Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why are far more Republicans war hawks?

Why are far more Republicans war hawks?
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 08:46 PM
 
Why is that when we hear politicians going on about being "tough on terror", or being "tougher" on terror that we assume that it's a Republican speaking? Why is it better to be super tough, and that there is seemingly no end to how tough you ought to be? Why is it a political liability to call out the foolishness of being too tough, and a good idea to call or infer that your opponents are "weak"?

Am I the only one that finds it downright frightening that some people's vision of how foreign policy ought to be conducted seems to consist of a bludgeon of some sort?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 08:52 PM
 
Because Democrats have more hippies in their constituency while Republicans have more rednecks.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 08:57 PM
 
Is it really that simple? Dozens of politicians pandering to the redneck vote?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 08:58 PM
 
I think the Republicans feel that terror groups are so fanatical that they cannot be reasoned with (a reasonable premise), while Democrats believe that terror groups are "misunderstood" or something like that, and that some accommodation is possible. As with many things, there is some middle ground-but based on what groups like al Queda have published, it seems that the middle ground on this issue is a lot closer to the Republican, "the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist" attitude.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I think the Republicans feel that terror groups are so fanatical that they cannot be reasoned with (a reasonable premise), while Democrats believe that terror groups are "misunderstood" or something like that, and that some accommodation is possible. As with many things, there is some middle ground-but based on what groups like al Queda have published, it seems that the middle ground on this issue is a lot closer to the Republican, "the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist" attitude.
That still doesn't explain why the Republicans take this more militant view and the Democrats don't.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I think the Republicans feel that terror groups are so fanatical that they cannot be reasoned with (a reasonable premise), while Democrats believe that terror groups are "misunderstood" or something like that, and that some accommodation is possible. As with many things, there is some middle ground-but based on what groups like al Queda have published, it seems that the middle ground on this issue is a lot closer to the Republican, "the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist" attitude.

I disagree strongly with your characterization of the Democratic perspective. I don't know anybody that finds the terrorist groups misunderstood, or anything remotely positive. I think the Democratic response is just to keep a level head and not let emotion and fear cloud judgement over the best course of action here, considering many different vantage points: resource allocation, political strategy, alliances, etc. I sense that Republicans are a little quicker to the trigger in calling for war whereas Democrats want to be a little more thorough in exhausting other options first so that it is truly a last resort.

My characterization of the right is probably rather spun too, but that's why I created the thread, I don't really understand where the reasonable right is on this issue because I don't hear it much.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 09:07 PM
 
For instance, regarding emotion and fear clouding judgment, Palin recently something something along the lines of how declaring war on Iran would save Obama's presidency. The Democratic perspective on this statement, AFAICT, is that this is definitely not a level headed thing to say. War against an semi-advanced country of 70 million people would be a very, very, very, very last resort right now given our overall circumstances, and that it is far too premature to even consider beating any sort of war drum.

However, I'm sure she said it because she figured that her base wants to hear all of this tough guy talk about Iran.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 09:26 PM
 
Guantanamo nothwithstanding, around here, Obama's stance WRT terror (which has been not to upset the status quo), seems to get high marks from the "war hawks".
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I disagree strongly with your characterization of the Democratic perspective. I don't know anybody that finds the terrorist groups misunderstood, or anything remotely positive. I think the Democratic response is just to keep a level head and not let emotion and fear cloud judgement over the best course of action here, considering many different vantage points: resource allocation, political strategy, alliances, etc. I sense that Republicans are a little quicker to the trigger in calling for war whereas Democrats want to be a little more thorough in exhausting other options first so that it is truly a last resort.

My characterization of the right is probably rather spun too, but that's why I created the thread, I don't really understand where the reasonable right is on this issue because I don't hear it much.
While "completely obliterating the opponent and everyone that looks like him" (an inflated version of what Republicans are purported to believe) may be excessive, why even attempt "other options" when an opponent is actively trying to obliterate you?

I am and always have been for a strong defense; Democratic administrations since Carter have actively worked to cut defense spending-not by being smart, but by treating it as a business. I suppose that sort of changes my perspective. But you will notice that the Khmer Rouge never hijacked another ship after Ford sent the Marines in to free the Mayaguez...

In any case, this really is a very good example of that "middle ground" I mentioned above. Your opinion of "Republican war hawks" and mine of "Democrat defense slashers" are probably at least equally faulty. Having a dialog without inflammatory rhetoric can help locate and popularize that middle ground. But calling people you perceive as Republicans "war hawks" certainly counts as inflammatory.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 10:59 PM
 
I'd like to popularize the middle ground by marginalizing the dominant wing ground. I'm not trying to label anybody in here in particular as a war hawk, lest you think otherwise.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 10:31 AM
 
Conservatives are detail oriented while liberals are more emotion driven, and therefore more easily tricked by words. Conservatives look at the action and words of others and evaluate the situation based on that.

Emotion driven liberal types don't look closely to the details, usually because they don't mean anything to someone who doesn't deal in the details, and instead is easily swayed by idealistic words, and grand concepts, and because of the lack of detailed background on whatever subject is in question, they are more easily tricked.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 10:33 AM
 
Conservatives are from Mars, Liberals are from Venus
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think the Democratic response is just to put the head in the sand.
Fixed.

You really need to learn to express yourself a bit more precisely and cut the euphemisms out.

-t
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is that when we hear politicians going on about being "tough on terror"
Republicans put too much weight on threats that are intentional (terrorism, crime, "rogue states," etc), they rank problems by animosity. Democrats put too much weight on threats that are unintentional (poverty, climate change, bad luck, etc), they rank problems by size. To Republicans, it makes no difference the size of a threat, even if a group of outsiders has absolutely no chance of significantly hurting us, as long as hurting us is their clear intention then they are a top priority. It's also important for them to see punishment befall those who seek us harm. If a threat doesn't have intentions against us, it can't be punished, and they expect the threat to take a random walk away from us anyway; without intentions, it likely won't move directly toward us.

Meanwhile to Democrats, it makes no difference the directionality of a threat, even if our best efforts only serve to make things worse (ie they give a man a fish), as long as the latent power of the threat is strong enough to hurt us in time then it is a top priority. They feel like the random walk will eventually find us, no matter what the current direction is, and they want to start taking control of it early (they also recognize that some random walks aren't so random at a larger scale, but they think all are like this). They care nothing for punishment (sometimes they pay lip service to it), but if there are insignificant threats who actively wish us harm, Dems would rather take the high road to siphon support for the enemy's cause, and not waste resources on swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, since the enemy can't actually hurt us either way.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 12:04 PM
 
The legacy of Cold War era political cleavages has meant that the Republican Party counts as part of its base the military vote and others who see maintaining a strong military as their dominant political concern. In time this will evolve (indeed, many think it has already begun to) as the major challenges to U.S. national security evolve further from "hard" (e.g. interaction of forces) to "soft" (e.g. poverty and other physical insecurities) concerns.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Osedax
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is that when we hear politicians going on about being "tough on terror", or being "tougher" on terror that we assume that it's a Republican speaking? Why is it better to be super tough, and that there is seemingly no end to how tough you ought to be? Why is it a political liability to call out the foolishness of being too tough, and a good idea to call or infer that your opponents are "weak"?

Am I the only one that finds it downright frightening that some people's vision of how foreign policy ought to be conducted seems to consist of a bludgeon of some sort?
You're mixing two separate things - tough talk about terrorists and tough talk about foreign policy.

More often then not, calls for tougher foreign policy are in response to perceived weaknesses by the current President. A good example was Obama's canceled visit to the Dalai Lama because China threatened reprisal against the US if he did.

As to the general "why", that's because Republicans and Democrats tend to have very different world views.
Democrats tend to want to work together with other nations to accomplish goals while Republicans tend to believe the world is out to reduce the power of the US.

For example:
The Kyoto Accords.
Democrats see it as a way to reduce global emissions for the good of the planet.
Republicans see it as a way for other nations to impose restrictions on the US that in the long run would greatly impact our economy in a negative way.

It's not as simple as right and wrong - both views are probably right - we would reduce global emissions, but it would damage our economy in the process.

So is global warming more important to you, or is the health of the nation more important?

If you pick global warming, you're probably a democrat.
If you pick our economy, you're probably a republican.

The veracity of your belief indicates how far left or right you are on the topic.

Someone on the far left would say emissions must be stopped no matter how badly it would hurt the economy - without the planet, who cares.

Someone on the far right would say forget global warming, jobs are what matters and to keep people working, we need to do what we need to do.

The people in the center tend to say global warming is important, but it should be done in a way that won't hurt our economy.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Am I the only one that finds it downright frightening that some people's vision of how foreign policy ought to be conducted seems to consist of a bludgeon of some sort?
In my opinion, this is how most…if not all of our foreign policy should be handled when dealing with countries that are hostile to us and our interests. If they are hostile to us, then what good is talking? Besides as a means of capitulation or intellectual masturbation?

This idea that we are to have the best military in the world and never use it is preposterous. It's our willingness to defend ourselves with force that keeps people from ****ing with us. otherwise we are nothing but a paper tiger.

Then again, I'm not a republican.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Osedax View Post
If you pick global warming, you're probably a democrat.
If you pick our economy, you're probably a republican.
I don't think this has to be this way: in Germany way back in the 80s, the green movement started to gain traction. The green party was voted in a few parliaments.

Their biggest accomplishment was that nowadays all parties have environmental policies and that the constitution has been amended to say that protection of the environment is one of the tasks of the state. An issue that was important to a fringe has become mainstream -- why can't that happen with, say, global warming or some other issue?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Osedax
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think this has to be this way: in Germany way back in the 80s, the green movement started to gain traction. The green party was voted in a few parliaments.

Their biggest accomplishment was that nowadays all parties have environmental policies and that the constitution has been amended to say that protection of the environment is one of the tasks of the state. An issue that was important to a fringe has become mainstream -- why can't that happen with, say, global warming or some other issue?
Keep in mind that my post was to highlight the differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign issues (bludgeoning).

Beyond that, I agree with what you said - we can and should do something (and think we are to an extent) to help reduce emissions etc. And I believe we're more then capable of doing this on our own - I don't think we need to sign an international treaty like the Kyoto Accord to be a more environmentally friendly nation. Further, there is no reason to put our economic future in the hands of an organization that at best cares more about the environment then our economy and at worst would welcome a decline in US influence via a weakened economy.

What is the benefit of the Kyoto Accords to the US? That 3rd world nations get help with their economy and emissions? We can provide that just fine without risking the strength of our economy.

So again, I agree a self-grown environmental makeover would be good for the US and I think it's happening at it's own pace even now - a pace that won't precipitate major economic issues.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 01:51 PM
 
Dems: Good cop.
GOP: Bad cop.

All still cops.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Conservatives are detail oriented while liberals are more emotion driven, and therefore more easily tricked by words. Conservatives look at the action and words of others and evaluate the situation based on that.

Emotion driven liberal types don't look closely to the details, usually because they don't mean anything to someone who doesn't deal in the details, and instead is easily swayed by idealistic words, and grand concepts, and because of the lack of detailed background on whatever subject is in question, they are more easily tricked.

Still at that, huh?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Dems: Good cop.
GOP: Bad cop.

All still cops.
I see the Dems more as mall cops.

Nobody is really afraid of what they do.

-t
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I see the Dems more as mall cops.

Nobody is really afraid of what they do.

-t
Apparently not a Glenn Beck viewer.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Dems: Cop on the take.
GOP: Cop with taser.
Fixed.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I see the Dems more as mall cops.

Nobody is really afraid of what they do.

-t
Really? Because with all the yelling the Republicans do about how they're going to destroy this country and ruin our economic standing, it sure sounds like they're pretty afraid of what the Democrats do.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 04:19 AM
 
Strange I know, but in the world outside of the US, the equivalents of Dem an Rep take the same stances. And not just in War but also in the treatment of crime, education etc.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 08:07 AM
 
War means "change" and Democrats do not like "change".
- Regime change? No.
- Confronting long history of global terrorism? No.
- Hampering despots? No.
- Protecting US interests? No.

Democrats; the party of "no".
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 10:24 AM
 
Why the assumption of "FAR MORE" repubs..??

Any numbers?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
War means "change" and Democrats do not like "change"
Haha, they're also opposed to climate "change"
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
War means "change" and Democrats do not like "change".
Is this meant to be a joke and I'm just not getting it?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Is this meant to be a joke and I'm just not getting it?
Maybe you still think that talking about change = implementing change.

To paraphrase what eBuddy said:

Democrats like to talk about change, but afraid to make it happen because it will invariable piss of one of their most beloved constituents (often the unions).

-t
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Conservatives are detail oriented while liberals are more emotion driven, and therefore more easily tricked by words. Conservatives look at the action and words of others and evaluate the situation based on that.

Emotion driven liberal types don't look closely to the details, usually because they don't mean anything to someone who doesn't deal in the details, and instead is easily swayed by idealistic words, and grand concepts, and because of the lack of detailed background on whatever subject is in question, they are more easily tricked.
Which is interesting, because I would have said both were equally driven by emotion.

Republican party rhetoric, especially during election time, predominantly strikes me as being driven by fear.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 12:59 PM
 
If the idea is that preferring peace over war means preferring the status quo over change, I'm not sure what argument that actually addresses. Doesn't everyone prefer peace over war? War is one instrument among many that might be used to instill "change." The disagreement is about when war is necessary, not whether war is a preferable outcome.

(In this, I take besson's original question to mean why do Republicans have a lower threshold for the necessity of war than Democrats, not that Republicans prefer war more than Democrats)

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 05:15 PM
 
It actually boils down to the differences in the way liberals and conservatives analyze and decide on things.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
It actually boils down to the differences in the way liberals and conservatives analyze and decide on things.
I thought it was Democrats being purely emotionally driven while Republicans are into fact and reasoning (minus anything having something to do with science, of course)?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
It actually boils down to the differences in the way liberals and conservatives analyze and decide on things.
Uh, I think we can take that as a given.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Is this meant to be a joke and I'm just not getting it?
It's simply citing a "change" Democrats will frequently say "no" to. They may or may not be the party of "no" contingent upon whether or not the "change" is something they can believe in. When they don't believe in the "change", they say no to it just like Republicans who are supposedly slow to "change" and the party of "no". It was an observation.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Haha, they're also opposed to climate "change"
I usually refer to them as natural climate change deniers.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I thought it was Democrats being purely emotionally driven while Republicans are into fact and reasoning (minus anything having something to do with science, of course)?
There's no science in war? You either need to bone up on the technology we're using or you're just not that into science.
ebuddy
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 09:06 PM
 
Technology ≠ Science.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2010, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's simply citing a "change" Democrats will frequently say "no" to. They may or may not be the party of "no" contingent upon whether or not the "change" is something they can believe in. When they don't believe in the "change", they say no to it just like Republicans who are supposedly slow to "change" and the party of "no". It was an observation.
Progressive ideas are based on the idea of improving something by building, by reforming, by trying to make something better, by trying to improve the lives of people. War is almost always a gamble as to whether it will make a situation better in the short and long term. There are many wars that haven't, and the short term costs are quite clearly negative. Progressives feel that war is an absolute last resort, and there is an immense moral dimension to war as well. War is a sometimes necessary evil, not a course of action we as a human race should be proud to take.

Health care reform is also a gamble, there is a moral dimension to it too, but the way many progressives see it as a last resort to fix something that is clearly broken in their eyes.

The two things are pretty difficult to compare the way you are. Besides, even if we were to give you that, you still have a whole assortment of other issues:

- health care reform: Republicans don't seem eager to change
- education: same
- gay rights: same
- improved regulation of the economy: same
- middle class friendly policies: same
- etc.

There is a reason why one side is labeled "progressives" and the other "conservatives". Conservatives aren't as anxious to change stuff, in general, with exceptions.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2010, 06:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Democrats like to talk about change, but afraid to make it happen because it will invariable piss of one of their most beloved constituents (often the unions).
That's true of any political party. They're enslaved by mediocrity.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2010, 06:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Osedax View Post
Keep in mind that my post was to highlight the differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign issues (bludgeoning).
It doesn't matter if it is a matter of foreign policies or domestic policies, it works according to the same principles. The thing is that it's a bit harder in the US for fringe topics to become main stream as there are only two parties participating in politics.
Originally Posted by Osedax View Post
Further, there is no reason to put our economic future in the hands of an organization that at best cares more about the environment then our economy and at worst would welcome a decline in US influence via a weakened economy.
Without wanting to side-track this thread: you can make an argument that not enforcing strict environmental policies will cause a lot more damage to the economy in the future. The US is behind in most green technologies at the moment, for instance. And in addition, things like health problems will also have a significant impact on the US later.

But anywho. My point is that in many countries, tough environmental regulations are not a trademark of `liberal' politics, but they've been absorbed into mainstream politics.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
tonton
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2010, 07:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I think the Republicans feel that terror groups are so fanatical that they cannot be reasoned with (a reasonable premise), while Democrats believe that terror groups are "misunderstood" or something like that, and that some accommodation is possible. As with many things, there is some middle ground-but based on what groups like al Queda have published, it seems that the middle ground on this issue is a lot closer to the Republican, "the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist" attitude.
Um... that's not what any Democrats believe.

Most anti-war Democrats believe in the hornet's nest premise, which has proven beyond a doubt to be accurate. If you leave a hornet's nest alone, you may get a hornet or two stinging someone. If you swat it with a stick and kill a few hornets, guess what?

You can't eradicate terrorism without committing genocide (exterminating the hornets, even the ones who have never stung anyone). All you can do is decrease the likeliness of terrorism through dialogue and just accept that sometimes it's gonna happen anyway.
n+N

Got Vurt? Jeff Noon
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2010, 10:20 AM
 
Republicans would come back at night with kerosene and burn the hornets nest so nobody gets stung by them again. BTW - unlike bees, hornets can sting over and over.

Any comments on the way liberals and conservatives interpret rules and laws? Living documents(which is BS) vs word of law.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2010, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Technology ≠ Science.
Sure it does.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2010, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by tonton View Post
Most anti-war Democrats believe in the hornet's nest premise, which has proven beyond a doubt to be accurate. If you leave a hornet's nest alone, you may get a hornet or two stinging someone. If you swat it with a stick and kill a few hornets, guess what?
This is exactly what the terrorists did in the US; creating an active swarm of hornets supported overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.

You can't eradicate terrorism without committing genocide (exterminating the hornets, even the ones who have never stung anyone). All you can do is decrease the likeliness of terrorism through dialogue and just accept that sometimes it's gonna happen anyway.
So why did this Democratic Congress and President increase funding for both wars and a surge in Afghanistan?
ebuddy
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2010, 12:27 PM
 
Why are the Japanese far less likely to be war hawks? Certainly less war hawkish that Democrats Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson. Not to mention, Harry S. Truman, Democrat, who saw to it the Japanese understood the error of their ways.
     
tonton
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2010, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is exactly what the terrorists did in the US; creating an active swarm of hornets supported overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.

So why did this Democratic Congress and President increase funding for both wars and a surge in Afghanistan?
Read the second, third and fourth words of your first quote.

Obama isn't an anti-war Democrat. In fact, he's shaping up to be hardly a Democrat at all. He's appearing to be further right than Bill Clinton.
n+N

Got Vurt? Jeff Noon
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2010, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Progressive ideas are based on the idea of improving something by building, by reforming, by trying to make something better, by trying to improve the lives of people.
No different than Conservative principles in preserving that which is working well while reforming or changing that which isn't working well, shaping or building policies that encourage individual responsibilities in order to improve the lives of people. The problem is of course you have no progressive districts in this country to tout as a success story. Mitigating symptoms of problems does nothing for resolving them and only grows the entity at odds with the populace. We've been watching Progressive ideology unfold in this country since the early 1900's and I see no decrease in taxation, spending, entitlements, wealth disparity, or poverty. I see no decrease in the size of government evidenced by all those items for which you and OAW agree including the sizes of the measures they pass.

War is almost always a gamble as to whether it will make a situation better in the short and long term. There are many wars that haven't, and the short term costs are quite clearly negative. Progressives feel that war is an absolute last resort, and there is an immense moral dimension to war as well. War is a sometimes necessary evil, not a course of action we as a human race should be proud to take.
Of course not to ignore the costs of inaction or alternative actions as well such as oppressive economic sanctions and soft stances of "diplomacy" that merely embolden despots and lead to incredible civil rights violations and humanitarian nightmares. This is human nature; flawed in all it attempts to do under the guise of "it's good for the children."

Health care reform is also a gamble, there is a moral dimension to it too, but the way many progressives see it as a last resort to fix something that is clearly broken in their eyes.
Yes, healthcare is a gamble and each time the government has acted to mitigate symptoms under the guise of compassion, it has only exacerbated the actual problem and grown the size of the entity at odds with the populace.

- health care reform: Republicans don't seem eager to change
Republicans have authored over 130 health care reform proposals and have written numerous letters to this Administration. The Democrats have been the party of "no" on every last one and have only obstructed their proposed changes.

- education: same
You may disagree with No Child Left Behind, but it was something legislation preceded by nothing legislation. The education boondoggle is for all to share. No one talks about the skyrocketing costs of tuition while we continue to throw more money at mitigating the symptoms of it.

- gay rights: same
Most don't believe this even really rates as a concern to be honest with you. It is a "Progressive" pet that puts the government entity generally at odds with the populace. Of course, gays have all the same rights as you and I, it's not an "emergency".

- improved regulation of the economy: same
Revisionist history. Republicans argued for regulation of the banking sector in 2006 for example, and were overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats who decided it would be more effective to work closed-door deals with AIG for their bonuses or Goldman Sachs allowed to benefit; choosing which corporate monoliths should succeed while letting the ones that actually create the majority of jobs in this country fail. They didn't regulate it, they gave it a friggin' get outta jail free card, bail to be paid by you and I.

- middle class friendly policies: same
Such as???

- etc.
Such as? I mean this is all just rhetoric. There is absolutely zero substance to this entire post besson.

There is a reason why one side is labeled "progressives" and the other "conservatives". Conservatives aren't as anxious to change stuff, in general, with exceptions.
This is where I think you're mistaken in your caricature of what Conservatism is. There is no new idea under the sun. Conservatives generally oppose the antiquated, failed ideals of centuries gone by in favor of the comparatively new principles the US was founded on. They feel strongly that these are the differences that have manifest in the most successful system of governance ever developed by almost any metric you can cite; in less than 250 years. Ideas that propose change must be qualified in terms of historical merit; if they have dismally little going for them, it is only sensible to oppose them. What you call Conservative, I call common sense.

What you call Progressive, I call regressive, mostly failed ideology from yesteryear. You just think it's all new because you're new to the game.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:14 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,