# Six of one, half dozen of another. Pubs and demmies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188 "2004-06-02T02:37:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/21 "2004-06-04T01:31:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But it does mean that anyone who thinks the U.S. should drastically scale down its military establishment and phase out military interventions abroad – and there are a lot of voters in **both** parties who feel that way – has no pacifist or isolationist candidate to vote for in this election. Is scaling down the military even remotely realistic today? Is isolationism? Hell, is isolationism ever realistic or a good idea? > [@pantom](#): > > There is no practical difference between Dubya’s ignorant international idiocy and this sentence: Yes there is. Bush’s people don’t like the UN to start with. It took effort to get them to even bother taking their Iraq case to the UN, so ignoring it was not exactly a problem for them. That site acknowledges that going outside the UN is an option. If we actually were in a situation where the threat was real and the UN refused to support action, what would the right course be? Doing nothing, or acting outside of it? > [@](#): > > We have enough on our hands at home, given that one of the guards at Abu Ghraib was alleged to have learned some of the “techniques” he practiced there as a correctional officer right here. I think what the site means is that the rest of the world is, at times, reluctant to act when these kinds of abuses are observed. Although the fact is that everybody is willing to overlook human rights issues when it’s convenient. I disagree that we have “enough on our hands” with human rights (and that’s speaking as someone who’s against the death penalty). There is no or next to no comparison between the US and the countries in the world with the worst human rights violations. Awful as Abu Ghraib was and unconstitutional as Guantanamo is, the United States is not on par with Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other countries. > [@](#): > > That phrase could have come right out of Dubya’s ignorant mouth without editting. Noting that the UN sometimes leaves a bit - or a lot - to be desired is hardly a conservative or neoconservative position. > [@](#): > > Our children are not so much cannon fodder to be fed into justifying the ideological idiocies of fools like Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz and Cheney. Completely true. > [@](#): > > The PPI statement is just a very slightly different flavor of the same arrogant, idiotic, ignorant nonsense. I think you should go to the PNAC site and read what they have to say before you make posts like this. The PNAC people think the UN is a waste of time in the first place. I don’t see the PPI site supporting wars to improve America’s strategic position, protecting its financial interests, or spreading democracy. > [@](#): > > The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. > My child is not going to act as your asphalt. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/22 "2004-06-04T01:47:35Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > My point is you see dems on this board blasting the pubbies on this board for pnac while the dems are spouting basically the same thing. > > They are just taking a slightly different road. Slight difference; Democrats haven’t elected these nutcases into the highest levels of government. “The way to keep America safe and strong is not to impose our will on others or pursue a narrow, selfish nationalism that betrays our best values, but to lead the world toward political and economic freedom.” Yea, exact same thing as PNAC. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/23 "2004-06-04T01:51:53Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. > My child is not going to act as your asphalt. Sorry, but that’s not your decision to make. If the powers-that-be decide your child is going to be ground into asphalt in the road to Hell, that’s what’s going to happen and you are powerless to prevent it. Except as a voter – and even there, your options are severely limited. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/24 "2004-06-04T02:18:44Z")
Said like a true citizen of a republic, **Brain Glutton**. Exactly the principle the Founders laid their lives and fortunes on the line for. Amazing. You know, what we have here is a Cult of the Presidency. Once every four years, we get to elect a man who gets to be dictator. On the evidence, the governed seem to like it that way too. This wasn’t meant to be a military culture like Sparta, where all we get to do is debate who the next general is going to be. Hell, the Founders didn’t even like the idea of a permanent army. We may need one now, given the realities, but we should at least strive to make it as small as practicable, and keep its role strictly limited. From what I can see, very few people seem to know and believe this. And just to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences: - Bush I involved us in Gulf War I. - This led to American troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, - Which gave OBL the excuse he needed/wanted to attack us on 9/11. - Which gave Dubya the excuse he needed/wanted to attack Iraq on a lie. Violence begets violence. Continue believing in the ideologies of the PNAC and the PPI, and you’ll continue to get more and more violence, and less and less freedom. If that’s what you want, carry on. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/25 "2004-06-04T02:26:23Z")
The UN, **Marley23** , isn’t perfect. It is the only vehicle for the true enforcement of international law we have, given that it can, through the consent of its member states, field an army to keep the peace between rivals who would otherwise go to war or turn back an invasion that violates said law. Calling it ineffectual and saying that we are justified in going around it whenever our intentions are good is no different in practice than the PNAC. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/26 "2004-06-04T02:27:00Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > - Which gave OBL the excuse he needed/wanted to attack us on 9/11. ObL sat around for 20 years getting training and weapons from the CIA in order to wait for an excuse to turn around and attack us? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/27 "2004-06-04T02:35:02Z")
Thanks for making my point, **Zagadka**. The chain of cause and effect does actually start way back with the CIA deciding to fund the mujahadeen against the USSR. Like I said, violence begets violence. And we don’t owe the world the obligation of keeping it in order, which apparently Carter, another Democrat, thought we did. The only thing we owe it is to keep good commercial and diplomatic relations with all who do the same with us. The UN exists to deal with the stuff that inevitably happens from time to time, and we would do well to allow it to build up the prestige and moral power it needs to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/28 "2004-06-04T04:50:59Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > It is the only vehicle for the true enforcement of international law we have, given that it can, through the consent of its member states, field an army to keep the peace between rivals who would otherwise go to war or turn back an invasion that violates said law. Any state is able to totally ignore the law unless other states feel like doing something about it, and many do. So I wouldn’t say it’s a vehicle for law enforcement. > [@](#): > > Calling it ineffectual and saying that we are justified in going around it whenever our intentions are good is no different in practice than the PNAC. I didn’t say that, although it is in fact very different from the PNAC, who think it’s stupid to have a United Nations in the first place. Good intentions are certainly not an reason for going around the UN. I didn’t say it was fine to ignore it whenever it suits us. I asked a question that you didn’t answer, would you please? “If we actually were in a situation where the threat was real and the UN refused to support action, what would the right course be? Doing nothing, or acting outside of it?” ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/29 "2004-06-04T05:08:50Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I’ve often heard that the political spectrum is better described as circle, not as a line with “Conservative” and “Liberal” at each ends. The fringe elements wrap around the circle and meet. The big question **Revtim** is: Are you inside the circle, or outside looking in? If you go outside the circle, you will note that the world looks at the US as a single political party system: The Capitalist Party. Pubs and Demmis being two wings of the same party. Ever thought why the circle does not open up and let another viable political party? ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/30 "2004-06-04T18:58:44Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > Let me say right of the bat that I am not a democrat. I amhowever quite liberal. > > Most everyone here knows about the PNAC > > Now…read this. > > [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi\_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004](http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004) > > Is that any different than the pubbies? > > No it’s not. It calls for America to run the world. > > I looked in my Being an American handbook. It said nothing about us running the world. This was spelled out for me by my a Junior High teacher. The further you go left or right, once you head into radical territory, there are more similarities than differences. You have to view the political spectrum not as a straight line, but as one that begins to curve back upon itself. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/31 "2004-06-04T19:25:31Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Is there some reason to believe that page is representative of most democrats, or the democratic party? If you’ll look at the very top of the page **Reeder** linked to, you’ll see a tab labeled “New Democrats Online Home”. Click it and you’re taken to a website labeled “The Democratic Leadership Council’s Online Community”. Click on the link “New Dem Directory”, leave all the fields blank, and click “View All”. Scroll through the list of names, especially under C and K, and you should have the answer you’re looking for. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/32 "2004-06-05T01:38:46Z")
**Marley23** , it’s a longstanding principle of international law, enshrined, as a matter of fact, in our own Constitution: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” The right of self-defense is recognized as being, for all practical purposes, inalienable from the nature of being a state. If the UN refused to support us in our right of self-defense, we would be well within our rights to act on our own, quite obviously. The above is also recognized in the UN Charter, in words very similar to the Constitution: > [@](#): > > Article 51 > Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. The thing citizens of the US have to remember is that the UN was put together to try, to the extent possible, to give to the rest of the world the same peace, prosperity, and freedom as we enjoy within our 50 states. It’s a tribute to the success of the US. Undermine the UN, and you are undermining the entire rationale for the US itself. Strengthen it, and the US can only come out stronger. Notice the similarity between the preamble of the Constitution, and that of the UN: > [@](#): > > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. > WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED > to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and > to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and > to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and > to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, > AND FOR THESE ENDS > to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and > to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and > to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and > to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, > HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS > Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. The UN version is of course way more stilted and bureaucratic, kind of like comparing the King James Bible to some of the later translations, but the general structure is strikingly similar. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/33 "2004-06-05T11:28:42Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > If the UN refused to support us in our right of self-defense, we would be well within our rights to act on our own, quite obviously. That’s all I was trying to say. I don’t disagree with anything you say in the remainder of the post. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/34 "2004-06-05T12:23:08Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > My point is you see dems on this board blasting the pubbies on this board for pnac while the dems are spouting basically the same thing. > > They are just taking a slightly different road. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, then governor Bill Clinton gave praise to one of his mentors, Carroll Quigley, a professor of history at Georgetown University and advocate for world government. In his 1966 book, entitled “Tragedy and Hope”, Professor Quigley outlined an important part of the plan (conspiracy). Quigley writes: “The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy… But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will have none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/35 "2004-06-05T14:54:26Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, then governor Bill Clinton gave praise to one of his mentors, Carroll Quigley, a professor of history at Georgetown University and advocate for world government. In his 1966 book, entitled “Tragedy and Hope”, Professor Quigley outlined an important part of the plan (conspiracy). > > Quigley writes: > > “The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy… But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will have none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” I never heard of this Quigley, but it’s fairly obvious that the current administration, advised by neoconservative intellectuals, is not aiming at “world government” in any form other than a global American military hegemony. Is that what Quigley was talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/36 "2004-06-05T15:09:49Z")
So Quigley is basically saying that both parties should aim down the middle, or that they will inevitably move toward the middle in the attempt to get elected. This is a surprise to whom? I’d dispute that the Bush administration did this anyway, though the 2000 campaign gave that appearance. Anyway, despite **Razorsharp** ’s ‘conspiracy’ comment runs contrary to most current political analysis. The talk of late has been about how vehement the opposition between the parties is, that the polarization is so great. Also, many have noted that both parties are attempting to mobilize their radical bases. They both expect the November election to be very close, so the party that gets more of their hardcores out their may win for that reason alone. The public is pretty evenly split and they don’t expect that to change. It comes down to this: to claim the two parties are the same, you have to pick and choose what to focus on and what to ignore to an extreme level. For example, you can ignore Bush and Kerry’s differences on abortion, capital punishment, taxation and international relations and focus only on the fact that both favor a larger military. See, they’re the same! ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/37 "2004-06-05T17:31:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It comes down to this: to claim the two parties are the same, you have to pick and choose what to focus on and what to ignore to an extreme level. For example, you can ignore Bush and Kerry’s differences on abortion, capital punishment, taxation and international relations and focus only on the fact that both favor a larger military. See, they’re the same! Yeah, they both favor a larger military, that’s the only similarity. Oh yeah, and they both are in favor of NAFTA and GATT, despite much opposition within the general populace. And I almost forgot, they both have the utmost respect for the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. And, by the way, despite a majority of the population’s opposition to, they both favor a lax immigration policy and the extension of amnesty, as did Clinton before. And let’s not forget that for the past half century, and to the detriment of America’s standing in the international community, the security of its citizens, and to the national debt, all Presidents of both parties have pleged unwavering support and trillions of tax-payer dollars to Neo-Israel. But, that’s okay, because American “voters” are really in tune with the important issues, like a candidate’s position on abortion. (idiots) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/38 "2004-06-05T17:33:24Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > But, that’s okay, because American “voters” are really in tune with the important issues, like a candidate’s position on abortion. (idiots) Yes, darn me for caring about that. Like I said, you have to blatantly ignore a lot of issues people think are important to even make that claim. Apparently this kind of dishonesty doesn’t bother you since you admit it’s true. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/39 "2004-06-06T00:53:03Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > And let’s not forget that for the past half century, and to the detriment of America’s standing in the international community, the security of its citizens, and to the national debt, all Presidents of both parties have pleged unwavering support and trillions of tax-payer dollars to Neo-Israel. “Neo-Israel”? I’ve never seen that phrase before. Did you invent it? I assume you mean it to distinguish the modern state of Israel from the ancient kingdom that was destroyed by the Assyrians. But why? Who would confuse them? ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188/40 "2004-06-12T13:33:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, darn me for caring about that. Like I said, you have to blatantly ignore a lot of issues people think are important to even make that claim. Apparently this kind of dishonesty doesn’t bother you since you admit it’s true. Yes, you and many others do care about that, but that is where you are being duped and used. See, abortion is one of those issues designed to distract the proles as they are being herded into the collectivist corral under the lofty sounding concept of having the freedom to choose one’s destiny. Problem is, the illuminati of the left don’t really give one whit about personal freedom or choice. You will be controlled, under the heel of a boot if necessary. Think not? Well, let’s go back to the paradigm of liberal administrations for some enlightenment, the Clinton administration. If you will recall, during the Clinton administration, the citizens of the states of Arizona and California, through a ballot initiative, voted to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana. And what was the response of the liberal administration? Well, it certainly was not compatible with the concepts of individual freedom and choice. No, the Clinton administration informed the citizens of Arizona and California that, despite the will of the people, the personal use of marijuana would be prevented by the enforcement of the almighty federal law if necessary. Hell, that sounds like something a Republican administration would do. Is it all coming clear to you now. As for the difference in Kerry and Bush, Pat Buchanan sums it up pretty well. > [@](#): > > While the nation will be given 4.5 hours of debate to measure Kerry against the president as both man and leader, they will not be offered a choice of destinies for America. For on the great issues, Bush and Kerry offer us – in times that cry out for a new direction for this nation – the same old, same old. > > Both are interventionists. While Bush launched the war that is turning into a disaster, Kerry voted to give him a blank check to go to war. The president is open to sending more troops. So is Kerry. No voice in those debates will be heard to assert that it was a historic blunder to invade Iraq and that an early end to the U.S. occupation would serve the national interest. > > Bush has approved the Sharon Plan for Israel’s annexation of much of the West Bank. Kerry agrees. On amnesty for illegal aliens, they also agree. On the trade treaties that have cost America one in six manufacturing jobs since January 2001, Bush and Kerry both supported them all. Bush proposed both the Patriot Act and the vast expansion of federal power over education known as the No Child Left Behind Act. John Kerry voted for both. > > While the president and Kerry disagree on taxes and Supreme Court justices, both support the United Nations, foreign aid, NATO expansion, NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, open-borders and free trade. Both are for bigger government. > [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=38749](http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38749) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another-pubs-and-demmies/248188.md?page=3)