 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Aug 2008 : 12:31:24
|
Kondorong,
you are spot on; USA is an exception.
I agree that the criterion of citizenship should require the intention of the individual,the wellbeing of Africa and not bloodline. I hope…, one day, but as at now, it is what it is, bloodline.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
Edited by - Janko on 30 Aug 2008 12:33:24 |
 |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2008 : 06:50:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
Thanks, Kayjatta
You are spot on; the difference between Democrats and Republicans is very limited and haze in certain issues but very boundless and distinct in others.
The question of white and black Republicans was meant to “pull your leg” a little. I am unable to grasp a nomenclature based on skin-colour in one and the same party. What role does the skin-colour play if not strengthening the sense of difference and how does that relate to MLK´s “I have a Dream” speech, that man be judged by the content his/her character.
"My problem with the democratic philosophy is that I do not generally believe in a big government.”
Paradoxically, Clinton a Democrat was able to put more money into government coffers than Bush a Republican who would go down in history as one of the biggest spenders. Secondly, the argument of having equal opportunity is only possible provided the field is level for fair play; equal access and possibility for all to pursue an education that enables them to “realize their potentials and achieve their dreams”.
This is not a polemic with you rather an expression of my view on your comparison.
Most of the arguments or points of distinction you listed are more theoretical, dogmatic, and ideological than having a practical reference to the everyday reality people live. Republicans are not more religious than Democrats or more ethical etc. It all comes to the question of interpretation; who and how things are interpreted and for/to whom. The constitution in itself needs be dynamically interpreted, hence, times do change and it was written ages ago, and no one party, group, person can claim that his, her or their interpretation of the constitution is absolute, supreme or paramount.
Thanks janko, I perfectly understand. See I was pulling Dalton's leg too. You know I often argue that Bill Clinton was the best president America ever had, by making reference to what I call "the Clinton era prosperity". But you will perhaps recall that it was Clinton who soon after taking office told his fellow Democrats that "the era of big government was over" (that is usually a Republican agenda), an early signal that for much of his presidency Clinton would not be able to carry out a purely Democratic agenda partly due to the republican-controlled Congress. You should perhaps also look at Clinton's Social Welfare Reform program; it is hardly a Democratic blue print...
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
