Mr. Keller's Government Blog
This is a very hard issue to determine whether either one of these parties will better defend the country since they disagree on many different issues. It is more likely that the Republican will defend the nation better for the policies and money that tey put into the defense budget, but that doesn't mean that they will defend it better than the democrats
I agree this is a tough topic to argue. On one hand, the republicans to tend to focus on military and defense a little more than the other parties. On the other hand, the republicans were in office when the September 11th attacks occured. Despite that, I think I agree with the American people in saying that the GOP might protect another attack from happening again.
There's no real arguement here. Generally, in times of war and conflict, republicans are elected to be in power. Eisen hower in WWII, Nixon in Vietnam, Reagan in the Cold War, jsut to name a few. This can be simply explained by what is need at the time. During times of conflict, careful thinking and leadership is absolutely required from the Republican party. During more peaceful times, consciousness and equality are what drives the Democratic party.The republican party relies more on reason more than emotion. In these times of conflict it is important to have a greater sense of reason because it helps make quick and precise decisions.The democratic party is the near opposite of the republican party and relies on emotions more than reason. In times of peace, it is important that the people feel safe and equal with others.Both are neccessary for American government to run efficiently, but sometimes one needs to take more action than the other.
I agree with Blastoise. They may be better at handling the money and putting up policies for their retribution against the attackers, but it's still the same army, same navy, and the same air force no matter who is in control.
This is simple. The reason why the public trusts the GOP more than the GDP is because the GDP placates, and the GOP is strict. Think about it this way, the dems wanted (I don't know if it went through) to force people in war to read terrorists (or suspected terrorists, whatever the situation) their miranda rights, the right to stay silent blah blah. Whereas the GOP sanctioned Abu Ghraib (I'm NOT condoning the actions behind abu ghraib. The original intent in abu ghraib was no where near what it ended up being). We were tough, they were nice.Bush added in North Korea in the "axis of evil" (good rip off of Reagan, haha) speech. He actively didn't support North Korea in anything they did.Clinton gave North Korea their nuclear technology. Obama is closing down Guantanamo bay due to "torture" (we do the same thing to our own troops to train them to be P.O.W.s...it's not that horribly evil). Bush sanctioned it. Across the board, the dems are about as passive as they can be. And the GOP isn't. Bah. I hate using the term GOP and GDP. Much prefer "conservative" and "liberal" but I don't wanna redo this entire thing D:
Post a Comment