|Why I could never be a democrat...||Dwayne Barry|
Jan 21, 2004 7:15 AM
|anymore than I could be republican was brought home in the democratic response to Bush's speech last night. There seems to be a fundamental assumption by Democrats that any person that is disadvantaged is only in those straits because of lack of oppurtunity or a shortage of government assistance. But this runs counter to my own experience in life, the vast majority of the "disadvantaged" (no health insurance, financially bad-off for whatever reason, etc. etc.) people I've come across are in their current situation because of past decisions.
At the same time, the right-wing religious conservatism and neocom policies of the Bush version of Republicanism prevent me from wanting to join that party (which I think I was well on my way to doing before they came on the scene).
What I need is a party that is economically conservative but socially liberal, any suggestions?
|re: Why I could never be a democrat...||No_sprint|
Jan 21, 2004 7:22 AM
|Fiscal conservative here, social MOR here. Repub here. I vote real issues, economic, those which protect us, fundamental issues, not new age social issues of trying to create some kind of socialist utopia that doesn't exist anywhere and that is entirely unrealistic. I'm obviously in the right place. If your priorities/perspectives are different, you might choose otherwise.|
|you mean social programs like the new job training plan?||ColnagoFE|
Jan 21, 2004 7:55 AM
|Or spending $ on another moon shot? Or the mistaken idea that bombing Iraq makes us safer and that the Iraqi people appreciate what we've done for them?|
|My opinion is inarguable, you're entitled to yours as well.||No_sprint|
Jan 21, 2004 7:59 AM
|It's all yours.|
|fair enough. thanks for letting me have my opinion though||ColnagoFE|
Jan 21, 2004 8:15 AM
|Guess we haven't arrived at the police state yet and this is still a democracy that allows free speech.|
|Not quite yet, but the Boys and their fellow travelers||OldEdScott|
Jan 21, 2004 8:29 AM
|(some on this board) are working on it.|
|Answer me this my friend - that is if you dare attempt to in ...||Live Steam|
Jan 21, 2004 10:33 AM
|an honest way. Why did that murderer Ted Kennedy and every other Dumocrat who sat there last evening in defiance or disapproval of Bush, vote for the Patriot Act if they didn't believe it was the right thing to do? One simple question with no hidden meaning. Well?|
Jan 21, 2004 10:37 AM
|OES, please respond honestly to Steam's inquiry about that "murderer Ted Kennedy" and all those "Dumocrats".
Please keep in mind that if you support a policy once, you are forever foresworn from reconsidering that support or objecting to the application of that policy or to its expansion.
Its a simple question.
|It was a plainspoken heartfelt query, all right. nm||OldEdScott|
Jan 21, 2004 10:42 AM
|I guess you just can't help yourself||Live Steam|
Jan 21, 2004 10:55 AM
|Didn't your parents teach you any manners? Children should only speak when spoken to.
The idea that each and every one of them voted for it and now each and every one of them has reconsidered it is transparent. They aren't the leaders I want in command if they can't make a decision and stand by it. And, don't give me that right to reconsider or admit when they are wrong crap.
The way I see it is they are weak-minded. They make their choices based on polls or what they perceive to be the popular choice at the moment. Leaders do what they believe is right and stand by their choice no matter the personal or political cost. Losers are Monday Morning QBs who cannot stand on principal.
But let's really be honest, they are being divisive and partisan. They are also counting on the ignorance of the American people. That was the reason for what they did. They know that 9 out of 10 Americans don't know who voted for what or what any of it really means other than the spin that is put on it by a conspiring media. Well people are becoming more informed. This is the reason why the Dumocratic Party is a disgrace and in a state of disarray. The American people see these losers for what they are - people who have constantly underestimated their intelligence and who have held them in contempt. Period.
|They don't realize Americans are smart like you, Steam.||czardonic|
Jan 21, 2004 11:07 AM
|So they try to flip-flop -- voting for drastic measures during times of unprecedented national emergency, and then hypopcritically calling for reconsideration as the apocalypse fizzles.
Leaders don't listen to polls -- especially in a democratic republic.
|I guess you just can't help yourself||Jon Billheimer|
Jan 21, 2004 11:13 AM
For about the third time in three years I actually agree with you. Political opportunists ALL!! When it comes to opportunism, deceit, and lack of integrity there is little distinguishing the Democratic "opposition" and The Great Dissimulator now occupying the White House.
|They were chickenshyt.||OldEdScott|
Jan 21, 2004 10:40 AM
|Plain and simple answer, my freind.|
|well said. Glad Feingold is one of mine, so that ...||dr hoo|
Jan 21, 2004 10:50 AM
|... I can be proud of him as a man of principle, and principles that I can mostly stand with. Puts his money where his mouth is too. I'm cynical, but that fraction of a percent of good people gives me (most likely false) hope.|
|Of what? Of who? I know what they were afraid of ...||Live Steam|
Jan 21, 2004 11:00 AM
|they were afraid of making the wrong (unpopular) choice. Now they need to divide the country in order to garner votes. But I know that they will pay dearly in the next election. Your party has brought it upon themselves because of their arrogance and disrespect of the American people. They will get what they deserve in November - relegation to irrelevance for at least 4 more years! They are shyt all right!
Oh you didn't let me down. You answered like a true democrat! You didn't answer.
|Steam, you're un-satisfiable.||OldEdScott|
Jan 21, 2004 11:16 AM
|I gave you a straight answer. I said they were chickenshyt. Obviously, I meant they were politically chickenshyt.It was a critical assessment. I didn't try to blow smoke up your ass. Apparently, unless I say it exactly as YOU would say it, which includes namecalling and vitriol, I do not pass your standards for 'answering.'
Sometimes you're as bad as Sean Hannity. I've never understood why anyone would 'debate' with him either, since there's no goodwill whatsoever. Just attack, attack, attack and demean the other side.
I answered your freakin question. Next.
|since when is popular always right?||rufus|
Jan 21, 2004 11:41 AM
|millions of people in this country buy britney spears albums. does that mean their taste in music is impeccable? does that mean her music's good?
same with politics. just cause it's a popular view, doesn't mean it's right or good. discrimination was once a popular view, as was denial of women's right to vote.
yeah, they were afraid of voting against it for their sheer future political viability. of course you must know that the number one priority of any politician is getting themselves re-elected, right?(even your hero georgie. in fact i'd say it's the only thing that matters to him) here you had 435 people afaraid of what the opposition party was gonna say about them if they didn't vote for this piece of legislation, given the immediacy of 9/11. "he voted against the patriot act. he wants to make it easier for terrorists to commit crimes against this country. he supports teerrorism, osama and saddam!!!" sound familiar? it's what you guys on the right have been screaming for two+ years now.
now that there's some distance between 9/11 and now, and the initial surge of fear, revenge, and "do anything just to do something" has passed, and people can look at just what exactly this act means, and the protections we're giving up as a people, all in pursuit of some goal that may or may not be possible to achieve, with a more objective, rational, and critical eye, it only makes sense to explore the issue again.
our representatives abandoned conviction for their own political needs, just as they did with the iraq war vote. no spine or guts in any of them.
|You didn't answer the question!||OldEdScott|
Jan 21, 2004 11:49 AM
|You didn't use 'despicable' or 'criminal' or 'worthless pieces of shyt.'
Nah, even that's not enough. If you want to 'answer' Steam's question, just cut and paste one of his diatribes.
|Yes, they were afraid of nit-wit voters who would buy into . . .||czardonic|
Jan 21, 2004 11:56 AM
|. . .the "if you are against the Patriot Act you are with Saddam Hussein" rationale -- as used with such valor in Georgia.
Remeber, Steam: Just because the Democrats are arrogant and disrespectful of the "American people" (as represented by yourself), doesn't mean they aren't right.
|Re:change is coming ...||landru|
Jan 21, 2004 9:31 AM
|hey old Edward. Thanks for taking the time to point me towards the MI Democrat website. I read the post you are referring to here and I hope that someday it will come to pass. I am fiscally conservative but socially somewhat liberal. I couldn't care less if gays marry, I don't want creation taught in schools, and the separation of church and state is the best part about our constitution. I believe in personal responsibility and hard work. It drives me nuts to hear about "Golden Fleece" award winners and pork barrel spending. I don't like abortion but as a male, find it difficult to pass laws against it. Schools should be for reading, writin' and arithmetic, not instruction in how to use a condom (but i have no kids either) I guess I really don't like either party. When i was first eligible to vote, I picked John Anderson and wasted my vote on Nader last time. The whole process is terrible.|
|libertarian party? (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Jan 21, 2004 7:51 AM
|Yeah but the problem with them...||Dwayne Barry|
Jan 21, 2004 8:07 AM
|is that they get too many wackos with completely impractical political perspectives such as doing away with the military, etc.
They also shoot themselves in the foot because they seem to get too many people who are only there because of "the legalize drugs" stance. While I agree recreational drugs should be legal just like alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are, it is not a policy to build a party around, and I think Libertarians often come-off that way.
Libertarians just don't seem pragmatic enough to ever get anywhere.
|therein lies the rub||ColnagoFE|
Jan 21, 2004 8:19 AM
|In theory the Lib party fits me pretty well. In practice I think it falls apart. Unless people are willing to get beyond sound bite politics, decide what issues are important, and how the current parties are blowing smoke up our collective a$$es we are destined to continue with the current system we have now. People don't realize that collectively they have lots of power and tend to just vote for the devil they know. We get what we ask for.|
|nah, the rub is that people expect change from the top.||dr hoo|
Jan 21, 2004 8:38 AM
|If you really want to get the Libertarian party (or any alternative party for that matter) gaining power, get involved and try to get people on the school board and city council. First local, then state, THEN national.
Minnesota is a good example of what happens if someone gets high elective office with no support structure underneath. Not much, in terms of changing things.
|Party building! Be a vanguard! Disciplined cadres!||OldEdScott|
Jan 21, 2004 8:51 AM
|Give me about 217 ex-Bolsheviks, put 'em on the payroll as hirelings to build a Libertarian Party out there, and we'd have a Libertarian Congress within a decade. Otherwise, nah. Americans are too politically lazy to party build.
Build a people's army! Fight a people's war!
|Trotskyite Libertarians! Why not?||dr hoo|
Jan 21, 2004 10:52 AM
|I tell you man, the only way to fight the people's war is to push the phrase "microcapitalism". Renters never take care of the house as well as owners, so the workers should own the business, right?
The people, united, will make a real good profit!
|Good for you! Admitting you have a problem is the first step...||Cory|
Jan 21, 2004 8:37 AM
|...toward getting yourself straightened out.|
|I agree Dwayne||Continental|
Jan 21, 2004 6:51 PM
|What a choice! School prayer, defense of marriage, and flag burning are big issues for the Republicans, who make hollow proposals to take issues off the table for Democrats.
Protectionism, visceral attacks on corporations, and social programs that undermine individual initiative are big issues for the Democrats, who make hollow proposals to take issues off the table for Republicans.
Alas, the two parties have developed an extra-constitutional system of electoral and governing rules that perpetuates the two-party system. One of the parties will have to change. I'm losing hope for the Republicans and their close ties to the religious right. Maybe a historical thumping in the next election will catalyze the emergence of true leaders from the Democrats, who have the guts to make real proposals and the charisma to implement them.