Core difference between Left and Right wingers

Published on December 27, 2003 By Groove_rider In Politics

Republicans and Democrats.
Two names that make peoples gut churn with antipathy and sometimes outright hatred!
But I have noticed something else about these two political creatures.
I've noticed that Liberals, aka Democrats, want to rely more on the world opinion to do a job that Republicans seem ready to do all by themselves! Perhaps this is because those "unrightfully-rich people" are lumped in with the Republicans and they are accustomed to finding solutions to their own problems and dont feel the need to consult with or get permission from other people to solve their own problems.
I've heard so much bitching about how the war in Iraq was unneccessary. Acutally, it WAS neccessary. But not from the standpoint that we're helping Iraq. I fill the head of a pin with the sum total care I have for that country.
Here is how I see it.
1. During President Clintons term of office, laws were enacted which made it illegal for intelligence services to gain information from or to even meet with bad guys..by bad guys I mean felons. While this seems like a wonderful thing for those of you who dont subscribe to violence, it was a death knell to our CIA,FBI, and a few other intelligence services that gained information from these people, using their greed to gain information on who's doing what to whom, and when they're going to do it!
Before 9/11 we were completely in the dark! We had no idea of what was going on outside the united states, in the "back alleys" of the rest of the countries.
Many CIA station chiefs left their jobs..they could no longer function.
When President Bush came into office...one of the first things he did was allocate 40 billion dollars to the Intelligence communities to rebuild their infrastructure and get those intelligence assets back.
Like it or not, its a dog eat dog world out there..and right now we're STILL wearing milkbone underwear!
Thats just human nature.
President Bush went after the most likely suspects...and what do you know, he turned out right!
and he did it after the rest of the world told him "no no no, thats not nice"...fact is folks, they dont give a damn about 9/11 except to say "oh those poor americans"..
Then again,why should they? its not their neck on the chopping block.
And of course, when we decide to actually DO something about it..and start poking around to find out just what the hell is going on, what do we find??? While we've been sitting with our thumbs up our collective asses, Germany, France, Russia and God knows who else, have been WORKING with Saddam Hussein for the almighty barrel of oil, or the money that it can make them. OF COURSE they're going to be angry, or afraid because we'll find out that they've been a. screwing the U.N mandates, and B. Aiding Hussein in the destruction of U.S physical assets and moral credibility.
I Like the attitude of the Republicans...Do what you have to do and worry about what the rest of the world thinks...cause the only thing they have at stake is chin-music...
Republicans are DO'ers not Talkers..
Liberals, keep talking your troubles away...perhaps one day the world will be what you want it to be...but I wont look for it in my lifetime.
And Republicans? I say to you, keep your shoulder to the wheel, keep the rudder straight..we cant do it without ya.

Comments

FrankensRight

on Dec 28, 2003

What an incredibly stupid and uninformed diatribe! You are oblivious to the fact that Sandy Berger told the Bush-league transition team on several occasions that OBL was the greatest threat to world security and that the Clinton administration had a plan to invade Afganistan to rid the world of the threat. The Bush-leaguers blew him off. The Dept of Homeland security was also a Democratic idea, first blown off and then embraced by the neo-cons. The Bush administration is not cooperating with the 9/11 commission because they don't want the world to find out how they dropped the ball on defending this great nation.

The TRUE difference between the democrats and repubs is that democrats protect people fromm big business and repubs protect big business from people.

By the way asshole. FDR guided us through WWII, Harry Truman rebuild Europe through the Marshall plan and Clinton was responsible for the longest period of sustained economic growth in our history and built a military strong enough to blow right to Baghdad. The good guys may not winn in 2004 but Hillary is waiting in the wings.

messybuu

on Dec 28, 2003

Liberals definitely do complain quite often. Personally, I think it's out of boredom. Fighting for superficial causes gives them something to do.

EMacy

on Dec 28, 2003

frankensright_here:
The TRUE difference between the democrats and repubs is that democrats protect people fromm big business and repubs protect big business from people.

Anthony R

on Dec 28, 2003

>>FDR guided us through WWII, Harry Truman rebuild Europe through the Marshall plan and Clinton was responsible for the longest period of sustained economic growth in our history and built a military strong enough to blow right to Baghdad. The good guys may not winn in 2004 but Hillary is waiting in the wings.>>

I will grant you FDR and Truman, but Bill Clinton is no FDR or Harry Truman, that’s where your argument comes off the rails.

8 Years of illegal fund-raising, accepting contributions from criminals, and corporate accounting lies. 8 years of a growing Al Qaida, terrorism with no reprisals except an attack on an aspirin factory. 8 years of military cuts to reap the ‘Peace Dividend,” government cowboyisms at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the farce in Florida with Elian Gonzalez, campaigns of violence against Americans spearheaded by Reno. 8 years of bankrolling communism in N. Korea, selling nuclear secrets to China, and prepping his carpet-bagging wife for future office. When it was all said & done, Bill had a fire sale with pardons, Hillary grabbed all the silverware she could pocket, and they headed for the door, Bill shouting to Bush on the way out, 'Watch out fer them thar Al Qaida. They are a might nasty!'

The problem is that Bill & Hillary did all this crazy crap and yet the economy hummed along so well because of the continuing success of Reaganomics, but they actually think Bill was somehow responsible for it. They got lazy, they lost direction, and now the party freaks like Howard Dean have taken over, with the endorsment of the "hand wringing Hamlet," Al Gore. It will take them another 2 elections just to pull their heads out of their ass. They are being rejected everywhere. Republicans control the Senate, the White House, and the governorships of the 4 largest electorates. This leadership is so out of touch with America and reality that they think Dean or Hillary would actually have a chance at winning the White House.

Anthony R

on Dec 28, 2003

>>During President Clintons term of office, laws were enacted which made it illegal for intelligence services to gain information from or to even meet with bad guys..>>

This was a legal pair of handcuffs to the CIA, and FBI, it ended any ability for them to do their jobs. Then again having an FBI director that shunned computers and refused to have one in his office while Al Qaida was using encryption technology to communicate on computers without being detected was not to helpful either.

Larry Kuperman

on Dec 28, 2003

"yet the economy hummed along so well because of the continuing success of Reaganomics"

American Presidents tend to receive more credit than is their due when the economy goes well and more blame than is their due when the economy goes poorly, IMHO. That is true for both the Clinton and Reagan administrations. In large measure what the President can do is to effect consumer confidence, which effects spending and the stock market. Tax breaks to stimulate the economy and government spending are the major tools. Then of course we have tariffs and international negotiations. Jimmy Carter, for example, was incapable of resolving the oil embargo.

But the de-regulation of the Reagan era was not a good thing in the long run. Remember that it was George Bush senior that referred to Reagan's economic proposals as "voodoo economics." Of course that changed when Reagan offered him the Vice-Presidency. De-regulation created temporary growth, but it also gave us the inflated (and falsified in some cases) books of Enron, WorldCom and Tyco. There wasn't as much growth in the American economy as people thought. Corporate mergers can increase stock prices, but create no new value. Value comes from the creation and sale of goods and services.

Certainly the Clinton administration benefited from this, as did everyone who saw their stock portfolio double in value. Upon assuming the Presidency, Clinton abandoned most of his economic planks. The single greatest issue in American economics, rising healthcare costs, still hasn't been addressed. He cruised along taking credit for a resurgent economy. Remember watching Amazon's stock climb while they kept on losing money? Remember Yahoo selling at $135 per share while actually making nothing? Voodoo was the perfect term to describe this, because it was driven by nothing more than belief. "The internet is going to double every year." That was said by the founder of WorldCom, who had a sketchy grasp of mathematics at best. The problem was that on his books it DID double every year.

It would be hard to show that either Reagan or Clinton actually did much to help the American economy. Both of them got a lot of credit for things they didn't do.

Draginol

on Dec 28, 2003

Domestically:

Liberals are interested in people's intentions.

Conservatives are interested in people's capabilities.

On foreign policy:

Liberals seem to be concerned with a nation's capabilities

Conservatives seem to be concerned with a nation's intentions

stevendedalus

on Dec 30, 2003

Holy crap![or is it wholly?] You guys are trapped in the "logic" of the administration, which is to tell the world: "Make my day."

mignuna

on Jan 10, 2004

i got here by accident. i freely declare my lack of knowledge on this subject matter - although i am surprised by how harsh the feedback is.

when i see the words: "here is how I see it"; i expect an individuals' opinion. that is just what i got here, and i thank you groove for sharing it. i hope you continue.

whosisohw

on Jan 10, 2004

For the heck of it, note that since the Reaganomicists claim voodoo economics doesn't really kick in until a Clinton gets into office, and since there is zero proof either that Reagan was responsible for the Clinton good times or that Clinton was responsible for the Clinton good times, let's go back to who's really responsible: the Russians, whose diabolical plan to bankrupt the fledgling United States by taking good American money for the worthless Northwest Territories, failed spectacularly.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!