Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer roadies roadies roadies  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Nonfiction forum

The real difference between Democrats and Republicans


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 302 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2009 4:42:02 AM PST
CharlieRitz says:
Ted,

Well, I'm assuming since my reply to you was skipped over, there can be only one possible explanation:

Because alcohol is decriminalized in the States, you are consumed with the drink and are passed out somewhere or desecrating some place with some bodily fluid, because as you pointed out yourself, "Drug use doesn't just effect individuals, it consumes whole countries."

Gatorade is the best thing to drink for a hang over, not water.

Hope you feel better soon so we can continue to have though-provoking and meaningful conversation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2009 1:34:16 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2009 1:25:04 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2009 1:27:16 AM PST
CharlieRitz says:
Ted,

I just thought you might want to try explain, what appear to be, inconsistencies in your proposals and reasoning.

"Ted,

Thank you for beating around the bush and not really bringing anything new to the table.

"Is it not possible the people in the cartel that make and export cocaine are not ambassodors for the rest of the population (like gangsters of prohibition days)?
***sure very possible so what??
Likewise with Afghanistan, but with that, wouldn't "that crazy Islamic faith" kinda get in the way of the people being consumed and crazed with opium?
*****sure but so what???"

Your "so what?"s are relevant because, you, yourself said that drugs consume the entire country. You then proceed to tell me in your first "rebuttal" that 'children, clergy, etc.' are not consumed with drugs and drug use in the two countries YOU GAVE me for examples of how drug use totally consumes a country.

Just a thought."

Really, I just want to know how an entire country and it's population can be consumed with drugs, while simultaneously leaving vast portions of the population untouched and unscathed.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2009 3:30:26 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2009 1:24:05 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2009 5:11:08 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 7, 2009 5:55:32 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2009 9:13:29 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 6, 2009 9:15:48 AM PST
Lientje says:
Ted Baiamonte: As I have said to you before, but it is worth repeating: There is no freedom WITHOUT government.

Jefferson was a highly intelligent man, he was a very liberal arts sort of man with interests in many areas, but he was also not a 20th or 21st century man.
I hope I don't need to bore you with the obvious, but he was the elitist that so many accused Obama of being. He did not believe women to be equals of
men, he did not believe that all should be educated, he did not believe that blacks were equal to whites, he did not believe that the poor (unpropertied)
should have equal rights with those with property.

Jefferson was very much a man of his time in so many ways. And I do not apologize for not wanting to maintain an 18th century attitude in the 21st century.

P.S. Jefferson did not have the opportunity to study all of human history. He missed out on the history that includes democracy. He only saw a tiny, tiny
part of that.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2009 9:41:09 AM PST
Lientje says:
Ted Baiamonte: "so then why not explain what liberals are, exactly. . If you knew you obviously would have taken the opportunity to say."

You are under the assumption here that we all have time to spend all day on a post when in fact some of us have other lives. I ran across this question by
accident. It wasn't even addressed to me, but since I made the statement "you so completely do not understand liberals" it is my assumption that you did
in fact suppose that I would answer.

I'm still tempted to ignore it because the phrase "if I knew" presupposes that I have no idea why I am a liberal and that I just make posts because I have nothing better to do. However, here goes.

One of Obama's lines in his DNC speech was "I am my brother's keeper" sort of sums it up. If I had to limit it to one sentence, that would be it. I am a
Christian. I believe that it is as important to care about my brother as it is to care about myself. Being pro-business does not have to exclude that
feeling, but look at our crisis today and you know that in fact that feeling has been excluded. The types of people who have brought America to its knees
did not care one whit about the poor, or the laborer, or for that matter even for the stockholder beyond what they could get from them. They had to keep
the stockholder reasonably happy to get more of their money. That was a far as it went. It was greed, greed, greed.

You can't make things work without taxes. Pure and simple. People and businesses can be taxed too much. That is not our problem today. I do not begrudge taxes if they are spent properly.

The other thing that I believe in as a liberal is that if the constitution says we have a freedom or a right or a responsibility, then we should have it.
The court systems in so many of our states are scary because people find it too easy to convict those who are not like them. I read about this on a nearly
daily basis. And for some reason these overturned verdicts keep coming from the same states. If we have the freedom of speech, then let us have it.
If we have a right to a fair trial, then let us have it and punish those who don't give it to us, if we have freedom of religion, then act like we have the
freedom to choose our own religion and not be punished for that. The Muslim hatred on these forums is scary indeed. The smug use of O. Hussein Obama
used by many starting with Ann Coulter is juvenile at best, frightening and despicable at the worst.

My own reaction, as a liberal, to the past is that the past is not sacred, those who lived in the past were not better or wiser than we are. The nostalgia for
the past as we love to think it was is short-sighted and unencumbered with facts indeed. People were licentious then and are now, there were evil people
then and there are evil people now. We are not going to eradicate evil, but rather than seeing punishment for it as the ultimate solultion, liberals believe
that we should figure out why it happens and do our best to eradicate those situations that cause it. We are so much more interconnected than any
conservative wishes to believe. If evil happens it is not only the fault of the one who commits it but anyone who has turned a blind eye to circumstances
that promotes it is also at fault. (For instance, if you know your neighbor abuses his child and you do nothing about it then you too are culpable).

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2009 9:47:55 AM PST
Lientje says:
Ted Baiamonte: Are you still offering $10,000 bets to prove that you are an ignoramus? Show me the money, and I'll play your game.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2009 10:03:50 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 7, 2009 5:57:24 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2009 11:37:58 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2009 1:24:56 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2009 12:06:09 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2009 1:24:56 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 7, 2009 6:08:54 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2009 1:24:54 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2009 3:23:09 AM PST
CharlieRitz says:
"*******liberal versus figurative. You're just trying to win a silly debating point. Why not spend some time thinking about whether you want to be a Jeffersonian Republican who believes in freedom or liberty from gov't, or whether you want to be a lowly anti American Democrat. "

Ted,

So, if you were being "figurative" with your description of countries that are "consumed with drugs", why did you originally use it in the "literal" fashion then if it was not to be taken as "100% of the population is consumed with drugs"?

"******* not speaking literally of course. We all know the Taliban is against drugs, and children are not consumed etc etc."

So, if that's true, why would you use "Afghanistan" as a country that was totally consumed by drugs, if you didn't mean it literally?

I would like to deal in straight facts and thoughtful insight, rather than slipping in and out of figuratism whenever the situation and context is most advantagous to you.

And you are right, Ford Explorers don't explore, but the people in them do, in theory. And considering the last two elections "won" by Bush, a margin of victory of 3 million is, relatively speaking, a landslide.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2009 1:09:28 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Mar 9, 2010 1:01:11 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2009 11:45:34 AM PDT
L. Fry says:
per day?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2009 12:10:53 PM PDT
L. Fry says:
Ted,
You said "If you can't abort you have to be very careful with whom you have sex. You may even want to be in love first, so if a child does result you will be inclined to love it rather than kill it. This is the civilized Republican view that created "love" among human beings."

I believe that Jesus is the one who tried to instill "love" among human beings. I don't think it has anything to do with Republicans. (or Democrats for that matter). Conservatives who go on and on about abortion and gay marriage, etc. are just trying to advance their own agenda of hot-button issues that really don't have a lot to do with government. If they want to tie these issues to the Bible, they are missing the point that in the Bible (New Testament), Jesus focuses on caring for the "least of these" and forsaking all one's worldly goods to follow him. None of that sounds the least bit "Republican' to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2009 12:24:51 PM PDT
%#(&)^& says:
L. Fry: "Jesus focuses on caring for the "least of these" and forsaking all one's worldly goods to follow him. None of that sounds the least bit "Republican' to me."

That has been my conclusion, too.

Posted on Mar 13, 2009 12:33:27 PM PDT
I don't feel that Democrats dislike the rich they would like to tax everyone equally reqardless of how much money they make. It would be nice to pay about 8% instead of paying close to 30% to the goverment and not have to worry about filing taxes because you are not going to get any of it back. We could save alot of money in doing just that. Republicans love to spend money and expect the middle class to pay for all of it. Republicans don't like accountability, free enterprise all the way, no matter how many people they screw over.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2009 12:56:41 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2009 1:21:00 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2009 1:19:21 PM PDT
L. Fry says:
Ted, you replied to Stergios who said
"I would just like to say that Ted makes me want to claw my eyes out and never read again. Thanks for being such a pal, Ted. And by pal I mean extremely ignorant person."
*****but you forgot to say why you think Republicans are ignorant. Is child-like name calling a liberal's idea of democracy?

Stergios did not say you make him want to claw his eyes out and never read again because you are a Republican."
You make me want to claw my eyes out, too! And I am a Republican. You make me want to claw my eyes out because you rant like an insane person.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2009 1:24:41 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2009 1:20:53 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2009 1:28:12 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2009 1:20:53 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2009 1:51:00 PM PDT
L. Fry says:
Ted,
you say******abortion and murder has always had a lot to do with God and gov't, of course. It is an obvious fact*****

Hmm, funny that you equate abortion and murder, but at least as of now, the government does not. Murder is illegal and abortion is legal. And, so far, it is freedom and democracy (that whole majority rules thing) that is keeping it that way.

Posted on Mar 13, 2009 1:54:05 PM PDT
L. Fry says:
I'm done now, Ted. Just wanted to yank your chain a little. Have a good weekend.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2009 2:21:19 PM PDT
visionary says:
mari [L. Fry: "Jesus focuses on caring for the "least of these" and forsaking all one's worldly goods to follow him. None of that sounds the least bit "Republican' to me."
That has been my conclusion, too. ]

Mine too.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Nonfiction forum (219 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Nonfiction forum
Participants:  39
Total posts:  302
Initial post:  Dec 12, 2008
Latest post:  May 4, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions