|
Author
|
Topic: Are Democrats really anti War ?
|
TEXASGRANDMA
Advanced Member
Member # 847
|
posted
I wish there was a politcial party that shared my beliefs. I am against abortion but for gun control. I am against gay marriage but for the envirement. But, there is not a party that I know of for me. I am for the regular guy not big busniness.
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
http://www.indieheaven.com/artists/mm (son-in-law)http://www.myspace.com/mireles
Posts: 4985 | From: Washington State | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Niedziejkore
Advanced Member
Member # 2773
|
posted
Well, White Eagle, you and me, we both live in the North. I'm From Wisconsin, you're from Maine. There still is racism in our country today, and what I think you're talking about is affirmative action. what Democrats are trying to do with affirmative action or any of those other policies that favor other races over whites is to try and balance the power.
Now, i'm white. I think Affirmative action is unfair. However, statistically blacks disporpotionately live in city ghettos, so this is a problem in our country that is actually visible. It's hard to get out of the ghetto. And it's sad, but it is a fact that inner-city schools are not the best funded.
What affirmative action is doing is giving kids who live in an environment (inner-city) that would normally not emphasize going to college, a vehicle for going to college. I think it's a wonderful thing, but it is also, as you put it, racist.
I think Affirmative Action should go away because I have a better idea: give that money to anyone who wants to go to college that is living below a certain income level.
Wouldn't that be great? I'd consider voting republican if they'd start pushing initiatives like that, but they don't.
**update**
I just did a little more research on affirmative action, and realized that it came about in the 1960s... a time when racism was rampant. Remember separate drinking fountains, bathrooms? blacks couldn't go into a whites only restauraunt and had to sit in the back of the bus?
So, actually, at the time, this was REALLY needed. If you were black and especially living in the south, you could kiss any chance of going to college goodbye. Wouldn't you agree it was needed at the time?
But my stance on it now is, it was a wonderful policy, and i think it did a great deal of good to equalize the races, but it's getting old, and our country is not as racist as it was before the civil rights movement, so let's stop helping middle and upper class blacks who can get into college just fine, and start helping black, hispanic, and white teenagers living below the poverty line get into colleges.
**update**
ok, so i just learned it;s not about money, it's about quotas. I guess being a white suburbanite, i really never cared about AA.
then i found out that it's not a "black's only" policy, but it usually involves using racial, gender, socioeconomic background, and/or sexual orientation status as a positive factor in hiring or admissions decisions.
So, i have some reading to do.
In the meantime, you all should read this great site on affirmative action i found, which cites arguments for and against it. [SoYouWanna know about affirmative action]
--------------------
Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The queen is their slave.
Posts: 346 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WhiteEagle
Advanced Member
Member # 3728
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niedziejkore:
The Democratic party once had strong roots in the south and were pro-slavery. Now they're of course anti-slavery and have stronger following in the north. The Republican party of today is not the same party of Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln.
I see the Democratic Party as still being a "racist" party. They "see" minorities as being inferior and needing more help than the white person, and all their policies reflect that bias,
Hence they persecute Condalesa Rice as being too loyal to Bush. Would they have acused a white woman contending for the same office of that?
I guess they fell hispanics are not good enough to be judges or Attorney Generals either, noting their bias, and let's not forget Sen. Bird a Democrat has KKK roots.
Of course the Democrats don't admit they "see" minorities are inferior, they are just trying to "help" them.
The Democrats are still a racist party, but it's just more subtle now.
Posts: 1392 | From: Maine | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Niedziejkore
Advanced Member
Member # 2773
|
posted
I can not agree more that third parties nreed more exposure in our political system. by the time presidential elections are underway, all the media focuses on the Democrats and Republicans, and we hear nothing of anyone else running for president.
One way i'd propose a change is to make it easier for political parties to get on states tickets. Each state has their own standards as to how someone gets on their ballot, which is why Ralph Nader wasn't able to get on some states ballots, and not only did the Green party have problems with this, but so did the prohibition party, american party, and libertarian party.
And there are no debates with third party candidates. I'd love to see a debate between the republican, democrat, and a few liberal and conservative third party candidates. That'll surely throw the Reps and Dems through a loop.
But as for the arguement above, are the dems really more anti-war than the republicans? I think there are too many ways to answer that question. First, if you've noticed the Republican Party and Democratic parties have changed over the years. Just Look at Nixon, and G.W. Bush. If Nixon were running today against G.W., Nixon would be the liberal democrat. The Democratic party once had strong roots in the south and were pro-slavery. Now they're of course anti-slavery and have stronger following in the north. The Republican party of today is not the same party of Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln.
Second, for the wars we went through, they may have been waged under a Democratic President, but you need i think a 2/3rds vote from the house and senate to declare war (something G.W. never did) and with the house and senate split pretty much 50/50, you have to imagine republicans were just as much to blame for going into those wars.
quote:
More than likely America would've participated in every war mentioned no matter if a (R) or (D) was in office at the time.
I think you hit the nail on the head there.
--------------------
Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The queen is their slave.
Posts: 346 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
whitesands777
Advanced Member
Member # 3424
|
posted
It's interesting how most of the democrats have criticised the war and have taken on the appearence that they are somehow anti war...
I don't know why everyone gets the idea that a president from the democratic party is going to somehow get us out of war or not enter into one...
Here are some interesting facts.
America entered WWI under (D) Woodrow Wilson ...8 million dead
America entered WWII under (D) Franklin Roosevelt...52 million dead
Korean war started under (D) Harry Truman
America entered the Vietnam war which is one of the most hotly protested and useless war under (D) John Kennedy.
It's interesting that America entered the most bloody wars of all time during the office of democrats, and one of the ones listed used a promise not to enter the war as a platform to get elected.
I'm not trying to start a (R)/(D) debate but I'm just trying to shed light on the error of the public's perception concerning different politcal parties idealogies...
More than likely America would've participated in every war mentioned no matter if a (R) or (D) was in office at the time.
We get two guys which fall under one of two categories (while 3rd parties are given absolutely zero exposure) and are pretty much forced to choose between the two.
Scenerio:
A pre-school teacher has a refrigerator full of many different kinds of fruit(apples, bananas, oranges, strawberries) and proceeds to ask the class, "O.k, what kind of fruit do you want ? An apple or banana ?" giving zero knowledge of the other types fruit they could have and would choose if they knew it was a real option. But before she asked the question she educates the class on the different flavor of the apple and banana and the different health benefits associated with them.
While the kids are now thinking about the vivid explanation to the point to where their little imaginations can almost taste the two fruits they are unaware that the opiton of having grapes, oranges, strawberries ect. ect. simply because the teacher didn't mention them.....The kids know that the other fruits exist, but because the teacher didn't let them know that she had other types they are almost forced by ignorance to choose the apple or banana.
How many kids do you think are going to ask for the orange ? Not many....
The same goes for politics..Stick two ideas in a box, push them to the nth degree, keep other ideas out, and make the public pick what they want..
How many people are going to choose ideas out of the box ? Not many.
Posts: 501 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
