Democrat? or Republican?

[asprince]

I heard this analogy the other day. I don't know the author and I am passing it on from memory.

Analogy of the Democrat Party:

You have two cows.
Your neighbors have none.
Your neighbors vote to tax you on your cows.
You are forced to sell one of your cows to pay your taxes.
Your neighbors vote to take your tax money and buy a cow.
Now you have a cow and your neighbors have a cow.

Analogy of the Republican Party:

You have two cows.
Your neighbors have none.
So what?


Steve

[Brian D. Bray]

You forgot to include that the Republican is more than willing to sell milk, meat, and compost to his neighbor.

[danno]

and he hires the neighbor to milk his cows

[Mici]

I've always been intrigued by Americas "republican" and "democrats" and wondered what these two expressions actually stand for. although they're familiar i just couldn't place them anywhere
(guess i wasn't intrigued enough to look it up, hehe)
now, finally with a joke, i get it....


i would add something, but...after that it wouldn't be a joke anymore

[asprince]

Analogy of the Republican Party (REVISED)

You have two cows.
Your neighbors have none.
You hire your neighbors to tend your cows.
Your neighbors buy cows with their earnings.
Now you and your neighbors have cows.

[KONASDAD]

I've always been intrigued by Americas "republican" and "democrats" and wondered what these two expressions actually stand for. although they're familiar i just couldn't place them anywhere
/quote]

They are political parties. Like the labor party in england, green in germany etc.

[Mici]

well, i knew that, i mean..that's the obvious part.
their "orientation" is what interested me:
Democrats- communists
republicans- capitalist

[kathyp]

mici....you made me laugh.  you are more right than you know.  actually, most democrats are probably closer to socialists.  most republicans are about less government, lower taxes, etc. 

there is no real European equivalent to the republican party.   the English conservative would be more what some here call "neocon".  even that is not exact, as the true connotation of the word is somewhat anti-Semitic.

as with any politics, both parties have extremes and we have other, less well know, parties.  communist, libertarians, socialists, etc.

[johnnybigfish]

  Hi guys!
 I used to think I was a republican backer, but now I just dont back anybody...Not Republican, not democrat, not green. Through the news, TV, cnn and all those other "Honest report" channels I just dont know anymore.. Yall may know how it is....Ive seen and heard so many lies from this one and that one. Dante said(sort of)
 "I'll just tend my own garden"and thats what I plan on doing. IF I vote I''ll just go with a person, not a party. My wife gets on my arse for being so "Doom and Gloom". I dont have answers to our problems but theres people who are paid to figure out the answers and I think that they CHEAT us. We can all tell of the problems but we cant tell the solutions...Its kind of like, whats the use? We ARENT listened to anymore....Ok,...thats enough,..My wife might come in here and see me typing this stuff...Then she''ll want to push me out of the drivers seat, take over, and REALLY tell you whats wrong with hmmmm...Corporations???

 Lord, help me through all this!
 Yalls friend,
john

[pdmattox]

boy this just doesn't sound like humor anymore.

[kathyp]

depends on how seriously you take this stuff.  politics can be pretty funny! 

[JP]

Its amazing how these two parties are control freaks, always wanting to be more dominant than the other party, and both have so many flaws. Like our friend John says they cheat us. Really who can you trust? If politicians didn't get paid would they still practice politics? I am smack dab in the middle where I stand, so I practically have no voice. These two parties are so dominant that you have to pick a party so you can be heard, but I like neither.

Sincerely, JP

[kathyp]

If politicians didn't get paid would they still practice politics

probably not for congress.  it's not the pay.  it's the perks and package they leave with.  for the president and cabinet members, it's a different story.   most leave higher paying jobs to take the government job.  for the time that they serve, they lose money that most will never recover, as they tend to be older.

i don't think anyone should vote for a party member.  they should vote for the person they think will do the best job.  there are democrats that i would vote for over some of the republicans.  there is one republican who runs now, that i think i will not vote for even if it means i will not vote for the first time in my life.

we all feel that we beat our heads against the wall with our politicians, but if you do not vote, you are guaranteed no voice.  besides, how can we not participate when our right to do so was bought with blood?  you may feel that your vote is not important.  maybe in the grand scheme of things, sometimes it's not.  when i think about not participating, i think about the oath i have taken over and over to protect and defend the constitution of the united states.  i think about all the others who have, and will, take the same oath and will die fulfilling it. 

[Jerrymac]

I just read an article about a guy in New York who knows for certain his vote does not count because no matter how the majority vote, the electoral collage will vote the same way every time.

We need to abolish political parties and the electoral collage, then we will have things being done for the good of the people, not the good of a political party or corporation. 

[kathyp]

jerrymac, my son feels the same way  .  in theory, it would be a good idea.  in practice, you could end up with so many candidates splitting the vote that a very small minority could impose it's will on the whole country.  the presidents powers are fairly limited.  congress is the real problem.   they make the rules and spend the money.  what is the  power of the president.  even war powers are limited by congress.  about all that is left for him/her is the veto pen, and the power of personality.

[asprince]

Jerrymac,

The electoral college is suppose to cast their vote the way the majority of the voters in their states cast their votes. The purpose of the EC is to give all states a weighted vote in selecting a president. If not, only the voters in states with large populations (New York and California) would decide who would be president. 

I think, correct me if I am wrong.

Steve

[Jerrymac]

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#process

"It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely."

"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States"

"It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals."

[asprince]

Man this thread had taken a wide turn. I should have posted in the Coffee Shop. I love this kind of conversation, it makes me think and lets me know how others think. Isn't this a great county or what?

Steve

[Jerrymac]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But two rights makes a U-turn

[Kirk-o]

You know it dosen't make much sense anymore.These Senators and House of Rep
people are just interested in keeping there Job.If a Democrat gets in and he spends as much as Bush.Starts as many Wars as Bush.Uses as many one sylable words as Bush.Has as many prisoners tortured as Bush does that mean he would be as good as Bush
kirko