Morgoth@ccieng5.UUCP (Morgoth) (08/03/83)
Why is most of the stuff in this group more philosophical than political? Lets get into politics: Democrats, or at least a majority of them, favor a large central (federal) government, that spends lots of money and makes 'everyone happy'. Clearly democrats are therefore nothing more than overblown aristocrats interested in concentrating power into the hands of the few, as opposed to the 'limited government' and deregulation loved by republicans. Get your hands out of my pockets!! Morgoth seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2:bwm
dwv@ihuxt.UUCP (08/03/83)
On the other hand, Most repbulicans favor big business and jump all over the middle class. Besides that, they can"t get a president elected without being caught cheating. Keep me in the middle class! Which brings me to piont B. (EXCESSIVE FLAME) I calculated that Reagan's great 25% tax cut has now cost me about $200/year. Gas Tax is up (both federal and Illinois, a total of 7 cents a gallon). Illinois Income tax is up. Property tax will be going up to enhance education. AAAUUUUGGGHHH! Dave (I'll never vote for Reagan) Vollman
tim@unc.UUCP (08/03/83)
It always amuses me to hear about how Republicans favor "deregulation". Sure they do. They want their businesses to have none of these nasty safety and health regulations that cost them so much money. On the other hand, they want all sorts of "pro-family" legislation -- their only approach to solving social problems is to make a law against having the problem. Oh yes, and they are against any law that forces people to treat women and minorities on the same basis as white males. Do you see a pattern emerging? Can you say "plutocratic, sexist, and racist"? Sure. ______________________________________ The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
bch@unc.UUCP (08/03/83)
No, No, No, Tim. Republicans don't want *everything* deregulated. They just want deregulation for good ol' Amurrican companies. Furrin countries need to be regulated because of their inherently unfair business practices (like making superior products.) Our companies need to be free to make and sell as many M-1 tanks, Pershing missiles and other products of like demonstrated quality as they can get away with. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (08/03/83)
From: Morgoth@ccieng5.UUCP (Morgoth)
Democrats, or at least a majority of them, favor a large central (federal)
government, that spends lots of money and makes 'everyone happy'. Clearly
democrats are therefore nothing more than overblown aristocrats interested
in concentrating power into the hands of the few, as opposed to the 'limited
government' and deregulation loved by republicans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I posted an article last month asking for differences between democrats
and republicans, I don't remember getting a response.
My thesis is that the median of the two parties are actually very close
together. The democrats will always be very slightly to the left of
the national consensus, while the republicans will be slightly to the
right. There is no criterium that I can think of that allows you to
differentiate between dems. and reps.
If you can think of one, test it out on the following list:
RONALD DELLUMS LOWELL WIEKER
JOHN STENNIS JESSE HELMS
JIM WRIGHT HOWARD BAKER
The fact is that on the international political spectrum, both parties
agree on just about everything. Both support:
CAPITALISM
THE MONROE DOCTRINE
NATO
LIMITED ECONOMIC PLANNING
AMERICA-IS-THE-GREATEST-COUNTRY-IN-THE-WORLD-CONCEPT
CIVIL RIGHTS FOR MINORITIES
A 'SAFETY NET'
ECONOMIC GROWTH
Once again, I challenge anyone to provide an issue on which the two
parties have consistenly disagreed on for the past 20 years.
--
Larry Kolodney
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry
(ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-aialle@ihuxb.UUCP (08/04/83)
>From unc!tim >> It always amuses me to hear about how Republicans favor >> "deregulation". Sure they do. They want their businesses to have >> none of these nasty safety and health regulations that cost them so >> much money. On the other hand, they want all sorts of "pro-family" >> legislation -- their only approach to solving social problems is to >> make a law against having the problem. Oh yes, and they are against >> any law that forces people to treat women and minorities on the same >> basis as white males. Do you see a pattern emerging? Can you say >> "plutocratic, sexist, and racist"? Sure. Well, Tim, how about the Republican administration that today filed suit against one of "their businesses" (specifically General Motors) that violated one of "these nasty safety regulations"? What about the Republican administration that is now cracking down on states that do not meet air pollution guidelines and requiring those states to institute auto emissions testing? The Democrats only solution to "social problems" is to throw more and more money at the problems or to set up another government agency to administer the money for these problems. While you are pointing the finger of racism at Republicans, how about that good non-racist Democrat - George Wallace? I think that before throwing stones, you should move out of your glass Democratic house! Allen England ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
zrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (08/06/83)
Please avoid accusing all Republicans of trogloditism. A large amount of Republican support comes from the get-govt.-off-my-back faction. Hence very little action has actually occurred in the "pro-family" quarter. I have not yet had to push the No Fun Police out my bedroom window. Cheers, Zig
holt@parsec.UUCP (08/06/83)
#R:ccieng5:-11600:parsec:40500001:000:1772
parsec!holt Aug 4 13:57:00 1983
I couldn't agree more with you. Democrats seem to feel that it is
the Government's responsability to insure everyone's well being. If that
is what a person believes, then that person should be a Democrat. If, on
the other hand a person believes that it is each and every person's
responsability to provide for themselves, then the person is probably more
of a Republican. I am a rabid Republican on this issue. But, this is only
one difference between the two parties.
A second difference is that the Republican party as of late has taken
on the idea that Government should tell people what to do. I don't like that
at all. I don't want my teenage daughter to worry about Planned Parenthood
telling me whether or not she has asked for birth control devices. That is
a freedom I would like to see her retain. I don't want the Government telling
pregnant women whether or not they can make the choice to have an abortion or
not. It is the mother's right to make that choice. I don't want prayer
reinstated in public school. Religious freedom should be retained.
But wait a minute. The Democratic party seems to be jumping on this
bandwagon as well. They (in some states) have proposed gun control laws.
I don't want the Government telling me whether or not I can own a gun. They
also feel that the more money a person makes, the greater the percentage the
government has a right to. I disagree entirely. Taxes should be based on
a set percentage of income. Let's do away with brackets altogether.
What this all boils down to is that I am currently a Republican because
of their economic positions. But, I am more than a little disturbed with
their stand on personal freedoms.
Dave Holt
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs}!parsec!holtgerman@uiucuxc.UUCP (08/07/83)
#R:ccieng5:-11600:uiucuxc:21200005:000:193 uiucuxc!german Aug 5 17:10:00 1983 Well being basically a republican I have always felt that a democrat was somebody who complained about a problem, but didn't have any solution to it. Greg German uiucdcs!uiucuxc!german
ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (08/07/83)
#R:ccieng5:-11600:ucbesvax:7500026:000:1303 ucbesvax!turner Aug 4 19:59:00 1983 First off, Morgoth (your real name would be appreciated at some point, I dislike addressing people who sound like Sauron's right-hand orc) I might point to John Conally as an example of a Republican who is in favor of Big Guvvahmunt. The better to serve the needs of Big Bizniss, need I say. On the more humane side, see the recent defection of George Will from the ranks of enemies of the Welfare State. Here's a Republican who is eyeing your pockets most craftily. Finally, dare I suggest that the Democratic and Republican parties might actually *share* more points of view than they differ on, by virtue of access to power? I think your characterization of the Democrats is correct. I think that Republicans differ only in having a more narrowly defined notion of what to spend taxpayers' money on. They certainly aren't spending any *less* money, in case you haven't noticed. As to whether they are less "aristocratic" or not, please spare me the Falwell- populist line. Repubs are Cronyists before all else. And these cronies are as rich or richer than any bedmates of the Demos. Nobody for President in 1984! (Let's get this campaign rolling a little earlier this time, folks. There are deadlines for qualifying for federal matching funds.) Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (08/08/83)
The problem with all the nasty generalizations people made about
republicans is that they are for the most part only true of Reaganite
republicans, which until recently were not the mainstream of the party.
All generalizations about Democrats are true perhaps for the
Dellums/Kennedy wing of the party, but not for the mainstream. Take
a pair of typical dems and reps: John Glenn and Howard Baker. Their
political stances are virtually indistinguishable. Both support
American Hegemony abroad, a "strong" (read imperialistic) military,
limited government economic intervention, the "free market", etc.
Both have absolutely no interest in making any signifigant changes in
the status quo. In fact, Reagan is the first prez since Roosevelt to
INITIATE any serious changes in the status quo, and for that reason
perhaps, people are starting to believe that there is a difference
between the parties.
--
Larry Kolodney
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry
(ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-aizrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (08/09/83)
It is true that Howard Baker and John Glen might have troble with "product differentiation" if they were running against each other, but that isn't the point. Look at the people surrounding the office holder: Jimmy Carter may be much more of an intellectual than Reagan, but Cyrus Vance was a really awful Secretary of State, especially compared with Schultz. If a Democrat is elected, we aren't going to shift gears on the big, visible issues like Central America. However, monetary restriant will lose what credibility it has left, taxes will go up, social spending will go up, the readiness of our conventional forces (this is an achievment Wienberger should get a medal for) will go down, Jane Fonda will become Special Aide for Political Correctness, etc. The Republicans, especially the Ford and Reagan administrations have, in general, been very good about cutting the crap -- if you think Russia sucks, then have the guts to say so in frony of the whole country, in no uncertain terms. I lived in Austria for the later part of the Carter administration's term, and I worked in an economic/scientific research institute as technical support staff. I had ample opportunity to become very disgusted with the attitude of diplomats, negotiators, and all the sleazy detant groupies. Vance and Young brought this kind of sleaze to the White House. The Carter adminstration's ignorace of history was staggering: people in Austria old enough to remember the Russian occupation were amazed that Carter hugged Brezneiv at the SALT talks. How could he make such a gesture? How ignorant is he of what went on in Eastern Europe. Now, at least in foreign affairs, we have some semblance of competence and we know who the enemy is, and if Reagan keeps reminding the people, we may even remember why. Cheers, Zig
craig@cfib.UUCP (08/10/83)
#R:ccieng5:-11600:cfib:9100001:000:343 cfib!craig Aug 8 16:41:00 1983 This correspondence brings back memories of my short lived contact with goverment courses at school. It is widely accepted among poly sci types that in a two party system, parties tend to shift towards a common center platform. In other words, in a two party system, the parties will tend to start looking and sounding more and more alike.
rung@ihuxw.UUCP (08/10/83)
How is it that Reagan is to blame for for the increase in Illinois gas tax, income tax and the expected increase in Illinois property tax? Seems to me that without the federal tax cut, we Illinoians (sp?) would be really hot. Dave, if you're going to flame at a deserving Republican, do it to Thompson. Seems to me that he did more harm to us tax wise lately than Reagan. Pete Rung BTL, Naperville, Ill.
parker@psuvax.UUCP (08/10/83)
re: mit-eddie!zrm on former State Departments Vance sleazy? Schultz competent? Oh, dear. I must have missed something. It seems that your sole criterion for competence is the recognition of that we should at total war with the Soviet Union and any of its supposed minions. Does this make the likes of William Clark (who has an extraodrinary inability to know anything about what he's doing -- I wonder if he's figured out who's in the Common Market yet), George Schultz (who failed to make any progress towards warding off yet another MidEast War), and good-old Ronnie (who probably still doesn't know who the Prime Minister of France is) competent? Oh, my god. Maybe it is time to move to New Zealand, or is it now a designated target also? Bruce Parker Penn State
jlilien@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Joel Lilienkamp) (08/12/83)
Yet its the Republicans who want to remove government interference in private lives by making abortions illegal, providing stiffer legal penalties for victimless crimes, and forcing Christian prayer in public schools. They are the ones who balance the budget by increasing Defense Spending and cutting taxes for the richest of our society, while those (most) of us in the middle and lower classes get a $5 per week tax cut. Its the republicans who want to eliminate affirmative action. Its the republicans who are opposed to equal rights for women. Its the republicans that think communism is a cancerous desease that must be wiped off the face of the earth at all cost, even if if means supporting fascist dictators to do it. And you thought the democrats were bad. A former member of the Committee to Re-elect the President (Nixon) who resigned the committee and the party in July, 1972. Joel