Repub's & Dem's: Two arms of the same monster

[cowtown]

For over 20 years, I called myself a Republican. Now I know that there is no difference. Can anyone who calls themself a conservative here explain why they support a party behind:

1. The Advanced Directives Act: (I'd REALLY like to hear anyone defend this) Signed into Texas law in 1999 by then Gov. George W. Bush. It gives Texas hospitals the right to pull feeding tubes of other life sustaining measures of Texas citizens on welfare. Don't believe it? Do some quick research, and read about it.

2. Wide Open Borders: Mr. Bush & Republican Senate and House members cutting the Border Patrol budget to the bone, wanting to make criminals entering our country citizens, all while bad mouthing the Minute Men Project.

3. Tell us that sending jobs overseas is good for America, while they sign law after law after law that favors big business and slowly removes the middle class from American society.

Hillary clones in government calling themselves conservative and we lap it up like Pavlov's dog. Mr. Clinton was a horrible president, and if Clinton & the Dems had done the things Mr. Bush and the Republicans are doing now, you'd all be screaming bloody murder.

Face it, folks.........we've been Neo-Conned.

[midcan5]

This should be interesting....

[TNRighty]

Cowtown,

You sound like a true conservative. Welcome to the board.

I looked up the ADA, and I certainly can't find a way to defend Bush on it. Although I never read anything about it being only applied to people on welfare, it certainly seems to be juxtapposed to his stance on the Schiavo case.

Wide open borders. HUGE problem. I'm right there with you. I voted for Bush because I think he is the right man to lead this country in the war on terror, and on that I think he has demonstrated remarkable clarity and principle...which is why I can't understand why he has been so reluctant to take a stance on illegal immigration. Its as much a part of the war on terror as Iraq is. I honestly believe he is a man of principle, but on this issue I think he's gone a bit political.

Republicans want Mexicans here for their cheap labor. Democrats want them here so they can give them health care in exchange for their votes. Both are wrong. Republicans want them to work for peanuts, while Democrats swoop in to give them everything their peanut salaries can't afford. Sounds to me like Mexicans are working both sides of the aisle...Bush let us in, and the Dems will give us what we need. Looks like we've been snookered. We need to do something about this ASAP!!

With all the resources this country has, there is no reason we can't patrol our own border. A nation that can't protect its borders can't protect itself. I will offer this thought though, had Bush completely locked down the border two years ago, every Liberal in America would have thrown a hissy fit about it. I just don't see how the same people who have oppposed Bush in every aspect of the war on terror can all of a sudden criticize him for not doing enough to protect our southern border...unless of course there is some political hay to make of it. Again, had Bush come down hard on immigration, Democrats would have been up in arms about it. If liberals had been on our side from the beginning, I wouldn't dismiss their criticism of the border issue as an opportunity to bash Bush.

Anyways, don't think for one minute that liberals actually favor tougher border control. This is an opportunity to bash Bush, nothing more. I'll criticize W for his lack of border control with the end goal being I hope he'll do something about it. The liberals have no end goal except to criticize W. Keep that in mind as this issue unfolds. Whatever action or inaction he takes will be met with criticism from the left.

As with any issue we currently face today, Democrats will offer no constructive advice or solutions whatsoever. Their goal is not to help solve our country's problems. Their goal is to make George Bush look bad, period.

Sorry Cowtown, that's probably a longer resonse than you wanted to the immigration issue.

As for the big business stuff, I'm not with you on that. First of all, what is "big business?" General Motors, a "big business" that employs thousands of Americans and provides products that even thousands more Americans purchase? General Electric, Ford, Dell, Johnson and Johnson, Chrysler, Lowe's, Wal Mart, Microsoft? What is so evil about these companies? Millions of Americans make their livings working for these companies. Who do you think pays the salaries of working class Americans? Business do! How many poor people have ever offered you a job?

If you're 30 and earning 7 bucks an hour at Wal Mart, that's not Wal Mart's fault. That's your fault. Businesses have never done anything but help drive the American economy, and socking it to them in the form of rediculous tax burdens only weakens our economy.

[midcan5]

ADA is representative of the hypocrisy of this administration nothing more.

Wide open borders are typical of cheap labor republican conservatives. Consistent throughout our recorded history unemployment goes up during republican admin and wages go down. They are neatly tucked in corporate pockets.

Is it liberals who are bashing Bush over immigration? Not really, it is anyone with a mind and a recognition of the problems this is causing our nation.

Funny we became a great country under liberal ideas from the thirties till the start of the downfall of our nation under Reagan - my opinion. Remember SS was a democratic idea, ruining it is a republican idea - a Repub idea with no substance.

If you need work and the job opening is at wal mart that is your fault? huh? you missed me there. Big business wants to make money, they do so in honest and dishonest ways. Let's not worship them let's make them accountable and aware of our buying powers.

'Corporate Socialism' by Ralph Nader
www.commondreams.org/views02/0718-02.htm

[TNRighty]

Medican,

I never said that is was just liberals who were critical of Bush on the immigration issue. I'm a conservative and I think he needs to step up here. Read my post again. I only said that your criticism serves no other purpose than to make Bush look bad. You're not interested in solving the problem, only in making politcal hay. I have yet to hear any prominent Democrat offer any solution to any issue facing our country today. As supposedly outraged as ya'll are about illegal immigration, I've yet to see any Democrat do squat about it. If Bush closed the borders tomorrow you'd throw a fit about it.

Democrats criticize Bush's policies in the war on terror, yet I've never heard Democrats offer a better solution. Same for Social Security, taxation, etc., etc., etc. Ya'll aren't interested in solving problems, only in criticizing Bush's proposals. Ya'll have politicized every major issue we face today. Bush could tell you tomorrow that two plus two equals four and you'd disagree with him.

What do Ronald Reagan and George Bush have in common? They both took office afer Democrats and had to clean up the mess left by their predecesors.

When Jimmy Carter left office the threat of Communism had reached critical mass, same for terrorism on the heals of Clinton's administration. Both Carter and Clinton responded weakly or not at all to those threats. JFK was the last Democratic president that aggresively confronted the real threats to our country. Since then, the Democratic party has been one of appeasement, and its policies have put America in danger.

If you don't like the fact that Ronald Reagan is considered an American hero, perhaps you should take that up with Jimmy Carter, the man responsible for putting Reagan in the position to become a hero. Same for Clinton and Bush.

When terrorists bombed the WTC in 1993, what was Clintons response? Nothing. Tanzania? Nothing. The USS Cole? Nothing. Clinton had more than his share of opportunities to do something about terrorism, but he chose not to, and we all paid the price. Wow, that appeasement stuff really works! George Bush is wiping Bill Clinton's ass the same way Reagan did Carter's.

In case you haven't noticed, history is judging Carter as one of the worst presidents of all time, Reagan as one of the best. For the past 25 years Democrats have been on the wrong side of history on every major issue facing this nation, and people are noticing. That's why you can't win elections in the House or the Senate. That's why you're having to turn to the courts to implement your sick policies. That's why Air America can't make it on the open airwaves. People have had enough of your garbage.

By the way, you are right, social security was a democratic idea, and a bad one. It didn't take republicans to ruin social security. Its been ruined for a long time.

[groucho]

I'll go TNR one (or several) better; FDR was DIRECTLTY responsible for the "welfare state" this country finds iself in today. SS was just the tip of the iceberg; FDR literally set up the US Government as "employer of last resort" during the Depression, by creating the "alphabet soup" of Government agencies (WPA, CCC, NRA {no, National Recovery Act, not today's gun lobby}, TVA) etc. most were simply "make work" deals - one guy scoops up a load of dirt, carries it 30 feet, dumps it for the next guy to do the same; and most (but not all) were slowly reconfigured as the modern agencies we know today - the Parks Department, municipal Public Works, etc.

Ironic that the same "make-work" mentaity is still there; ie, the guys leaning on their shovels while one man waves his "stop/slow" sign every so often - only these dudes are making 15-20 bucks an hour!! Wal-Mart slobs make half as much, but they work twice as hard!!!

And of course, after the war, the Democrat-controlled Congress soon set up numerous other Government Agencies to "help" the citizenry, every last one of them funded top-to-bottom by our own tax money, which got a huge boost into the modern quagmire we face today thanks to LBJ's aping of FDR with his "Great Society" pork packages.

Reagan didn't even have Congress on his side - he appealed directly to the people, thus reminding them that we've been paying for all this sh*t from the get-go, despite 40+ years of political manuverings on the Democrats' part. The Gipper simply pulled back the Wizard's curtain........ And the sh*t's been hitting the fan ever since!!

[cowtown]

I can see some valid points in all of the above points. But just like the so-called "conservative media" (Fox, Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell, ect.), the folks who call themselves conservative are ignoring/avoiding the issue by their silence on Mr. Bush's "Advanced Directives Act of 1999".

They pretend it doen't exist, while moaning in public about abortion, the Teri Shivo case, ect. I suspect todays Republicans really don't want to get rid of abortion & and other "right to life" based issues. Think about it, if abortion was not legal, how else would they get poverty stricken people to vote for millionaire oil men???

Something that really stands out in the above posts though is the same old "yeah, but the Democrats______". When this country wakes up enough to realize that BOTH the Dems & Repubs have sold out this country to the highest bidder, the better off we'll all be.

We're told we're given a choice, to divide us into the "us against them" mentality. But that choice is an illusion to fool us all. People who lean to the right don't care that Mr. Bush is killing the country just as much as Mr. Clinton did, they only care that the party they identify themself with is in power. The same with left leaning people when Clinton was in power.

WAKE UP AMERICA........love your country more than you love your so-called political party!!!!

[midcan5]

TNWrongy,

You have a selective filter, too selective. Bush makes himself look bad, there is no need for liberals or anyone to get in between the silliness of his appearances or the emptiness of his ideas. Before 911 he looked so foolish it was embarrassing watching him. While they now orchestrate and control his appearances his every move and word, much like a communist oligarch, he is still back to empty nothings. SS now comes to be the central issue? Surely there has to be more important things like the deficit, manufacturing, open borders, health care, and jobs. And that is leaving out the tragedy of Iraq.

Carter inherited the mess of Nixon / Ford. Stagflation and other messes of the republicans. Carter suffered through an oil embargo and I agree he was certainly not forceful enough but Reagan started us on the slide into a second rate country with the loss of jobs and manufacturing. A lack of respect for the American worker - I lived through the policies he started in Corporate America, the me first attitude that is really un American. Reagan's voodoo economics lead to Bush senior's miserable term and it was only when Clinton put discipline back into spending that we came out of it. And yes, Clinton was lucky too, but at least he raised taxes on the wealthy and started the nation back to jobs and equality.

Social Security is a shining light in our history and in our lives, it allows many to live out the so called golden years Ok. It allows for the misfortune of life that befall many to be smoothed over, and it allows families to stay together and work it out. Great great idea security is a good thing and until we have rich and mostly poor social is a good thing too. I've been paying into it for close to 40 years and hope for many more. Really good stuff helping everyone share in the American dream.

[Patriot]

We interrupt this broadcast to thank Groucho, the last surviving kitten of the Third Reich, for the new addition to the signature as well as a newly revolving icon. I hope we will be treated to a round of tasty spamburgers from his region in Berlin relatively shortly.

That is all. Carry on.

[midcan5]

Cowtown, some tough thinking from a conservative. I agree with you it is as if today everyone is engaged in a false battle over spin and not substance.

[VX]

That's why I'm registered Independent. I see too many similarities between today's two major parties and there is no third party that has enough clout for anyone to bother with. In my state my voter registration does limit my voting privileges, as I'm not allowed to vote in the primaries.

However, medical decisions should not be decisions made by the government. I understand the need for it because of the laxness with which our society has succumbed to because of liberal politics. You would expect from liberal rhetoric that it would be just the opposite.

But it is the influence of secular liberalism that has brought us to the current state of affairs within our medical community, ie: abortion on demand, the argument for euthanasia, stem cell research, etc.

And this same set of circumstances continues all through the professions...... the liberalization of the law and education. Also religion. And everywhere we see a transformation from its original construct into a hotbed of liberalism.

[midcan5]

VX, sorta funny the image the right has attached to liberal. Do you think the items you mention are liberal? Would you have thought the idea the earth was not flat or the earth revolved around the sun as products of liberal thinking? Given your line of reasoning yes. But I am a liberal and while I do not like talking about oneself on line I know many many liberals who work damn hard to make this country and the world a slightly better place, raise their families morally, and work hard to make all that happen. Your idea of a word is too narrow and repeated so often one wonders at the power of propaganda on some.

[VX]

Liberals exist with two mottos - "If it feels good, do it" and "anything goes". That's hardly the way to make the world a better place.

[TNRighty]

Midican,

You can call it "me first" or selfishness or whatever you want to call it, but I choose to refer to it as personal responsibility and believe if more people in this country would take responsibility for themselves, we wouldn't need these garbage social programs. If you can, give me one example of a rich person being personally responsible for dooming someone to a life of poverty. For the most part, those whom you would refer to as rich have worked harder, longer, and smarter than those whom you would refer to as poor.

People who live in poverty do so as a direct result of the sum effect of the personal decisions they've made in their lives. Rich people haven't made them poor. America hasn't made them poor. They have made themselves poor. I know that's harsh, but its true.

Of course many of them have never had any direction in their lives, but how does writing them a check every month and rewarding them for poor decision-making encourage them to become more responsible? Its the wrong approach. Money won't cure poverty. People cure poverty.

Government welfare is the same as an absentee dad who mails a child support check every month. It may keep clothes on your back, but it can't replace what is really missing in your life.

I'm not against these programs because I'm greedy. I'm against them becasue they don't work.

The call to help the downtrodden is not a government issue simply because politicians have alterior motives. Never trust anyone (except your parents) who say they will give you everything you need. You have to do the right thing for the right reason. It is right to help the poor, but it is wrong to do so in return for votes, power or any other sort of non-monetary compensation. It has to be done with the sole intent of making that person more dependable upon himself, and you don't do it by invoking ideas such as class envy.

How can you sell someone on the ideals and opportunities of America and at the same time tell them that the people who have already taken advantage of Americas opportunity are greedy, evil, and directly responsible for their misfortune? It is morally wrong to exploit the poor for political gain. It is class warfare, and if anyone is preying on the less fortunate it is Democratic politicians...

They know full well that welfare doesn't solve poverty, and they don't want to solve poverty. Without poverty stricken Americans they lose a large part of their voter base.