[quote]hedo wrote:
Give it a shot…take all the time you need. Not your ideas. Ideas of the Democratic party. Please state what the leaders of the Democrats stand for not what they are against. Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Hillary, any of them?
[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
I think most of the fly over states realize it’s more important to elect someone because of what they represent rather then because of what they are.
Of course. I also believe that. But my point is not that we should elect anyone because she’s a woman. I’m saying it actually has some positive points about it (lead by example!).
I hope you are not so naive as to think that Condi Rice’s gender and skin color didn’t become an advantage for her after a certain point?
(not that there’s anything wrong with that)[/quote]
Not naive at all. I just don’t see the
“dramatic positive impact” that you mentioned. Certainly leading by example would not qualify as such.
[quote]Donut62 wrote:
I don’t know what rosey, noble vision of Washington politics you believe in, but this is how every sucessful politician operates.[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Take your own advice and don’t be a prisoner of your own times - since 1968, there isn’t room for Democrats like that in the party.[/quote]
Seriously?
Why do you only point out that the Dems supported Iraq’s invasion every time it is convenient, and then seem to forget it when it’s again convenient?
(and yes, that was a rhetorical question).
The fact that Democrats have a higher – or rather, different – threshold for what constitutes a reason to go into war doesn’t mean they refuse the principle altogether. Quite the contrary.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Not naive at all. I just don’t see the
“dramatic positive impact” that you mentioned. [/quote]
I guess that’s because I give a much higher importance, value and priority to diplomacy than you do. Which stems from our political inclinations.
Bush understood the impact when he picked Condi – unfortunately he didn’t realize that a) She’s not the President and people don’t perceive her as having any power and b) From my experience with her, Condi lacks some fundamental diplomatic skills that make her less than suited for the job.
And before you point out that Hillary lacks diplomatic skills, you haven’t seen her deal with non-Americans. I have. I’m pretty much convinced that her less-than-diplomatic persona that comes out in speeches to the American public comes from her frustration with the American public. Unfortunately.
[quote]Does anyone detect any serious attempt to reform the party? Is it so bereft of ideas that it cannot change?
I hear a lot of “we didn’t get out our message” in 2004. Hint: There was no message.[/quote]
Jerffy,
Use your head as more than a target.
In 2004 nobody heard any messages because the only things being discussed where some childish comments concerning flip-flopping and the swift boat vets.
Two crocks of shit were served up steaming hot and the supposedly biased media swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Mmmm, mmmm, good!
Why do you only point out that the Dems supported Iraq’s invasion every time it is convenient, and then seem to forget it when it’s again convenient?[/quote]
Well, for an answer - the fact that you bring it up only elucidates my point. The Democrats voted for it, but few stood by that vote. Look at Joe Lieberman - one of the few Democrats who stands by his vote - he stands to be a pariah of his party.
As in, voting for the war doesn’t necessarily make you a tough hombre - standing up for the vote you made even when the popular tide of your party has turned against you is a sign of toughness.
For that reason, I have more respect for the Democrats who said ‘hell no’ to the war for their set of antiwar reasons than the Democrats who voted for it, only to capitulate to the Deaniac wave of left-wing mania.
This I don’t doubt, but left-wing liberals generally suffer from two problems:
First, the delusion that if somewhere else in the world someone is angry or violent (and thus worthy of getting attacked), it because of a reaction to something mean ole Westerners have done, never an act of original evil, and therefore, the threshold for war becomes stratospheric, because how can we attack someone when we brought it on ourselves through our (fill in the blank with trendy theory/ism relating to oppression)?
Second, left-wing liberals are prone to ‘paralysis by analysis’ - in that they can powwow on a topic for days, even weeks, but when it comes time to make a decision, especially a tough one, when the choice is between something bad and something worse, left-wing navel-gazers turn white as a ghost and are not reliable to handle that decision.
I realize I am generalizing greatly, but that is what Internet forums are for. :> But also, notice my taxonomy - I am not talking about liberals generally. FDR was a liberal through and through, but in today’s world, lefties would be aghast at his warmongering and his inability to see that Hitler was ‘our fault’.
[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
Not naive at all. I just don’t see the
“dramatic positive impact” that you mentioned.
I guess that’s because I give a much higher importance, value and priority to diplomacy than you do. Which stems from our political inclinations.
Bush understood the impact when he picked Condi – unfortunately he didn’t realize that a) She’s not the President and people don’t perceive her as having any power and b) From my experience with her, Condi lacks some fundamental diplomatic skills that make her less than suited for the job.
And before you point out that Hillary lacks diplomatic skills, you haven’t seen her deal with non-Americans. I have. I’m pretty much convinced that her less-than-diplomatic persona that comes out in speeches to the American public comes from her frustration with the American public. Unfortunately.
[/quote]
Have you seen the movie Forrest Gump? Much like Mr. Gump you seem to be at the center of history as it revolves around you. Fascinating or comical depending on your perspective I guess. Might be a little more credible if you didn’t try and drop names in lieu of an argument don’t you think?
I don’t know why you don’t want to explain your “dramatic positive improvement” statement? Not sure what the Condi tangent has to do with a question about Hillary. Actually I do but I am just pointing it out to you.
Condi hardly lacks diplomatic skills.
Can you give examples of her poor performance? You sound jealous. Did she slight you at a cocktail party? Ask you to fetch a drink maybe:)
Try and keep in mind that Hillary is trying to represent those who you feel she is frustrated with. It’s why she will not be elected. It shows. She’ll need to change, not the electorate. She will not however, she’s arrogant. That appeals to the liberal elite but not to the those who vote.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Does anyone detect any serious attempt to reform the party? Is it so bereft of ideas that it cannot change?
I hear a lot of “we didn’t get out our message” in 2004. Hint: There was no message.
Jerffy,
Use your head as more than a target.
In 2004 nobody heard any messages because the only things being discussed where some childish comments concerning flip-flopping and the swift boat vets.
Two crocks of shit were served up steaming hot and the supposedly biased media swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Mmmm, mmmm, good![/quote]
It’s sad that in this day and age we can’t have a meaningful discussion regarding the issues.
But then again we never had that in American politics.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Doesn’t matter who gets elected. Anything will be a step up from Bush. Heck if you guys elected an old boot your country would be in better hands.[/quote]
This is coming from a country that has been inferior to us for how long now? I mean I do not want to start bashing your country but the only thing I know you are good for is 18 year old kids being able to go to your country to smoke pot and drink. (More than anything you got John Berardi and that makes up for everything.)
I love the fact that you can sit and run your mouth off like the rest of the world. Have you been to Iraq, I understand what you see on your biased news channel but that is coming from a source, you are not seeing it first hand.
Since Canada is such a role model, what happen to Paul Martin? Lots of lofty goals and expectations were met with scandal.
Lets answer the question: Now I consider myself more left than right. I understand that women have all the rights that men have but I feel that if Hillary Clinton were elected her presidential carrer would be based soley on pleasing than actually doing.
No one is perfect, there is scandal under everything. Don’t sit here and talk shit about a job that you will never be able to achieve. Allegations surround everything and everyone. I am sure if I wanted to waste time I can uncover some fucked up shit about you.
I understand my first paragraph is a little harsh but I hate the fact the entire world is appauled by us yet need us even more.
Look, man, I’m not going to feed yet another discussion that is just a rehash of the prevoous 100 times we’ve discussed this.
Americans buy into the conservative dogma that admitting to making mistakes is a sign of weakness.
Republicans are great at implementing that – they never, ever admit to having made a mistake. They run circles around it, and when cornered find a designated scapegoat to blame for everything.
Professor X’s joke about how many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb is a classic example of that.
The sad corollary is that when people don’t admit to mistakes, they cannot learn from them. Because they never happened, right? The bulb is performing perfectly: it does NOT need changing.
How dear you even hint at the idea that the bulb needs changing?
Newsflash: humans make mistakes. All the time. And only idiots don’t learn from them.
There’s a word for learning from mistakes: it’s called intelligence.
So the inevitable result is that we continue – and will continue – to have idiots in power.
Dems are too realistic to pretend they don’t screw up, but try to cover it anyway because they (as Bill Clinton admitted) understand what I’m saying. But that strategy doesn’t work well with the public because they have the AUDACY of learning from their (and other’s) mistakes – and – ouch! – change their mind! NOOOOOOO! Nobody is allowed to change their mind! That’s what intelligent people do, and we don’t want intelligent politicians! Don’t you understand? Intelligent people are weak!
It is sad when we live in a country where in fact no good deed goes unpunished…
The reason I defend Hillary so much is because I can completely relate to her frustration… I’m increasingly frustrated too…
[quote]thelaw12186 wrote:
I feel that if Hillary Clinton were elected her presidential carrer would be based soley on pleasing than actually doing.[/quote]
That is a very sad stereotype. And you consider yourself more left than right?
Only in America…
Spend some time actually listening to the woman and then come back and tell me if she’s a crowd-pleaser. On the contrary: the fact that she isn’t is what is going to stop her from ever getting the Presidency.
[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
So where are the ideas? You just said you have them, then you say you can’t explain them in 6 seconds. Well, explain them in as many seconds as you would like.
Do I look like a photocopier? Use the search engine and look for my posts on this forum. Alternatively, read here:
… it summarizes my ideas pretty well:
In general, contemporary Social Democrats support:
* Regulatory systems over private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and small enterprise.
* A Social Market Economy over a Free market, if not, in some cases and to some extent, planned economy.
* Advocacy of Fair trade over Free trade.
* An extensive system of social security (Though usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialist's or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness or unemployment. (See welfare state)
* Government-owned or subsidized programs of education, health care, child care, etc. for all citizens.
* Moderate to high levels of taxation to fund government expenditure and a progressive taxation system.
* A system of industrial regulation (statutory minimum wages, working conditions, protection against arbitrary dismissal).
* Environmental protection laws (although not to the extent advocated by Greens).
* Immigration and multiculturalism.
* A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree. Most social democrats support gay marriage, abortion and a liberal drug policy [that's the group I'm in -- hspder], while others are either non-committed or openly opposed to these policies, although feigned opposition may be employed for political expediency.
* A foreign policy supporting multilateralism and international institutions such as the United Nations.
steveo5801 wrote:
Good ideas – like lower taxes and less government – are good ideas. If it were up to the Republicans alone, we would have both.
Republicans have the House, Senate and the Presidency. At what point are Democrats stopping them?
The reason they have not been implemented is because it is impossible to do so in the USA. Our public dept is way too high, or spending is out of control and it’s impossible to get it back in control without some very unpopular measures. Furthermore, the lack of investment in education and the prevailing greedy-consumist culture has made it completely impossible to deregulate anything without causing severe problems – the general population is incapable of taking care of themselves financially (they are sunk in debt to their eyebrows) and too many American corporations have zero ethics and are just in it for short term financial gain, at the expense of everybody else.
steveo5801 wrote:
However, you cannot be serious if you deny that when Reagan cut taxes and increased defense spending He was able to pull the US out of the economic malaise that had plagued it for over a decade. Reagan’s tax cutting policies are responsible for the economic turnaround which Clinton then enjoyed during his time of fooling around with young girls in the Oval Office…
That is not only low and uncalled for, it is completely false. Reagan’s successor, Bush I, HAD to increase taxes and reverse what Reagan did because Reagan’s policies worked short-term but would be catastrophic long-term. Bush I was the designated scapegoat. Bill Clinton “enjoyed” an economic turnaround because, mainly, he is intelligent and a great leader and managed to instill investor confidence and manage the debt wisely.
[/quote]
So basically the idea is to transform America into a Socialist state and have the government regulate even more of our lives.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Have you seen the movie Forrest Gump? Much like Mr. Gump you seem to be at the center of history as it revolves around you. Fascinating or comical depending on your perspective I guess. Might be a little more credible if you didn’t try and drop names in lieu of an argument don’t you think?[/quote]
Drop names? What the heck are you talking about? Condi was Stanford’s Provost, and I’m a professor there. Where’s the name dropping?
With Hillary? Sitting in a town-hall-type meeting where Hillary was talking to a bunch of foreigners is name dropping?
Stanford hosts international discussions all the time, and more often than not we have pretty high-profile guests.
Comes with the fact that Stanford is a household name just about anywhere in the World. Moreso than Harvard or Yale.
What name dropping?
[quote]hedo wrote:
I don’t know why you don’t want to
explain your “dramatic positive improvement” statement? Not sure what the Condi tangent has to do with a question about Hillary. Actually I do but I am just pointing it out to you.[/quote]
What the heck are you talking about? I’ve explained myself plenty. Is your problem the fact that I did not reduce it to a 5-second-soundbite designed for 5 year olds?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Condi hardly lacks diplomatic skills.
Can you give examples of her poor performance? You sound jealous. Did she slight you at a cocktail party? Ask you to fetch a drink maybe:)[/quote]
Cocktail party? Jealous? Again, what the heck are you talking about? I’m an Economist, why in the world would I want her job?
She was Provost from 1993 to 1999, and during those years she was chief academic and budget officer of the University.
Now, she is a brilliant woman in many areas. She has an impressive academic career, except maybe for the fact that she bet on the wrong specialty (Eastern Europe and Russia – good idea in the 80s, bad one after that). She has excellent analytical skills, and her financial accomplishments at Stanford were impressive.
However, her diplomatic skills are non-existent. I had the opportunity of seeing her in action several times.
Whenever she was involved in a debate, she was arrogant, aggressive, argumentative and rude. She was harsh, even ruthless.
Rice’s moves were made more brutal by the imperious way she carried them out. She was extremely autocratic in her style. She didn’t brook anyone disagreeing with her.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
Does anyone detect any serious attempt to reform the party? Is it so bereft of ideas that it cannot change?
I hear a lot of “we didn’t get out our message” in 2004. Hint: There was no message.
Jerffy,
Use your head as more than a target.
In 2004 nobody heard any messages because the only things being discussed where some childish comments concerning flip-flopping and the swift boat vets.
Two crocks of shit were served up steaming hot and the supposedly biased media swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Mmmm, mmmm, good!
It’s sad that in this day and age we can’t have a meaningful discussion regarding the issues.
But then again we never had that in American politics.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Is it just me, or do you also think that Hillary Clinton doesn’t stand a chance of being elected President in 2008?
Oh, I think she might get the Democratic nomination all right (and as a Conservative Republican I am rooting for her to get it) but getting elected President – no way!
Reasons she cannot get elected:
(1) She is way too far far far left on everything (despite her attempts to move toward the center, she reveals her leftist stripes over and over again).
(2) She is married to Bill Clinton.
(3) We just don’t elect Senators. John Kennedy was the last - I cannot even name another ever.
(4) She is way to angry – Americans don’t want their leaders to be angry and shrill. She yells about everything in that annoying (chalk on a blackboard) voice of hers.
(5) The country as a whole is far more conservative.
(6) Can we really trust Hillary to keep us safe from attacks? Could you imagine her standing up to any of the world’s maniacs?
As I said, I am hoping she gets nominated, so the Republican can trounce her, but in my opinion SHE DOESN’T HAVE A PRAYER.
Does it really matter?
Quit reading right-wing mass media propaganda without going to independent non-corporate news sources for an alternative viewpoint.
These are MY ideas bro…you know ideas – the thing that you libs never seem to have.
Yes it does matter! Are you saying that it doesn’t matter who is leading our nation? What are you brain dead?
I am also laughing at you for your calling conservatives who report the news “propaganda” as if the liberal news media (which you libs had an absolute lock before the advent of cable TV and conservative talk) has no agenda…come on…do you think we are all as stupid as you libs?[/quote]
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Is it just me, or do you also think that Hillary Clinton doesn’t stand a chance of being elected President in 2008?
Oh, I think she might get the Democratic nomination all right (and as a Conservative Republican I am rooting for her to get it) but getting elected President – no way!
Reasons she cannot get elected:
(1) She is way too far far far left on everything (despite her attempts to move toward the center, she reveals her leftist stripes over and over again).
(2) She is married to Bill Clinton.
(3) We just don’t elect Senators. John Kennedy was the last - I cannot even name another ever.
(4) She is way to angry – Americans don’t want their leaders to be angry and shrill. She yells about everything in that annoying (chalk on a blackboard) voice of hers.
(5) The country as a whole is far more conservative.
(6) Can we really trust Hillary to keep us safe from attacks? Could you imagine her standing up to any of the world’s maniacs?
As I said, I am hoping she gets nominated, so the Republican can trounce her, but in my opinion SHE DOESN’T HAVE A PRAYER.
Does it really matter?
Quit reading right-wing mass media propaganda without going to independent non-corporate news sources for an alternative viewpoint.
These are MY ideas bro…you know ideas – the thing that you libs never seem to have.
Yes it does matter! Are you saying that it doesn’t matter who is leading our nation? What are you brain dead?
I am also laughing at you for your calling conservatives who report the news “propaganda” as if the liberal news media (which you libs had an absolute lock before the advent of cable TV and conservative talk) has no agenda…come on…do you think we are all as stupid as you libs?[/quote]
No retard, I’m not brain dead but you are brain-washed which is actually worse.
My point is that it really doesn’t matter if it’s one of the corporate whipping boys of either party. Both worship power.
Their is really no bias in the media in terms of conservative or liberal viewpoints whatever they may be. The news media is biased to profits. It is biased to those who own the media.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
So basically the idea is to transform America into a Socialist state and have the government regulate even more of our lives.[/quote]
