd. Facts should be discussed, but blanket statements like that do neither of our peoples any good. Just my take on it, interested in hearing from others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"United in hatred"

I think that phrase makes you lookd bad, but thats just my opinion.

Some (not all) liberals are stereotyped as "America Haters." They see nothing good about what is going on with anything and will gladly make any attempt to put down and degrade our country.

One thing about politics is that you will find it very hard to change people's opinions about things, which is why it ususally boils down to a party vs party debate.

I think that you should try to remain positive about what is going on. I personally don't agree 100% with Iraq, but its happenining and I can't change that. So why not look at it this way: these people have freedom now. They can own and watch TV, they have reliable electricity, water, and other services. Kids can go to school- all of them (girls too!). They have stability. What you see on TV is blown out of proportion by the media. These events do occur, but they are in a relatively small area. Think about all the areas that do not have bombs every day- Mosul, Basra, and cities in those areas (I don't know the names). Most of Iraq is getting on with business and life. If you focus only on the negative, then I can see why people are "united in hatred."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, PGHUSA.  I'm a typical schlub from the south with distant French heritage, and I always thought that the French were our friends.  But I don't anymore.  The simple fact is that most Americans don't trust the French, and both countries really don't like each other.  Maybe these feelings will change someday, but it doesn't look very good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In defense of France, its not really the French, its their leaders. I hope that most people can see that the average Frenchman is just like us. Its the leaderas that are squaballing. I've been to France twice- once since September 11. The people over there are just as nice as anyone here.

That said, I am not a fan of Chirac. The fact that France nearly elected a Neo-Nazi says alot about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ agreed, it is the misunderstandings and some of the "radicals" that make us close our minds and agree to things "to beat the joneses" and pis contents. France and the U.S. governments both play this game, IMHO the French government incites the majority of it, but it takes two to tango. Just that statement though is the reason why this mistrust exists. We all need to keep an open mind and discuss the facts, to label a hole nation haters, or whimps etc. etc. is just unreasonable. Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is setting up a democracy right now in Iraq, and this is for good reasons. Do democratic nations usually attack the united states? The answer is no. If we were to not take down Saddam Husein from power, Iraq would continue to threaten the surrounding countries that are our allies. Not to mention the unspeakable genocidesthat were committed by his top leaders and himself. Some of Saddam's top advisers and leaders committed countless offenses against the world with taunts and lies proclaming that they did not posses any weapons that were set up as illegal by UN standards. When Un inspectors went into the country of Iraq they found many SCUD missiles which were illegal. The world today can not have leaders like Saddam who put countless lives at stake because he thinks that the US and its allies will watch and resent his actions and not do anything about it. We can not have a leader of a country who commits crimes against his own people, and we can certainly not have a leader there who wants to harm the people of the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is setting up a democracy right now in Iraq, and this is for good reasons.  Do democratic nations usually attack the united states?  The answer is no.  If we were to not take down Saddam Husein from power, Iraq would continue to threaten the surrounding countries that are our allies.  Not to mention the unspeakable genocidesthat were committed by his top leaders and himself.  Some of Saddam's top advisers and leaders committed countless offenses against the world with taunts and lies proclaming that they did not posses any weapons that were set up as illegal by UN standards.  When Un inspectors went into the country of Iraq they found many SCUD missiles which were illegal.  The world today can not have leaders like Saddam who put countless lives at stake because he thinks that the US and its allies will watch and resent his actions and not do anything about it.  We can not have a leader of a country who commits crimes against his own people, and we can certainly not have a leader there who wants to harm the people of the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't forgotten about this, but I can't give it the amount of attention it deserves right now. I'll give a rebuttal when midterms are over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is setting up a democracy right now in Iraq, and this is for good reasons.  Do democratic nations usually attack the united states?  The answer is no.  If we were to not take down Saddam Husein from power, Iraq would continue to threaten the surrounding countries that are our allies.  Not to mention the unspeakable genocidesthat were committed by his top leaders and himself.  Some of Saddam's top advisers and leaders committed countless offenses against the world with taunts and lies proclaming that they did not posses any weapons that were set up as illegal by UN standards.  When Un inspectors went into the country of Iraq they found many SCUD missiles which were illegal.  The world today can not have leaders like Saddam who put countless lives at stake because he thinks that the US and its allies will watch and resent his actions and not do anything about it.  We can not have a leader of a country who commits crimes against his own people, and we can certainly not have a leader there who wants to harm the people of the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Usually democratic nations are pro-western. But to point out the otherside here- Hitler was elected, then he took over. Sadaam held elections to try to feign his support, but only got like 98% of the vote (when there was no other candidate). I never understood that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, one of the Axis of evil countries as defined by Bush, Iran, is a democracy.

And our "allies", Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, & Pakistan are all dictatorships where the common person has essentially no rights.

3/4's of the 9/11 terrorists that attacked the USA are Saudis.

Yochillout, if what you say is true then we should be attacking these countries as well as they pose a much bigger threat to our security than Iraq ever did.

When Saddam and Rummy were friends.

rumsfeld.80s.jpg

I do believe that now that we have conquered Iraq, we need to do like has been done in all wars. Conquerer takes the war booty. They need to start lining up the oil tankers and suck the place dry. Leave the rest for someone else to deal with. The Vikings had it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That pic doesn't exactly prove they were "friends" a similar pic of Hitler on the cover of Time as man of the year, and Stalin with FDR and Truman could be inferred they were "friends" not to mention Ike and Kruschev(sp) a year or two before the Cuban Missle Crisis. Allies sometimes stab you in the back years later.

Suck the place dry? I thought there was a push on this forum to go to alternative fuels. Ride a bike to work, buy a hybrid, don't let the oil companies win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... don't let the oil companies win!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's see.....

Bush Sr - Made fortune in Oil Business, in the White House for 12 years as Vice President & President, Fights war in Oil Rich Middle East and makes Saudis and Kuwaitis very happy.

Bush Jr. - Heir to Bush Sr's Oil Fortune. Elected to 8 years in the White House. Fights major war in Oil Rich Middle East and conquers government controlling 2nd largest oil reserve in the Middle East.

Bush Family in White house for 20 years.

Maybe I am missing something here, but it looks to me that the oil companies have already won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be a libertarian if my vote would matter for that party... Less GOV is good.. But since the republicans are more in line with my ideals, I vote republican..

I personally think FDR was the worst president ever.. Good ideas, but so incredibly short sighted... Also he took the US off the gold standard, which was the single worst move a president has made.. Ever... Ever wonder why a house cost $10k "back in the day", yet it cost 500k now?? Thank FDR... He took away the only check on goverment spending, made the dollar a worthless fiat currency, and effectively created unfundable pyramid social policy schemes... And took the dollar off the gold standard, so the country could print up useless money to cover these immpossible to fund social problems...

FDR is the single reason the poor keep getting poorer.. He basically invented constant inflation.. And since it outpaces wages, the poor keep getting poorer..

And I now expect to get fully ripped apart by people who claim that its republicans fault.. And they want the rich getting richer, etc etc, and all the other garbage the media shouts out..

But the truth is.. FDR ruined our country.. He ruined the dollar.. He took away the only check on government spending..

And funny enough, the GOV just created a monument for him.. What a farce..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be a libertarian if my vote would matter for that party... Less GOV is good.. But since the republicans are more in line with my ideals, I vote republican..

I personally think FDR was the worst president ever.. Good ideas, but so incredibly short sighted... Also he took the US off the gold standard, which was the single worst move a president has made.. Ever... Ever wonder why a house cost $10k "back in the day", yet it cost 500k now?? Thank FDR... He took away the only check on goverment spending, made the dollar a worthless fiat currency, and effectively created unfundable pyramid social policy schemes... And took the dollar off the gold standard, so the country could print up useless money to cover these immpossible to fund social problems...

FDR is the single reason the poor keep getting poorer.. He basically invented constant inflation.. And since it outpaces wages, the poor keep getting poorer..

And I now expect to get fully ripped apart by people who claim that its republicans fault.. And they want the rich getting richer, etc etc, and all the other garbage the media shouts out..

But the truth is.. FDR ruined our country.. He ruined the dollar.. He took away the only check on government spending..

And funny enough, the GOV just created a monument for him.. What a farce..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly...

Where do you think we'd be right now if Herbert Hoover was re-elected? All of the generous, selfless corporations would have been left unchecked, and so they would have given money to the poor and gotten rid of poverty, right?

So damned naive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think FDR was the worst president ever.. Good ideas, but so incredibly short sighted... Also he took the US off the gold standard, which was the single worst move a president has made.. Ever... Ever wonder why a house cost $10k "back in the day", yet it cost 500k now?? Thank FDR... He took away the only check on goverment spending, made the dollar a worthless fiat currency, and effectively created unfundable pyramid social policy schemes... And took the dollar off the gold standard, so the country could print up useless money to cover these immpossible to fund social problems...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it was Richard Nixon that took the USA off the Gold Standard in 1971. I assume you will now blame him for the nation's ills that you incorrected attributed to FDR since you thought it was he that ended the gold standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gold Reserve Act of 1934 took us off the Gold Standard . . .

"Differing definitions of "gold standard"

If the monetary authority holds sufficient gold to convert all circulating money, then this is known as a 100% reserve gold standard, or a full gold standard. Some believe there is no other form of gold standard, since on any "partial" gold standard the value of circulating representative paper in a free economy will always reflect the faith that the market has in that note being redeemable for gold."

By this definition FDR struck the fatal blow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard...ndash.3B1971.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dela...reat_Depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard...ndash.3B1945.29

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Act that you cited, you will discover that FDR made the possession of gold coins illegal by American, but American Currency was still backed by the amount of gold reserves held by the US Government. i.e. the Gold Standard.

If you want a good explaination of the Gold Standard go here.

The relevant quote from that chronology is:

"Finally, on August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced that the United States would no longer redeem currency for gold. This was the final step in abandoning the gold standard."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world economy also likely wouldn't have grown as quickly if we were still on a gold standard. There's not enough gold in the world to hold on reserve to sustain a modern day economy, without a serious devaluation of the currency. Prices are unstable in the short term, and GDP fluctuates year to year. Any type of growth creates inflation, and that's fine, as long as everything else keeps up with it or exceeds it. It's a trade-off. Technological advances are vital to outpacing inflation.

Part of the adjustment is in realizing that "money" isn't real to begin with, but something we still have to interact with. Gold is just a shiny representation of this concept. Money also evolves over time. Today most of the world's money supply is represented as nothing more than an accounting entry in a computer system.

It was the Bretton Woods system that Nixon took us out of, which locked the US dollar to gold, and all the remaining world currencies had to base their currency off of gold (via the US dollar). After that we went to floating exchange rates.

When you analyze certain things in real dollars (indexed for inflation), prices are much lower in real terms than they were last century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Act that you cited, you will discover that FDR made the possession of gold coins illegal by American, but American Currency was still backed by the amount of gold reserves held by the US Government.  i.e. the Gold Standard. 

If you want a good explaination of the Gold Standard go here.

The relevant quote from that chronology is:

"Finally, on August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced that the United States would no longer redeem currency for gold. This was the final step in abandoning the gold standard."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nixon made the last blow on the issue in 1971 but by then (Bretton Woods) it was only between international central banks that any "gold standard" existed and by in large they settled all their accounts not for gold but by "eurodollars". The 1934 Gold Reserve Act ended it for American citizens redeeming their dollars for gold. How can you redeem you "gold backed" currency when your not allowed to have gold?

To cite the the second link I posted above:

the Gold Reserve Act (January 1934), outlawed the circulation and private possession of United States gold coins for general circulation, with an exemption for collector coins. This act declared that gold coins were no longer legal tender in the United States, and people had to turn in their gold coins for other forms of currency. This act took the United States off the gold standard, and it also effected the removal of the statement that United States paper currency could be exchanged for gold at any of the nation's banks.

The Encylopedia of Economics link:

In 1933 President Roosevelt nationalized gold owned by private citizens and abrogated contracts in which payment was specified in gold.

Depends partly on how you define "gold standard", if your looking for the ability of Central Banks to have a foundation for their economies by having the option of exchanging their Eurodollars for gold then Nixon ended that, but a U.S. Citizen could not redeem his or her dollar for gold since FDR's first term. Wether or not that was a great idea or not, theres many aspects to it, and given the precarious nature of the economy during the Great Depression (some believed the Communist or Nazi party might very well gain power), its tough to hindsight desperate measures. I personally believe 100% market forces are a bit dangerous as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't subscibe to party lines, however my ideologies are left leaning and I typically vote Democratic. however, this country has become a big shame to me. The fact that there is only one party controlling our government makes me sick to my stomach.

Also, I can't stand this president who wants to go the "darkest corners of the earth to spread freedom and democracy", to eliminate the rogue threats to soverign nations and spread "peace" and "freedom" to all the poor countries who don't know any better.

What principals were this country founded on? Our War of Independence from Britian was certainly a "rogue" nation seeking to find its own identity. The founding fathers and almost every single president of this country were corrupt and their motives were always self-interested.

This country is NOT about helping the less well off, its about helping yourself. I am sorry, but growing up in a religious tradition we were always taught to think of the other man. If this president is so hell bent on playing the morality card when ever he feels it will gain him political points, then he really should think about what it REALLY means to be Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.