A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his factory to apply for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help.

He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept 15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.

Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Did you guys miss the truth? I might be visiting more often. :eek:
------------------------
You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.
You've got to be your own man, not a puppet on a string. Never compromise what's right, and uphold your family name. You've got to stand for somethingor you'll fall for anything. - Aaron Tippin

thats absurd. inherent in the republican policy is selfishness. it is about hoarding not giving or even contact with those lower than themselves. the poor are poor only because they are lazy right?

The absurdity is your inability to distinguish the difference between the two approaches. No one stated anything about the poor being lazy. Look again and attempt to understand the two approaches, if you still do not understand, I will be more than happy to help.
------------------------------
To no one's surprise the proliferation of concealed carry laws in this country has resulted in a noticeable reduction in crime. The new laws do create a problem for the street punk, since he can no longer tell who is armed and who is not. Col. Jeff Cooper

One takes your money from your front pockets while the other takes it from your rear pockets. ;)

thats absurd. inherent in the republican policy is selfishness.

That statement is absurd for three reasons:

It's a big generalization.
It's an incorrect generalization.
It is based on the premise that selfishness is wrong. It isn't.


Look at what George W. Bush and his cronies in the GOP have done to our budget with massive social spending.

it is about hoarding not giving or even contact with those lower than themselves.

I was a Republican for the first few years of my adult life and I had no problem with associating with those "lower" than me, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. And there is nothing wrong with hoarding so long as that which you are hoarding is rightfully yours.

the poor are poor only because they are lazy right?

In some cases, yes. In other cases it's bad luck or stupidity.

Of course, when the homeless person turned up to the Republican's factory and applied for the job, he was told that he was not qualified, and that the Republican wasn't actually hiring any new workers, and that even if he was he would be employing his friends.

there is no difference between republicans and democrats. There is on the other hand, a big difference to the the extremists in each camp but practically, they have very nearly the same views (when compared to the rest of the planet) ... practically, they are both centrists.

personally I think this is a good thing (if frustrating) because the centre represents the majority but pretending they differ in any important way is silly.

one starts with d and one with r.
thats about all thats different.

they all sound, and dress, the same.

That statement is absurd for three reasons:

It's a big generalization.
It's an incorrect generalization.
It is based on the premise that selfishness is wrong. It isn't.




so judging by these statements you would agree that truths scenario is absurd as well. i hope i made my point.

Republican: "You should be denied the right to say that, it offends me."
Democrat: "You should be denied the right to say that, it might offend someone."

ONe dresses up better than the other.

I notice neither the Rep or Dem happened to be homeless.
Perhaps their similarities outweigh their differences.
I guess the homeless dude was just one of the apolitical herd.

So you gotta be in it to win it.
How shitty is that in a so called free society?
Dee Cee

Truth: your stories are always entertaining. However, you missed the part where the Republican and the Democrat then go home and make hot monkey love, because the two parties are in bed with each other.

Have fun voting in your one party system! I bet your vote makes a real difference.

Its actually kinda realistic in my view, reps make people work for dough
dems subsidize. Woulda been much more honest if he said rep gave
card and told to get work and dem gave directions to welfare. Thats
much more realistic.
And yes people are poor because they are lazy and they know
that welfare check will feed em.

lol! not all poor people are on welfare you ass, most aren't.

Its actually kinda realistic in my view, reps make people work for dough
dems subsidize. Woulda been much more honest if he said rep gave
card and told to get work and dem gave directions to welfare. Thats
much more realistic.
And yes people are poor because they are lazy and they know
that welfare check will feed em.

you are sso out of touch. you talk about subsidies. republicans practically bribe the mid west farmers with subsidies for their votes. shouold i rationalize similar to you that those farmers only need subsidies because they are too lazy to run a money making farm?

open your eyes

Its actually kinda realistic in my view, reps make people work for dough
dems subsidize. Woulda been much more honest if he said rep gave
card and told to get work and dem gave directions to welfare. Thats
much more realistic.

Yes, out of touch. It was a Democrat who phased out welfare. It was a Democrat who created a job & budget surplus. It is Republicans who maintain welfare, lose jobs, and run up debt. In the last 23 years we’ve had 15 years of Republican prez, 8 of Democrat. The Clinton years were by far the best economically. The only thing the Republicans have mastered is making people like you think they are doing what they don’t in fact do.

Truth: your stories are always entertaining. However, you missed the part where the Republican and the Democrat then go home and make hot monkey love, because the two parties are in bed with each other.

Have fun voting in your one party system! I bet your vote makes a real difference.

LOL. When the "frontrunners" as determined by the media are both members of the same secret society, it makes me wonder why so many sheep think the Presidents themselves are actually in charge or that there is any difference between parties.

Of course, when the homeless person turned up to the Republican's factory and applied for the job, he was told that he was not qualified, and that the Republican wasn't actually hiring any new workers, and that even if he was he would be employing his friends.

Far more likely he was told that the whole factory is scheduled to close down next month because the entire labor department of the company is evaporating, and they will be using contractors set up in S.E. Asian Export zones to do the dirty business of actually manufacturing goods, so that all they have to do is "Add value" (Put their logo on it) and sell it along their competitors merchandise made by the exact same contractor, just with a different logo.

Furthermore he was told that if he wanted to stay personally competitive in the job market that he'd need to "Retrain" for a new job, though what money he'd use for that sort of thing, and exactly what sort of career he should be looking for as more and more jobs evaporate, well who knows, after all, it's not the Republican's problem that the homeless guy is lazy and doesn't want to work for a living.

Don't worry, though, there is a happy ending. The homeless guy may acctualy get a job paying less than minimum wage in an under the counter cash operation, because he happens to have a Spanish last name.

And another thing, all the workers of that factory could take comfort in the idea that simply doing away with the company's labor department lowers the bottom line remarkably, which of course helps the economy. Sure all that money goes straight into the CEO's pocket, but who cares, right? After all, it was his idea to put all those people out of work, shouldn't he get what he disserves?

LOL. When the "frontrunners" as determined by the media are both members of the same secret society, it makes me wonder why so many sheep think the Presidents themselves are actually in charge or that there is any difference between parties.

This is a typical rationalization of the uninformed. Clinton had a huge positive effect on many aspects of American life. It wasn’t luck. The Prez is the country’s biggest decision maker. They are actually in charge, although they are beholden. Everything else being equal, you want the candidate who is beholden to the largest number of people. Republicans serve a tiny minority. Democrats serve the rest.

zanket do you actually believe what you say?

Republicans serve a tiny minority. Democrats serve the rest????

You have no clue how out of touch you are do you?

I can defend anything I claim. You don't give me enough to respond better than that.

blah, blah, blah ... in reality a democracy (for good or bad) the leaders serve what is believed to be the sentiment of a given time. The "leaders" aren't the leaders, consensus leads (in other words us).

We whine and complain continually about leadership but the leadership (in any party) couldn't survive ten minutes without our approval, or our apathy ... you can pretend that a party matters all you want, it usually makes people feel better.

democracy is a bitch.

Yes, out of touch. It was a Democrat who phased out welfare. It was a Democrat who created a job & budget surplus. It is Republicans who maintain welfare, lose jobs, and run up debt. In the last 23 years we’ve had 15 years of Republican prez, 8 of Democrat. The Clinton years were by far the best economically. The only thing the Republicans have mastered is making people like you think they are doing what they don’t in fact do.

No it was a Democrat using the Republican ideas put in place by a Republican Congress, it had nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton rode on Reagan's effectiveness, we were in a recession when Clinton left. Please point out any original idea that Clinton had on his own that contributed anything beneficial. I will make it quick for you, none.
---------------------------------------
No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody. -Andrew Jackson

No it was a Democrat using the Republican ideas put in place by a Republican Congress, it had nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton rode on Reagan's effectiveness, we were in a recession when Clinton left. Please point out any original idea that Clinton had on his own that contributed anything beneficial. I will make it quick for you, none.
---------------------------------------
No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody. -Andrew Jackson

the country was not in a recession when he left office

But you forgot to mention that the reason the guy was homeless in the first place was because the Republican supported the export of the guy's job out of the country to a sweatshop so the company he worked for could make a few more dollars profit. He made such low wages that he put some medical bills that his company's poor medical insurace didn't pay for on to a credit card. With no job he couldnt pay his credit card bill and the Credit card company started charging him 21% interest and the guy was buired in debt, while the Credit card company seizes his house to sell it off for a quick little profit. Also when he lossed his job the social safety net had been so devasted by the Republican's policies that he had no where to go but the streets when he lossed his job and house.

No it was a Democrat using the Republican ideas put in place by a Republican Congress, it had nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton rode on Reagan's effectiveness, we were in a recession when Clinton left.

Riiiight, Clinton could just sit back and still be enjoying Reagan’s work 12 years after he left office. The prez who tripled the deficit no less. The Republican party loves people who believe that. How come Bush Sr. didn’t enjoy Reagan’s success? The S&P 500 reached its peak value of all time on Nov. 6, 2000. Hmm, wasn’t Nov. 7th election day, when it became apparent that Bush Jr. might actually win? You can’t blame Clinton for people responding to that bad news. Unless you're a Republican I guess.

Please point out any original idea that Clinton had on his own that contributed anything beneficial. I will make it quick for you, none.

Of course you will think that since anything good that happened during Clinton’s reign you automatically don’t attribute to him. Let’s see, he began the phase-out of welfare, created some national parks and a giant monument, strengthened environmental law, phased out logging, balanced the budget, applied the surplus to the debt, was a huge optimist to create millions of jobs, brokered the peace deal in Yugoslovia. That’s just a start.

Republicans serve a tiny minority. Democrats serve the rest.

I can cite 50,000,000 reasons why your statement is false.

Republicans don’t really serve most of those people. In their ignorance they only imagine that. For example they think they got a tax cut when in actuality the consequent decrease in average wages and services exceeded the gains from the tax cut. They get value perceived, not real value. They don’t even get the character or patriotism Republicans are fond of claiming they inherently have.

hmm, my wages didn't go down with the tax cuts, my pocket book got a nice boost, we got the fastest growing economy in 20 years in the 3rd quarter because of the tax cuts, tax revenues are projected to increase in a year to year comparison between 2002 and 2003 due to the always predictable Laffer curve...hmmm sure appears to have worked to me.

What world do you live in zanket?

Again you base on quarters and now projections that have been a joke in the past. How about actual net performance? Bush’s net performance is a very big loss. He borrowed lots of money they taxpayers will have to pay back and wasted it. You may not have lost but the average worker did lose more than he/she gained by the tax cuts. His economic strategy has not worked; it has made the country worse. And it’s no surprise since the only purpose of it is to make his wealthier friends wealthier. Any financially-savvy person could have predicted what would happen. That’s why the market took its dive on Election Day 2000 and has not recovered.

What world do you live in zanket?

The real one.

we got the fastest growing economy in 20 years in the 3rd quarter

Haha, yeah, but that's because the economy was so far in the shitter that the only place left for it to go was up. All Bush could possably hope for is to show that he can begin to clean up the mess he made, but the way things are going it seems he won't even manage that. Remember, the economy is in a worse position then the one he inherited.

moderate selfishness is ok, but if you look at the all-out moneygrabbing of Bush bussiness asociates at the expensive of everybody else in america, including many Republicans(!) not living in Beverly Hills, then I conclude these voters have really shot themselves in their own foot.

Let's just say i've seen better Republican presidents.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/weakest1.jpg

Republicans serve a tiny minority. Democrats serve the rest.

How very noble of them.
Perhaps, just possibly, they only serve themselves. They are all, both reps and dems, Americans and lets face it, altruism has never been well promoted as an American virtue.

Politicians don't serve they rule.
It's in the job description.
Dee Cee

Democrats do serve themselves just like Republicans do, but the way they both do it is by serving those to whom they’re beholden. Democrats are beholden to half the country whereas the Republicans take their orders from the elite. Democrats can’t help but also serve the ignorant half of the country who incorrectly think they are better served by Republicans; by helping one-half of the country the other half benefits too (except for the elite, who are indeed better served by Republicans).

Nice one Don!

Zanket, your posts always make me think of RATM.

"the elite"?

You make it sound like we have membership cards. I promise you, we're not that well organized. :cool:

They may not have membership cards, but you're naive (and are not one of them) if you think they are not well-organized. They are in fact organized enough to run the country despite being a minority, while hoodwinking half the populace. What do you think a lobbyist is for? Let’s take one example of many, regarding cheap (legal) drugs from Canada. These are the same US brands dependent Americans love. But Bush has half the country convinced that buying these drugs at a cut-rate from Canada--which got a better deal negotiated by their government--is somehow dangerous for the American consumer. Who do you think Bush is really serving in this example? Why?