[AuPhalanx]

Did anyone else every notice that when a Republican holds the office of President, many people loudly and vehemently aver that we, Americans, are under some sort of totalitarian and/or fascist rule? Today, people "want their country back" or make ads comparing Bush to Hitler. Reagan was treated much the same way.

When Reagan was in office, even though the economy was growing by leaps and bounds, the only thing one ever read about the economy was that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer and "voodoo economics" were sucking the life-blood from the country. On the other hand, when Carter was in office and their were lines for gas, people just commented that we were living in strange times and nothing could really be done.

What possesses people to feel this way? I use the term "feel" because I see--nor have I experienced--anything oppressive or dictatorial when a president of ANY party was in office. Reading different posts and listening to sundry people speak, though, it is as though we are living during a Nazi occupation where every civil right is violated. Just watch Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" and this illusion is jammed down peoples' throats and sold as reality.

Basically, why is it that some people feel (or think) that when a Repubilcan holds office, that we are in some sort of oppressive regime? I just don't get it--I really do not understand.

Thank you for your participation. Your parting gifts will be sent in two to four weeks.

Have fun... Tony.

[Zimphire]

It's called "FUD from the left"

Just like when Clinton was saying the exact same thing about Iraq that Bush did.

Clinton was a great president, but Bush is a liar for it.

It's called a "spin"

And it's hypocritical.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by AuPhalanx:
Did anyone else every notice that when a Republican holds the office of President, many people loudly and vehemently aver that we, Americans, are under some sort of totalitarian and/or fascist rule? Today, people "want their country back" or make ads comparing Bush to Hitler. Reagan was treated much the same way.

When Reagan was in office, even though the economy was growing by leaps and bounds, the only thing one ever read about the economy was that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer and "voodoo economics" were sucking the life-blood from the country. On the other hand, when Carter was in office and their were lines for gas, people just commented that we were living in strange times and nothing could really be done.

What possesses people to feel this way? I use the term "feel" because I see--nor have I experienced--anything oppressive or dictatorial when a president of ANY party was in office. Reading different posts and listening to sundry people speak, though, it is as though we are living during a Nazi occupation where every civil right is violated. Just watch Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" and this illusion is jammed down peoples' throats and sold as reality.

Basically, why is it that some people feel (or think) that when a Repubilcan holds office, that we are in some sort of oppressive regime? I just don't get it--I really do not understand.

Thank you for your participation. Your parting gifts will be sent in two to four weeks.

Have fun... Tony.

Because you view it from your point of view.

Reagan was good for some... but many lost their homes to his policies.

Carter is a wierd case. If he didn't make the decisions he made (essentially costing him re-election), Reagan would have been a 1 term president, because he would have made those nasty decisions, and been hated as a result. Inflation/Deflation are very serious things, and need to be handled. Carter did so. And as a result, Reagan had lots of flexibility on how he wanted to steer the nation. If Carter ignored it, Reagan would have been doing the same thing, and been just as hated.

Regarding the whole gas thing... that in a sense was the times. It was after that the US started to think a little bit about fuel. I'm personally suprised they haven't done something similar again. Nothing is stopping them from cutting oil. even if the US taps the reserves, it's estimated at 11-15 months at the current rate of consumption... and costs would be astronomical (you'd wish it were only $5/gallon).

Reagan scared them a bit by investigating alternative fuel sources, being the first president to really mention the concept. Bush Sr. somewhat ignored the idea, but Clinton brought it back. Bush Jr. also kept it somewhat alive as both Kerry, and Gore have been talking about it... scares the supplier to think we don't want to buy from them.

THat's really all Reagan could do to prevent it from happening again. You could attack oil supplying countries... but that means destroying infrustructure (pipelines, refineries etc.)... that would be pointless, and counteractive. Not to mention harm global trade. Regan wasn't stupid.

Reagan was the prefect president for his time. If he was in Carter's spot he would have been hated. Kennedy's, and he would have been viewed a facist. Really Reagan and Clinton were president in the perfect times. Reagans problem was he got to mixed in with foreign problems, and didn't focus enough on domestic issues (especially in the middle of his tennure as president), from poverty to AIDS. If Reagan slightly modified that, he would be carved a monument.

He got it balanced towards the end... then he was out.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Because you view it from your point of view.

Reagan was good for some... but many lost their homes to his policies.

Carter is a wierd case. If he didn't make the decisions he made (essentially costing him re-election), Reagan would have been a 1 term president, because he would have made those nasty decisions, and been hated as a result. Inflation/Deflation are very serious things, and need to be handled. Carter did so. And as a result, Reagan had lots of flexibility on how he wanted to steer the nation. If Carter ignored it, Reagan would have been doing the same thing, and been just as hated.

Regarding the whole gas thing... that in a sense was the times. It was after that the US started to think a little bit about fuel. I'm personally suprised they haven't done something similar again. Nothing is stopping them from cutting oil. even if the US taps the reserves, it's estimated at 11-15 months at the current rate of consumption... and costs would be astronomical (you'd wish it were only $5/gallon).

Reagan scared them a bit by investigating alternative fuel sources, being the first president to really mention the concept. Bush Sr. somewhat ignored the idea, but Clinton brought it back. Bush Jr. also kept it somewhat alive as both Kerry, and Gore have been talking about it... scares the supplier to think we don't want to buy from them.

THat's really all Reagan could do to prevent it from happening again. You could attack oil supplying countries... but that means destroying infrustructure (pipelines, refineries etc.)... that would be pointless, and counteractive. Not to mention harm global trade. Regan wasn't stupid.

Reagan was the prefect president for his time. If he was in Carter's spot he would have been hated. Kennedy's, and he would have been viewed a facist. Really Reagan and Clinton were president in the perfect times. Reagans problem was he got to mixed in with foreign problems, and didn't focus enough on domestic issues (especially in the middle of his tennure as president), from poverty to AIDS. If Reagan slightly modified that, he would be carved a monument.

He got it balanced towards the end... then he was out.

So AIDS was Reagans fault? Thanks for illustrating the original posters point.

Many people lost their homes? Care to back that statement up? People didn't lose their homes during any other administration? Everything was hunky dory for all Americans during the Clinton years?

What unique decisions did Carter have to make? Why do you think Reagan would have been a one term President if Carter didn't have to make tough decisions?

Nevermind. Zimphire said it best "FUD"

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
So AIDS was Reagans fault? Thanks for illustrating the original posters point.

Despite CDC requests, Reagans Administration didn't make AIDS a focus until the very end of their Administration (8 years later). Had Reagan listened and addressed the nation, and approved funding to educate the nation the spread wouldn't have been nearly as severe.

Most Americans didn't learn about AIDS transmission until after his administration. They learned only of it. Had he remedied the problem like was suggested, he could have curbed the outbreak in America.

Many people lost their homes? Care to back that statement up? People didn't lose their homes during any other administration? Everything was hunky dory for all Americans during the Clinton years?

Look at statistics of the time, and break it down by class.

As usual, the richer you are, the better you did.

What unique decisions did Carter have to make? Why do you think Reagan would have been a one term President if Carter didn't have to make tough decisions?

Carter dealed with amazing inflation during his term. The only way to curb it, is a recession. Intentional, or wait for it to happen (just remember physics applies to economics... the higher you are, the more velocity you accumulate during your decent to the lowest point, until something breaks your fall).

Reagan was very keen to economics (with reason, considering his education). Reagan would no question have done the same thing.

If Carter didn't do it, it would have been done by Reagan very quickly. It would have been a rougher fall, and people would have hated him for 'ruining the economy' (even though it's really 'saving').

Reagan would have been looked at fondly in 50 years... but would have been the target of a billion assassination attempts.

Carter took the fall. Reagan did the rebuilding.

If Reagan took the fall, Bush Sr. would have been left rebuilding (and most likely wouldn't have done a good job with it).

Fate worked out good for America. Timing was perfect. Right man in the house at the right time.

Put someone like Bush (jr or sr) in the whitehouse, he's to concerned with his own public approval to do something like that. It would have been up to the next president to bring about the recession.


Recession is part of a healthy economy. If we never have one... you should be worried. Recession always follows (and is followed) by good times. It's a cycle of renewal. It keeps our economy lean and strong. Nothing wrong with it. It's a problem when we can't pull out of it. But the closest we ever came to that was the great depression, and we still got out of it.

If we don't have winter, we don't get another spring or summer.

[Lerkfish]

Republicans and democrats, USUALLY have differing priorities when in office.

Republicans want more govt. involvement in things like defense, corporate welfare, vassal state welfare, etc. Their lobbyists usually involve the gun industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the oil industry, Big Chemicals, the military industrial complex.
Republicans tend to be very "Law and Order"-ish, meaning erring on the side of less rights for people in law enforcement situations. They tend to strongly support Govt. intrusion in the personal lives of others: Against gay rights, against choice, etc. They tend to resist Govt. intrusion in such things as corporate responsibility, the environment and social entitlements. They tend to insist on education programs that benefit the rich (vouchers, etc.).
They dont tend to care about social issues like the homeless, those on assistance, the right to dissent or peacably assemble.
when they argue they tend to take arguments against their leaders or their policies as personal attacks. and tend to consider their own personal attacks as valid arguments of the issues.

They tend to be self absorbed and jingoistic: "Americans are the only ones that count, we're the best, we saved your butt in WWII, american interests are all that matters"...etc.

They tend to say they support an open marketplace, but contradictorially support corporate handouts to industry.

The above is the NORMAL republican tendencies over the last few decades, from my POV.
This may not coincide with the POV of others. I think these observations do not apply to all republicans.

Where I think THIS administration has become highly dangerous, is that they have taken normally balanced republican platforms and tilted them to a right extreme. To my way of thinking, they have maximized the portions of previous republican platforms that were the worst, and seem to have abandoned any centrist or reasonable planks entirely, further distilling the party into a highly vitriolic, overzealous and fascist splinter that holds the rest of the party in sway.

I could cite all the reasons why I think that is true, but I've done that repeatedly. I don't think the original poster is honestly concerned with that. I think supporters of the current administration might be just fine with the way things are going...but people like me are outraged that the reputation of this fine country has been sullied in such a way. I would never have imagined, as I grew up loving america, that we would EVER strike the first blow in any situation. That concept is antithetical to my personal view of american values.
My view of american freedom INCLUDES the right to protest, includes the right to dissent, includes the right to have access to due process and includes the right to keep my govt. and my religion separate. My view is that the minority and the weak are protected by the strong, instead of bullied by the strong.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Nevermind. Zimphire said it best "FUD"

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Republicans and democrats, USUALLY have differing priorities when in office.

The priorities and goals are the same. What differs is the methods and philosophies by which we try to achieve those goals.

The rest of your post was complete crap.

[AuPhalanx]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Republicans and democrats, USUALLY have differing priorities when in office.

Republicans want more govt. involvement in things like defense, corporate welfare, vassal state welfare, etc. Their lobbyists usually involve the gun industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the oil industry, Big Chemicals, the military industrial complex.
Republicans tend to be very "Law and Order"-ish, meaning erring on the side of less rights for people in law enforcement situations. They tend to strongly support Govt. intrusion in the personal lives of others: Against gay rights, against choice, etc. They tend to resist Govt. intrusion in such things as corporate responsibility, the environment and social entitlements. They tend to insist on education programs that benefit the rich (vouchers, etc.).
They dont tend to care about social issues like the homeless, those on assistance, the right to dissent or peacably assemble.
when they argue they tend to take arguments against their leaders or their policies as personal attacks. and tend to consider their own personal attacks as valid arguments of the issues.

They tend to be self absorbed and jingoistic: "Americans are the only ones that count, we're the best, we saved your butt in WWII, american interests are all that matters"...etc.

They tend to say they support an open marketplace, but contradictorially support corporate handouts to industry.

The above is the NORMAL republican tendencies over the last few decades, from my POV.
This may not coincide with the POV of others. I think these observations do not apply to all republicans.

Where I think THIS administration has become highly dangerous, is that they have taken normally balanced republican platforms and tilted them to a right extreme. To my way of thinking, they have maximized the portions of previous republican platforms that were the worst, and seem to have abandoned any centrist or reasonable planks entirely, further distilling the party into a highly vitriolic, overzealous and fascist splinter that holds the rest of the party in sway.

I could cite all the reasons why I think that is true, but I've done that repeatedly. I don't think the original poster is honestly concerned with that. I think supporters of the current administration might be just fine with the way things are going...but people like me are outraged that the reputation of this fine country has been sullied in such a way. I would never have imagined, as I grew up loving america, that we would EVER strike the first blow in any situation. That concept is antithetical to my personal view of american values.
My view of american freedom INCLUDES the right to protest, includes the right to dissent, includes the right to have access to due process and includes the right to keep my govt. and my religion separate. My view is that the minority and the weak are protected by the strong, instead of bullied by the strong.

Lerk!

I have read many of your posts in the past and I know your (and many others') accusations whenever a Republican is in office. I stand firm, though, in my assertion that many tend to believe that somehow Republicans are repressing them. Look at your post: "My view of american freedom INCLUDES the right to protest, includes the right to dissent, includes the right to have access to due process and includes the right to keep my govt. and my religion separate. My view is that the minority and the weak are protected by the strong, instead of bullied by the strong." The way you are stating that is as if it were nigh impossible to do so with the current Administration! It clearly is not. Even when the first Gulf War began, there were majour protests against it. Does anybody remember the signs and chants, "No war for oil!"?

Look at how The Patriot Act has been portrayed. In reality, it's an update of the RICO laws; in others' view it's the first nail in the cross on which every personal right will be crucified.

Whenever a Republican is elected President, some people merely react to it like a teenager reacting to a parent--with blustering, emotional, know-it-all vitriol. The sad thing is that quickly becomes the common view. This does not occur when a Democrat holds office. Sure, radio talk shows, such as Rush Limbaugh, will satirically say, "America held hostage", but the general feeling among people is never one of oppression, even though taxes are increased, new gun control measures are put into effect, and sanctions are imposed on businesses.

Under Bush, for example, the Farm Bill was passed; education spending increased; and the Prescription Drug Bill passed. These are what would be considered "Liberal" items, but one rarely hears about them. If one mentions them, the general retort is, "We want our country back!"

My basic premise is this: While Republicans are viewed as the "Law-and-Order" side of the political spectrum (read that as "oppressive"), the evidence does not really correlate. Which party is for gun control, smoke-free zones, and PMRC record labels? When have the Republicans oppressed anybody? (In recent times, please. We can discuss things that happened one hundred years ago, such as racism, of which BOTH parties were very guilty.)

Have fun... Tony.

(PS - I apologize if my postings are sporadic at best. I only post and participate when I have the time and am not too busy. I am a long-time lurker, though, and I enjoy all of your posts and discussions. I learn a lot here. Thanks!)

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by AuPhalanx:
Lerk! <Snipped>


(PS - I apologize if my postings are sporadic at best. I only post and participate when I have the time and am not too busy. I am a long-time lurker, though, and I enjoy all of your posts and discussions. I learn a lot here. Thanks!)

Well said. I remember when Clinton was in his first term and a close relative went on and on about Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. and how the government was taking over. It turns out we're okay. We're not sliding down some slippery slope with Bush, just as we weren't with Clinton. Now Kerry on the other hand....

[itai195]

Originally posted by AuPhalanx:
Under Bush, for example, the Farm Bill was passed; education spending increased; and the Prescription Drug Bill passed. These are what would be considered "Liberal" items, but one rarely hears about them. If one mentions them, the general retort is, "We want our country back!"

I wouldn't say these are 'liberal' items. They are just issues that had to eventually be dealt with, even if they aren't necessarily high priority items to a Republican. Clinton, for example, was a Democrat, but his administration crafted the missile defense strategy that Bush is now implementing.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The priorities and goals are the same. What differs is the methods and philosophies by which we try to achieve those goals.

The rest of your post was complete crap.

I'd love to see solid evidence of that.

Bush spent more time talking about gay marriage in Feb/March then he did on national security.

Ashcroft has reiterated yet again one of his top priorities is to stop smut peddlers.

That's by far difference in priority and goals.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
Well said. I remember when Clinton was in his first term and a close relative went on and on about Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. and how the government was taking over. It turns out we're okay. We're not sliding down some slippery slope with Bush, just as we weren't with Clinton.

Indeed. That is why it's called FUD.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I'd love to see solid evidence of that.

Bush spent more time talking about gay marriage in Feb/March then he did on national security.

Ashcroft has reiterated yet again one of his top priorities is to stop smut peddlers.

That's by far difference in priority and goals.

Yes, while the left are trying to give the green light to all the smut. I agree.

[AuPhalanx]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I'd love to see solid evidence of that.

Bush spent more time talking about gay marriage in Feb/March then he did on national security.

Ashcroft has reiterated yet again one of his top priorities is to stop smut peddlers.

That's by far difference in priority and goals.

macvillage.net!

I think that when he stated that the priorities are the same, he meant that both parties have the welfare of the United States at heart and are doing what they think is right to improve it. I see evidence of that on both sides, even when I completely disagree. Your examples, though, are only things that were reported in the media. Do you really think Bush only thought about the gay marriage issue during those months to the exclusion of everything else?

Every President has had their pet issues: Clinton had 100,000 new cops and midnight basketball; Reagan had SDI; Carter had... he had... Ummm... He wanted everybody to wear sweaters instead of using their heaters. (Joking!)

To use those examples as examples of an oppressive government, if you are doing so, is a bit out of line. When a pornographer is arrested, he pretty much deserves it because usually the arrests are for child pornography or the like. While the gay marriage issue is tricky, one cannot assert that anyone is being oppressed by it. A gay couple may certainly feel a bit left out, but that is a far cry from oppression.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, while the left are trying to give the green light to all the smut. I agree.

How many people have died from porn and gay marriage?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
How many people have died from porn and gay marriage?

Wha? Who said anyone died from it?

[Spliffdaddy]

If it's only a crime if people are killed, then there is only one crime.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
How many people have died from porn and gay marriage?

AIDS

[Millennium]

It's true that Democrats and Republicans have different priorities. When it all comes down to it, that's what political parties are: different sets of priorities for government. Put in the most positive light, the top Republican priority is to protect people from those who would harm them, while the top Democrat priority is to provide goods and services to all who might need them.

Why do Republicans slash social services? Because it's necessary in order to fund defense and law enforcement; the money must come from somewhere and Republicans see most social services as not being a legitimate function of government anyway. Why do Democrats keep increasing the size of government? Because a large infrastructure is needed in order to keep providing all those goods and services; someone has to create the goods and provide the services. In both cases, neither party particularly wants to do these things, but they are natural consequences of their priorities; in order to get this they must do that.

Once people understand that starving the poor is not a goal of Republicans, and that robbing the rich is not a goal of the Democrats, there might actually be some -gasp- civil debate between the two.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wha? Who said anyone died from it?

You must understand, Zimph, these people come from a concept of the idea that anything which doesn't harm anything cannot be a crime. This would be OK by itself, if anyone could agree on what constitutes harm, on what can and cannot even be harmed, what kinds of harm (if the term "kinds" even applies) are valid concerns, and so forth. However, because no one can agree, they can rationalize pretty much whatever they want. They can choose to see harm where you or I might not, or not see harm where you and I would see it.

This is the major problem with relativism: too few things are well-defined.

[Zimphire]

Yes I know Mill.. it's the old "There is no right or wrong" "If it feels good do it"
decadent mentality.

I know it's alive and well.

People are SICK of having a conscience. They want to be able to run amok and not feel bad about it.

It's selfishness like that, that will destroy societies.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It's true that Democrats and Republicans have different priorities. When it all comes down to it, that's what political parties are: different sets of priorities for government. Put in the most positive light, the top Republican priority is to protect people from those who would harm them, while the top Democrat priority is to provide goods and services to all who might need them.

I believe that we are certainly in a different era where wants are more of a priority than needs. IMO, this has created a huge shift in politics and seperates conservatives and liberals more so than ever before. I used to believe that both parties wanted the same result but used different methods to achieve that shared goal. Now I believe each party wants to take the nation in a different direction. Without getting into too much detail, it boils down to a difference in values and my perception of how different values affect society. I believe conservative values are good for the US while liberal values represent a moral denegration.

Why do Republicans slash social services? Because it's necessary in order to fund defense and law enforcement; the money must come from somewhere and Republicans see most social services as not being a legitimate function of government anyway. Why do Democrats keep increasing the size of government? Because a large infrastructure is needed in order to keep providing all those goods and services; someone has to create the goods and provide the services. In both cases, neither party particularly wants to do these things, but they are natural consequences of their priorities; in order to get this they must do that.
Once people understand that starving the poor is not a goal of Republicans, and that robbing the rich is not a goal of the Democrats, there might actually be some -gasp- civil debate between the two.

I agree and disagree. I think the major difference here is that republicans believe that Americans have a duty to be responsible and benevolent to one another and the governement has to TRUST the American people, not legislate the American people.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It's true that Democrats and Republicans have different priorities. When it all comes down to it, that's what political parties are: different sets of priorities for government. Put in the most positive light, the top Republican priority is to protect people from those who would harm them, while the top Democrat priority is to provide goods and services to all who might need them.

Why do Republicans slash social services? Because it's necessary in order to fund defense and law enforcement; the money must come from somewhere and Republicans see most social services as not being a legitimate function of government anyway. Why do Democrats keep increasing the size of government? Because a large infrastructure is needed in order to keep providing all those goods and services; someone has to create the goods and provide the services. In both cases, neither party particularly wants to do these things, but they are natural consequences of their priorities; in order to get this they must do that.

Once people understand that starving the poor is not a goal of Republicans, and that robbing the rich is not a goal of the Democrats, there might actually be some -gasp- civil debate between the two.

:applause: well said.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes I know Mill.. it's the old "There is no right or wrong" "If it feels good do it"
decadent mentality.

I know it's alive and well.

People are SICK of having a conscience. They want to be able to run amok and not feel bad about it.

It's selfishness like that, that will destroy societies.

what's odd, is that is how I would describe the current administration. Only the "battlefield" you are speaking of is that of personal sphere: gays and porn. The "battlefield" I am concerned about are...well..actual battlefields. I find war more obscene than promiscuity. But that's just me.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
what's odd, is that is how I would describe the current administration.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind that you indeed see it that way Lerk.

No doubt.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that you indeed see it that way Lerk.

No doubt.

True, my views about war have never been a secret.

I think what you suffer from is an inability to triage your outrage. you assign the same level of outrage, on partisan lines, to any number of offense, without using critical assessment for which offenses are more important.


I tend to adjust my outrage for the severity of the offense....but that's just me.
We also differ in that I think Christians are supposed to oppose War, and be peacemakers, and you think War is less an outrage than pornography.

We are not going to agree on those things, but it was enlightening discussing it with you, thanks.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
True, my views about war have never been a secret.

I think what you suffer from is an inability to triage your outrage. you assign the same level of outrage, on partisan lines, to any number of offense, without using critical assessment for which offenses are more important.


I tend to adjust my outrage for the severity of the offense....but that's just me.
We also differ in that I think Christians are supposed to oppose War, and be peacemakers, and you think War is less an outrage than pornography.

We are not going to agree on those things, but it was enlightening discussing it with you, thanks.

He wants to take away my porno? I'd go to war over that!

....



BG

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
He wants to take away my porno? I'd go to war over that!

....



BG

LOL!