Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Question about Republicans and Democrats

Recommended Posts

Democrats are nice people that care about the world, people, and life.

Republicans are selfish and quite often lack reason and common sense. They view life in a more naturalistic way, assuming that everything they get is theres, irregardless of how they got it.

Also, please remember this is my OPINION so don't take it too seriously :blink: . And don't be offended!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Democrats are nice people that care about the world, people, and life.

Republicans are selfish and quite often lack reason and common sense. They view life in a more naturalistic way, assuming that everything they get is theres, irregardless of how they got it.

Also, please remember this is my OPINION so don't take it too seriously :blink: . And don't be offended!

Fair enough Deus, I won't get offended that a guy from switzerland is bashing a political party in another country, especially when your country is supposed to be neutral :D .

In response to your question flamewave, Republicans like minimal interference of government in people's personal lives. Democrats like to direct how people live their lives. Now, democrats will say that republicans are always trying to get involved in people's lives, and they will use examples like same-sex-marriage, and abortion, but same-sex-marriage and abortion are religious issues, not political ones. Democrats are also intolerant of other people's lifestyle's. They are constantly trying to ban smoking, and they will not tolerate any other view than their own. To prove this point, if you disagree with me and try to argue with me and change my view on these next statements, you are probably a democrat. If you disagree with me but don't want to change my view, you are probably republican. Here are the statements:

"I believe gays should be allowed to marry, but not adopt children."

"I believe abortion in the first trimester is okay, the second trimester is iffy, and the third trimester is unacceptable"

Now for the moment of self-reflection. If you are tempted to try to argue with me and change my view regarding any of the above statements, you are probably a democrat. If you are willing to let my statements go, you are probably a republican. That is the main ideological difference between republicans and democrats. Everything else is differences between conservatives and liberals.

Edited by joesaelens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And this is bad because?

Don't you think that if people should have the freedom to do something that makes them feel better. I'm not saying that I approve of smoking, and if it were someone in my family, I would try to get them to quit. But I respect people's right to do what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's fair to allow the production of something that is known to kill people.

A lot of stuff kills people. Cars kill people. Animals kill people. Red meat probably kills people. Are you saying that we shouldn't allow people to do anything if it may be bad for them? And if you refer to second hand smoke, then I defy you to find me one lab report from a reputable company that proves that second hand smoke kills people. I mean a legitimate lab report that would be acceptable by IB standards. If you can, give me the link. If it is genuine, I will abrogate my previous statements and reverse my position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think that if people should have the freedom to do something that makes them feel better. I'm not saying that I approve of smoking, and if it were someone in my family, I would try to get them to quit. But I respect people's right to do what they want.

Remember that smoking kills OTHERS as well. That is why democrats try to pass legislation. It's not to take away your right to smoke! It's to take away your right to smoke in public places where other people want to live healthily. Don't twist the truth :) .

I respect my friends' right to smoke, and if they do it in their own home or whatever, no problem! However, I also like to breath and play sports, and therefore I fully support smoking bans.

As I said in my first post, we respect human life as it is, and we (democrats, left wing people) want to create regulation that help promote better living for everyone, not just the individual. We fully respect human rights (or at least every left winger I know) but the rule is simple: You can have unlimited freedom as long as it does not impede someone else having unlimited freedom. Now think about that statement very carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deus, i agree that smoking is nasty, and I personally wish that everyone would stop smoking. But in my country, we believe in the greatest degree of freedom possible, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedom of others. So now I pose my challenge to you, find me IB acceptable proof that second hand smoke kills people, infringing upon the right to life that all people have.

Edited by joesaelens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deus, you have got to be kidding. That proves nothing. It was a report with statistics and numbers. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. There was not lad write-up outlining how the answers were arrived at, or how the raw data was processed. I mean a lab that can PROVE that second hand smoke kills people. I don't care if the test subjects are children who have lived with smokers, or if the test subjects are regular people. I want to see proof, so that the only way I can dispute it is to say that the scientists flat out lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just didn't feel like linking to the references of that site, that's all. Just read some of the stuff below I guess if you want empirical support.. I don't have time or patience to try to prove that smoking damages your health. Anyway, you have a skeptic personality, which to be honest, is a very good thing. However, it also means that I doubt there is anything I can say or show you that will change your mind. :)

Also, keep in mind that there is no study that proves that second hand smoke kills people. However, there are lots of studies that show that it is a contributing factor to many things that lead to premature death (as opposed to dieing of old age).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough deus, and i appreciate your understanding that i am paranoid and suspicious of everything. oh and, flamewave, sorry about the divergence from the original topic.

Edited by joesaelens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, no worries. I appreciate the responses, as well as the discussion. It is refreshing to see two people debate intellectually.

Edited by Flamewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe, no worries. I appreciate the responses, as well as the discussion. It is refreshing to see two people debate intellectually.

I didn't know there was another way! :)

The thing is that generally one needs to concede slightly in order for a debate to end.

Anyway, as I said in my first post, I wasn't being entirely serious.

The main difference between republicans and democrats (at least in the US) is mainly in terms of how much power the government should have, and how much influence it should have. It's really up to you to weigh the pros and cons, although rich people normally prefer the republican ideal as it means they can keep more of their money rather than having to pay high taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't know there was another way! :)

The thing is that generally one needs to concede slightly in order for a debate to end.

Anyway, as I said in my first post, I wasn't being entirely serious.

The main difference between republicans and democrats (at least in the US) is mainly in terms of how much power the government should have, and how much influence it should have. It's really up to you to weigh the pros and cons, although rich people normally prefer the republican ideal as it means they can keep more of their money rather than having to pay high taxes.

Yeah, hehe, we have some debates in class sometimes that go on for quite a while because neither side is truly willing to concede. The teacher is the only one that can keep things from escalating out of control.

If I may add on to my question, what you guys think of the Third Parties? What changes do you think the US would undergo if a candidate from the Third Party were to be elected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think that if people should have the freedom to do something that makes them feel better. I'm not saying that I approve of smoking, and if it were someone in my family, I would try to get them to quit. But I respect people's right to do what they want.

I do think that when you smoke next to a 5 year old in a cafe/restuarant and make the choice for them whether or not they should inhale the toxins, that's removing other people's rights :) and the smoking ban isn't stopping people from smoking, as I recall, it's just stopping them from doing it in closed areas. So if they want to feel better, they could go do that outside :) if they don't wanna be cold, well tough luck buddy.

I'm VERY intolerant about this subject, since I know so many people with lung cancer because of smoking, so don't try and retort in any way, I will not even consider your argument.

I am going to argue with you, because yes I do support left wing political parties- though I'm hardly a democrat being as I'm not a US citizen anyway, but I assure you I'm not trying to change anything in you :) you be what you like to be.

Democrats like to direct how people live their lives

oh what horrible people.. I wonder what Bush was thinking when he tried to direct whole nation's lives rather than his own people's :P then again, Iraq/Vietnam are so far away :D who cares about them right? as long as people inside the US aren't being bossed around :)

"I believe gays should be allowed to marry, but not adopt children."

"I believe abortion in the first trimester is okay, the second trimester is iffy, and the third trimester is unacceptable"

Regarding gay marriage, I can't bring myself to care about other people's business (who knew, republicans butt in in people's lives? what? not this can't be! ) and I am pro abortion. I'd like to think I have my own mind to decide what I'm pro and con for :) Those two statements are more religion related than anything else. So the only reason they form any importance, is if you're trying to run the US as a catholic nation, and I don't think those exist anymore do they?

OP: this is what I think the difference between republicans and democrats are:

Republicans: more concerned with international affairs, like to butt in where they're not needed, don't concern themselves with internal affairs as much.

Democrats: More concerned with internal economy, welfare etc. etc.

check the candidates agendas :) you'll see Obama/Clinton have been going on and on about economy, child welfare and God knows what else, while McCain's been going on about Iraq war (and I doubt he's been preaching "bringing the boys back")

the main difference between left and right wing politics in general, however, is that left wing believe that the government should provide certain services for all the people equally, as a method of providing everyone with basic living rights. While right wing government is all about privatizing the public sector (electricity, water et.) which gives place for manipulation and the race for profit. This is what my lecturer has explained of course :) it's a tad different in every country.

Right wing governments are also more conventionally known to follow some sort of religion, or having conservative religious values in their politics... I think a bit of both is well rounded, but then again all this bull **** is so subjective who can tell what'll work right? it's all about what the public want in the end :)

Yeah, hehe, we have some debates in class sometimes that go on for quite a while because neither side is truly willing to concede. The teacher is the only one that can keep things from escalating out of control.

If I may add on to my question, what you guys think of the Third Parties? What changes do you think the US would undergo if a candidate from the Third Party were to be elected?

lol what third party?

which brings me back to another issue. Media coverage of Politics in general. Guess what boys and girls, they show you what they want you to see.. NO! IT CAN'T BE! we're deceived? bastards!

anyway my advice is read both sides, be tolerant of both sides, and make up your mind. Or, alternatively, if you've come to make a decision about which part you'd like to support, be tolerant of the other party members and ridicule them silently in your head *whispers* they'll never know!

For God's sake though don't be preachers! no one likes preachers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...so don't try and retort in any way, I will not even consider your argument.

I am going to argue with you, but I assure you I'm not trying to change anything in you :D you be what you like to be.

I assure you, I have no interest in retorting, especially since you are known for your blueness :P . I will say this, the only reason that I doubt conventional wisdom regarding second-hand smoke, aside from my natural skepticism, is that I tried to find proof that second-hand smoke was lethal, but I couldn't. I was very confused, since I thought that something so widely accepted would be easy to verify. Because of this, and several other things, I have to adopted a very skeptical attitude toward everything that I am told. I basically don't believe anything unless I find indisputable proof that what I'm told is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am going to argue with you, but I assure you I'm not trying to change anything in you :) you be what you like to be.

lol looks to me liek you should've quoted me twice :P might have saved you the typing.

. I will say this, the only reason that I doubt conventional wisdom regarding second-hand smoke, aside from my natural skepticism, is that I tried to find proof that second-hand smoke was lethal, but I couldn't. I was very confused, since I thought that something so widely accepted would be easy to verify. Because of this, and several other things, I have to adopted a very skeptical attitude toward everything that I am told. I basically don't believe anything unless I find indisputable proof that what I'm told is true.

honey, it doesn't have to be lethal for me to not want to inhale it. I HATE the smell of smoke! I despise it! and I remember coming back home after going out (when I lived in Amman, where smoking indoors is ok) and having my hair full of the disgusting smell! I used to wash my clothes 2/3 times a week because of it there! now that I'm in England, I wash my clothes once a week! because I don't need to do it because of the disgusting smell of smoke! I also don't need to wash my hair on a daily basis! because it'll smell nice for longer now. So even if you don't have proof that second hand smoke is "lethal" it still obscured people's rights! for example: my right to not want to smell like ****. you might find my argument petty, but I'm completely serious! I can't tolerate people smoking around me, I go nuts.

and I love the way you left everything else and stuck to the smoking argument :D

I assure you, I have no interest in retorting, especially since you are known for your blueness :)

just because I'm admin doesn't mean you shouldn't look at me as your equal, or is that not what you meant by blueness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Democrats are more 'Robin Hood' than the Republicans, and propose more social programs to aid the poor/underprivileged/needy, while Republicans are more for cutting government spending and reducing these programs (and taxes). For example (although I'm not 100% sure on this), in the recent foreclosure issue, Republicans are more of "it's your own fault that you can't spend responsibly, so we're not giving you money to remedy your idiocy for buying a house you can't afford", while Dems lean more towards aid for the foreclosed or helping homeowners to reduce foreclosures, etc, even though it's a tight budget year.

P.S. I'm really a moderate who leans Republican on fiscal issues, so hopefully my take on the foreclosure doesn't seem too partisan. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

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.