posted
Jeesh, here's a very oversimplified way to look at it, at least in terms of domestic policy:
Republicans: -Socially restrictive: anti-abortion, war on drugs, historically the law and order party, no homosexual marriage, etc. -Economically permissive: lower taxes, smaller government, deregulation of business.
Democrats are just the opposite: -Socially permissive: pro-abortion, tend to be more tolerant of drugs, if not in favor of decriminalizing, more supportive of homosexual marriage. -Economically restrictive: bigger government, higher taxes, social/welfare programs, heavier regulatioin of business.
*Disclaimer - Obviously these are general trends. There are some glaring inconsistancies, such as gun control, which, from my description, you might conclude Republicans support and Democrats are against, if for some reason you didn't know any better. **Disclaimer, the sequel (Disclaimer in da hood) - Anyone who tries to come back with a "Oh yeah? I'm a Democrat, but I'm AGAINST abortion, buddy," will be summarily knocked out with ether and shot into the sun. No exceptions.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Do they actually use DU for bullets? I thought it was only for larger bore shells as anti-armor ammunition.
Depleted Uranium is *only* used in anti-armor shells... the whole point is having a super-dense, penetrating core. Against armor or other hardening is the only time you want penetration. Typically, you want the bullet to enter the target (person) and stop. If it goes right through, it actually does less damage.
quote:Also, that seriously freaks me out that you can buy white phosphorus rounds as a civilian. What possible purpose could you have for that?
There's a shotgun shell that fires a white phosphorus blast, I think it's called "dragon breath". I found it to be unsuitable as an incendiary, but the rounds I fired were quite old at the time, so they may have been degraded. (We were trying to burn a recently divorced friend's wedding portrait, which seems as good a use as any for WP).
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
For Advent (and others who may be confused) depleted uranium isn't highly radioactive (that's what the "depleted" means).
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gonna try to answer this seriously, but I have to put a disclaimer that I'm a Libertarian who votes Republican. Some of my bias *will* leak through.
Republicans pretend to be for smaller government. By that I mean, they want to have a big government, just smaller than the democrats want. Republicans support the social programs they say they are against in an effort to woo the votes of fiscal conservatives. They are very pro-christian and all that implies. Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay rights, etc. Republicans also wish to pursue the War on Terror, fighting where we need to fight to make sure American lives are safe. Republicans are against gun control believing that people have a right to defend themselves against criminals.
Democrats want big government. They are anti-corporation, but fail to realize that the federal government is the biggest and nastiest corporation of them all. Democrats support increasing taxes to fund more and more social programs, thus paving the road to hell with their good intentions. Democrats pretend to care about the plight of homosexuals, but all the anti-gay marriage laws passed in this country would not have passed with such overwelming margins without Democrat support. That being said, a lot of laws that protect gays would not have passed without their help either. I will never forgive them, though, for Bill Clinton signing the Defence of Marriage Act which made gay marriage illegal at the federal level. Democrats are Pro-Choice on the issue of abortion. Democrats seem to believe that we can treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a war. Democrats wish to remove God from all aspects of public life. Democrats are pro-gun control in an effort to keep guns out of criminals hands.
Libertarians, at the party level, spend far too much time worrying about the War On Drugs and making us look like kooks. Libertarians desire to remove the government as much as possible leaving only the police, army, courts and roads in their hands. The government is to protect us from force and fraud but let us carry on with our lives making our own choices (bad ones too) so long as we're not hurting an unwilling victim. Libertarians are frequently confused with anarchists. I'm sure if a Libertarian were actually elected to high office he would succumb to the power just as the Democrats and Republicans have. =(
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Republicans are against gun control believing that people have a right to defend themselves against criminals.
Pix
Interesting. Back in the day it was understood that the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow people the right to protect themselves from the government. Our current understanding of the system of American government upsets me.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's accurate to say that Republicans are small-government and Democrats are big-government any more.
These days, Republicans favor a big government that is focused on military and security, paid for with debt rather than taxes. The Democrats favor a big government that is focused on giving away domestic benefits such as social security or health care or whatever else, with a balanced budget that is paid for by high taxes. Republicans are borrow-and-spend. Democrats are tax-and-spend. I'm not sure either party can credibly claim to favor smaller government.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as an example of going against the trend, I was raised as a Republican and became a Democrat as I got older. Part of it was the Republican party joining forces with the socially conservative "Religious Right". For you youngsters, social conservatism has not always been a part of the Republican platform.
The other part of my reason for changing parties is that as I got older I lost the notion that I am somehow more "deserving" than those that have less than I do. I came to recognize that I owe a lot of what I have to luck, to the support of others, to a social system, and most importantly, to God. I am reminded of the parable of the man whose debt is forgiven by the Master and yet doesn't forgive the debt owed him. We all owe so much.
I once heard that a just world is the one you would design if you didn't know who your parents would be. While nature will tend to favor the "haves" making it easier for them to have more - survival of the fittest - I think that, as human beings, we should do better.
While the Democrats certainly don't even come close to doing this perfectly, or even very well, I think that their philosophy of government as an instrument to make people's lives better is a good one.
My 70 year-old father, a lifelong Republican, voted Democrat for the second time ever (first was for JFK) in the last election.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Republicans also wish to pursue the War on Terror, fighting where we need to fight to make sure American lives are safe.
Pix
Umm, no offence Pix. But who the heck do you think are loosing their lives in the "war on terror"?
And just so this isn't used against me: I am supporting the troops, but I do not support their commander in cheif. And I am serving the troops by trying to bring them home (Already on the lookout for who the next Democrat elects are going to be). Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
airmanfour: The second amendment IS for defending ourselves against the government. But I don't think that's what most REPUBLICANS support it for.
Advent: The Enemy and innocent bystanders mostly. Fewer Americans have died in almost 5 years of war than lost their lives in 1 day in 2001. But once again, I was describing my interpretation of the Republican's philosophy. Which I may or may not agree with.
posted
Ahh, okay I can understand that if you ere trying to be "general" about the Republican philosophy.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Umm, no offence Pix. But who the heck do you think are loosing their lives in the "war on terror"? [/b]
Well, of course when you fight a war you are going to lose lives. Do you think we went into WWII expecting no soliders to die for their nation and people? Those men and women chose to go into the army, and are happy to fight for their country. From a casualty point of view, we have lost as little as possible.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I said it because we aren't continuing a "war on terror". We went in looking for Osama, and came out with Saddam?
Tell me, how does anyone still justify us attacking Iraq, when there is overwhelming evidence (enough to convict a serial killer 8 times over) that Al Quada and Iraq had no connections. And on the other side BUSH WAS IGNORING CLINTONS ADVICE ON KILLING OSAMA! Up until Sept 6, 2001 the Bush admin was doing nothing about Al Quada (even after repeated warnings that the middle east was going to be a threat). So I say [sarcasm] lets hear a hip, hip hurray for our lovely President and the great job he's doing!
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Advent, I understand your passion (believe me, I do!), but that kind of rhetoric won't get very far. You might want to read some of the previous threads on the war so you can see what has gone before on this topic.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Advent - You cannot possibly have all of the information the President had at hand when he made these decisions. And people like you, that say they are supporting the troops by attempting to get them home make most of my friends, those troops you're talking about, more than a little bit angry. So how 'bout you let the troops do their job, and when our bosses tell us we're done, then the troops can come home. You saying you support the troops and not the President on an internet forum does no-one any good. So I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from making any more "serving the troops" statements unless you actually do work in the food service industry and dish out that chicken steak stuff in a chow hall somewhere. Thanks.
As it stands, as far as I can tell, the military is still a right-leaning organization, no matter how they feel about our current Commander-in-Chief.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's okay, Advent, I get pretty riled up myself!
And airmanfour, understanding that our troops get very little say about where and it what capacity they serve, and understanding that they don't have the luxury of questioning our leaders, makes it even more important that we do. It is our duty as citizens to hold our leaders accountable.
In a representative government we must never forget that we are the bosses.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
airman, I think you may be presuming just a trifle much to speak for the troops. There are many, many troops who don't get all that angry when people criticisize the President or the wisdom and prosecution of the war in Iraq.
In America, we have a president, not a king. That's an important part of our system you may want to keep in mind. I (and Advent) don't have the information that the President had, but we do have what the President and his administration told us, what has since come out about both what they knew and what they were thinking (like that the decision to go to war in Iraq was made in large part shortly after 9/11). You've gotten your responsiblity chain messed up. It's not our job to shut up and do whatever the President wants. It's his job to act responsibly on our behalf and to convince us that he is doing so and is worthy of our trust.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The second amendment IS for defending ourselves against the government.
For this reason it is interesting that gun control laws essentially ban all arms that could really be useful in fighting against the government, and allow mainly weapons that aren't powerful enough to do anything. If we are serious about the idea that the second amendment should guarantee us the right to bear arms to defend against the gov't, then really we should be more concerned about our right to WMDs. That's the sort of weapon that could go up against our assortment of military technology.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't recommend Al Franken books to change anyone's mind, sorry. He can be funny and he may even be accurate, but it would be like recommending an Anne Coulter book to a liberal. The message is lost in the ridicule.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
quote:If we are serious about the idea that the second amendment should guarantee us the right to bear arms to defend against the gov't, then really we should be more concerned about our right to WMDs. That's the sort of weapon that could go up against our assortment of military technology.
Sadly, I suspect that's about Iran's reasoning, right now.
Hmm, incidentally, anyone seen "Lord of War"? Very good... And utterly depressing. (Sorry, Jeesh. It's a well deserved 'R'.)
It's worth noting that our troops in Iraq aren't being killed by WMDs, but by small arms and improvised explosives. In urban areas you hope to keep, against foes who come from a populace you can't afford to completely offend, let alone casually obliterate, small arms can be devestating.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a link to a "Political Typology" web site which will tell you which category (or more than Just Republican or Democrat) you most closely match: http://typology.people-press.org/
It also has information about how the different categories tend to feel about certain issues.
posted
As I understand it, the last time the SCOTUS heard a gun-control case, they ruled that the 2nd amendment didn't apply because the weapon in question (a shotgun designed for bird hunting) was of negligible military value-- which sort of implies that, assuming the amendment applies to the people, it ought to protect the right to fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers. This is obviously not the way it's applied in fact, today, though it is perfectly legal to own a fully automatic weapon, even a silenced one, if you jump through the right hoops and pay the appropriate taxes.
Edit to add: I don't like that type test... it asks questions about your personal economic status, which is *not* a matter of personal or political opinion. The alternatives are often too extreme as well... leaving no room for someone who thinks, for example, that the country should neither "do everything it can to protect the environment" nor curtail current environmental legislation.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm an independent too, Jeesh, though I lean Democratic.
Remember what Churchill said:"Anyone who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and anyone who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." You have plenty of time to toughen up and get conservative. Be a liberal idealist for a while.
Don't forget that there are other parties, too. For example, look into the Greens. Or the Libertarian Party which has been mentioned here. Though the 2 main parties do everything they can to crush third parties, they still survive.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: ... And people like you, that say they are supporting the troops by attempting to get them home make most of my friends, those troops you're talking about, more than a little bit angry. So how 'bout you let the troops do their job, and when our bosses tell us we're done, then the troops can come home.
Airmanfour, most of the troops in Iraq think we should pull out in less than a year, and only 20% "want to heed Bush's call to stay “as long as they are needed” ". I think what you said reflects your views, not soldiers' views in general.
quote:Troops poll: Pull out of Iraq in six months About half of American troops in Iraq believe the U.S. military should leave the country within six months, and three out of four think they should pull out within a year, according to a first-of-its-kind attempt to scientifically gauge the opinion of troops in a war zone.
The poll, released on Tuesday by national pollster John Zogby, includes face-to-face interviews of 944 randomly selected military personnel at four large U.S. bases. Among the findings: • 29 percent said U.S. troops should withdraw immediately. Another 22 percent said the U.S. should withdraw within six months, and [another] 21 percent within a year. Just 23 percent said they believe troops should remain “as long as they are needed.”
posted
Actually, the republicans control a little thing we like to call "The Matrix". And the Democrats, they control a little thing we like to call "The Real World". Now, "The Matrix" is awfully pretty, because the Republicans are very, very good at making something ugly and scary seem fluffy and nice. And "The Real World" is awfully scary, because the Democrats are very, very good at making something fluffy and nice seem ugly and scary.
Lots of people like to live in "The Matrix", because you get to drive a really big, scary sounding truck, you get to make lots of money working for a company that only rapes the world behind the curtain so you dont have to see the icky stuff, and you get to feel really good about yourself because you're an "American" and that means something special. And then, lots of people like to live in "The Real World", because you get to look down on everybody else who isnt "smart" enough to be in "The Real World", you get to do and be whatever the heck you want as long it doesnt hurt someone else (or go against the party line of thought), and you get to be neurotically convinced that the people in "The Matrix" are secretly plotting your doom, which is lots of fun. What it all comes down to, Jeesh, is choosing the world you want to live in. Do you want to drive a big truck and rape the earth, or do you want to develop an ulcer worrying about things that you know dont actually have a lot to do with reality but are better to think about than Latin America?
edit: damn it, this would have been better on the first page. stupid not checking the page # habit.
posted
I think I lean Democratic because I cannot stand the way our current president is leading this country. Even before that, I favored them. I've also noticed that monorities seem to favor the Democratic party too.
Actually, I'm rather apathetic to politics because they seem pretty useless to me. The current political situation is simply pathetic.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just saying that people need to leave the warfighting to the warfighters and to stop coming up with reasons we should do things with insufficiant information. The average troop in Iraq isn't aware of the big picture, and if the people coming up with the statistics ref'd had talked to only the people that knew what was going on, I'm sure those stats would change drastically. I'd like to know the backgrounds of the 20% vs the 80%, it would tell an interesting story. I don't trust polls.
The bottom line is that while some people talk about wanting to get the troops home as a favor to them, don't consider those that believe in what they are doing. No-one actually wants a war, but people that understand better than those uninvolved in this believe that leaving before the job has been done as completely as it can be done, is like not having done anything at all. Having 2306 flag-draped coffins to show for nothing is utterly unacceptable.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. While it is important to rely on those militarily experienced when making military decisions, ultimately all military power must be subordinated to the civilian authority, even if that authority makes the "wrong" decision, such as happened with the lack of post-conflict plans for Iraq (the Pentagon was preparing them, the Bush administration said to stop focusing on that, go back to fighting terrorism . . . ironic, somehow).
To do otherwise is dangerous.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I understand. I wasn't aware the subordination of the military was in question. I certainly don't disagree.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just saying that people need to leave the warfighting to the warfighters
quote:The bottom line is that while some people talk about wanting to get the troops home as a favor to them, don't consider those that believe in what they are doing. No-one actually wants a war, but people that understand better than those uninvolved in this believe that leaving before the job has been done as completely as it can be done, is like not having done anything at all
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Jeesh: Actually, right now I'm leaning towards Republian. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm. Lightsabers aside, how so? What about Republicans appeals to you?
I agree with more of their points.
Posts: 1164 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Like what? Being against gun control? In favor of smaller government? Free enterprise over regulation?
quote:I don't believe anything "well deserves" an 'R'. It's always the movies that look good that are 'R'
Well...
In a sense I agree, in as much as a lot of movies that come out as PG-13s a) don't deserve their rating, and b) are willing to compromise themselves in a variety of ways in an effort to reach the broadest audience possible, regardless of what such pandering may do to their quality.
And there are certainly adults who don't have the kind of perspective necessary to understand the genuine issues of an 'R' rated movie, and younger people who might do so better than those same adults. The rating system, like so many other things, is a rigid attempt to define maturity that may not always be successful, but is easier and simpler to implement than anything else.
HOWEVER;
"Lord of War" features, as its protaganist, a character who is deeply amoral. He's partially responsible for scores of deaths, he takes drugs, he cheats on his wife. He's the lead character, but he's certainly not the "hero", in the standard sense. The movie has good and interesting points to make about worldwide arms trade, and the things that men like the protaganist make possible.
Below a certain level of perspective-- maturity, if you will-- one might think that the character, who also enjoys a certain amount of wealth, success, and prestige, is admirable or deserving of emulation, which would be a bad thing.
Even above that level of maturity, the world "Lord of War" presents is not a hopeful or optimistic one. We older folks feel an obligation to protect younger people from views that might engender feelings of hopelessness before those younger people start to realize that they may posess the qualities and abilities that mean they don't have to accept misery and suffering as unavoidable.
To a very young person, a bloody killing in a movie might just bring nightmares and fear.
To an intelligent, somewhat more mature young person, seeing a killing in a movie that was avoidable and tragic might be more disturbing.
So, yes, there are some movies that look good that are 'R', and there are some movies that look good and have an 'R' rating that, say, a twelve year old girl ought to be able to see. I don't really think "Lord of War" is one of them.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: To a very young person, a bloody killing in a movie might just bring nightmares and fear.
Don't worry, I don't wet the bed.
quote: To an intelligent, somewhat more mature young person, seeing a killing in a movie that was avoidable and tragic might be more disturbing.
There are "disturbing" movies that are rated "PG-13" that young mature people watch.
quote: So, yes, there are some movies that look good that are 'R', and there are some movies that look good and have an 'R' rating that, say, a twelve year old girl ought to be able to see. I don't really think "Lord of War" is one of them.
Hate to say this but here is the age issue again. What if I never told you my age? Would you think I could see it?
Posts: 1164 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Jeesh. I know how frustrating it is to be judged for your age. Like I said, I started in on the BBS scene early, and I must confess that I hid my age for much the same reasons.
I respect you very much for announcing your age and trusting that the other members of Hatrack would be able to judge your writing by its content and not by the age of its writer.
In the line of that respect, I'm trying to give you an honest answer as to why this particular movie might, to my mind, not be suitable for a twelve year old and not just pass off some twaddle about "wait until you're older" or "mature themes" or some such.
And I know you're not the "very young person" I described; I'm trying to suggest why some movies might be inappropriate for younger viewers for completely different reasons.
Yes, there are disturbing PG-13 movies. You might note that I said that some PG-13 movies don't deserve their ratings, and that the system was far from perfect. My first reaction after seeing the PG-13 "Daredevil" was approximately, "My God, that has to be the most grisly PG-13 movie I've ever seen."
If you never told me your age... I would have to trust the system and your parents. The system, in not letting you rent or purchase an 'R' rated movie, and your parents, knowing you far better than I do, hopefully being able to judge whether seeing something like "Lord of War" would disturb you. Maybe "disturb" isn't strong enough a word. Maybe "harm" would be more appropriate.
What I will tell you is that "Lord of War" disturbed me, and I'm thirty. Maybe that distress is worth it, because it caused me to consider things I hadn't thought of before. If I didn't know your age, I would have to advise you of the effect it had on me and hope that you would make your own judgement as to whether it was worth it.
I'm trying not to be patronizing. If I fail, please realize that since becoming a father, my "protective" side has only become stronger.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
When did you become Luke?
