Howard Dean

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What happened to the party that cared abut the common person’s rights? Now we have terms like compassionate conservative to describe people like W? Everyone knows compassion has never been a major trait of the republican party.

Yes, you’re right. It’s far more compassionate to teach that you should give up your rights and property to be taken care of by someone else who doesn’t even know you, than teaching personal empowerment and responsibility.

Compassion never been a trait of Republicans… hmmm… Like freeing the slaves against ardent democrat opposition? Like voting in a higher percentage than the dems for the Civil Rights Act? Like teaching that there is no such thing as “the common man”? Like teaching people to lift themselves up instead of waiting for Lenin to do it?

[/quote]

EEK! Were not rubes here Jeff. Were those liberals voting for civil rights or conservatives? We all know the answer to that one! What became of the “dixiecrats” who didn’t vote for civil rights? That’s right, they’re Rethugs now! Did Lincoln win the war liberally or conservatively? Liberal is right! Big time! The biggest implementation of a strong federal government uhhh ever? Smacking down “states rights” left and right. Also anyone else notice the divide of red state blue state, seems awfullly north/south to me— And I hope your not advocating social darwinism. Nothing’s worse than rich people claiming “I did it all by myself”

82

No elitism as in specifically benefitting elites, Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh, Bush family, Heinz family, Movie Stars, you know incredibly rich people— You know policy that helps mostly yourself, instead of the other 99 percent of us.I just kind of resent paying for millionare tax benefits, and of course it makes no economic sense.(How many times will this have to be demonstrated till voters remember----trickle down never trickles down :frowning:

83

My opinion as it pertains to the original question (where the hell did the Civil War come from?):

Dean is very bad for the Dems. I don’t think that anybody took the time to explain to him what the actual job description was. His job is to run the ‘command structure’ of the party, to organize, to fundraise. By all accounts (other than his own) is is failing. He was brought in, not because of his opinions or policy, but because of his success as a ‘grass roots’ campaigner (esp. on the net). Personally I suspect that this had much more to do with his campaign managers than him. What I really don’t understand is why the party turned away from the advise of thier golden boy Clinton. The entire group that surrounded Clinton opposed the idea of Dean as chairman. The only explination for this that I can see is that the Dems have decided to be the anti- party. I think that this is clear in the fight over ss. By the way, most people should know that the ideas that the White House has floated for ss were thought up by some of the more gifted democratic/liberal thinkers. Instead of even considering such ideas the dems have demonized them. The dems need to stop being the anti- party (it never wins new votes) and start looking forward. Giving Dean the boot is a good way to start.

84

[quote]100meters wrote:
EEK! Were not rubes here Jeff. Were those liberals voting for civil rights or conservatives? We all know the answer to that one! What became of the “dixiecrats” who didn’t vote for civil rights? That’s right, they’re Rethugs now! Did Lincoln win the war liberally or conservatively? Liberal is right! Big time! The biggest implementation of a strong federal government uhhh ever? Smacking down “states rights” left and right. Also anyone else notice the divide of red state blue state, seems awfullly north/south to me— And I hope your not advocating social darwinism. Nothing’s worse than rich people claiming “I did it all by myself”[/quote]

The best guarantee that you will stay poor is waiting for someone else to do something for you and not working. IT’s not the governments responsibility to make you successful.

That’s really what wealthy successful people brag crow about. Blaiming someone else is an excuse not a reason.

85

[quote]holifila wrote:
My opinion as it pertains to the original question (where the hell did the Civil War come from?):

Dean is very bad for the Dems. I don’t think that anybody took the time to explain to him what the actual job description was. His job is to run the ‘command structure’ of the party, to organize, to fundraise. By all accounts (other than his own) is is failing. He was brought in, not because of his opinions or policy, but because of his success as a ‘grass roots’ campaigner (esp. on the net). Personally I suspect that this had much more to do with his campaign managers than him. What I really don’t understand is why the party turned away from the advise of thier golden boy Clinton. The entire group that surrounded Clinton opposed the idea of Dean as chairman. The only explination for this that I can see is that the Dems have decided to be the anti- party. I think that this is clear in the fight over ss. By the way, most people should know that the ideas that the White House has floated for ss were thought up by some of the more gifted democratic/liberal thinkers. Instead of even considering such ideas the dems have demonized them. The dems need to stop being the anti- party (it never wins new votes) and start looking forward. Giving Dean the boot is a good way to start.[/quote]

Dean’s expertise is fundraising, and he’s doubling the rate of 2003. (Double= better) in what 100 days? And you seem mildly confused as to who the anti party is. Rethugs=anti. Against oh S.S, progressive taxes, against individual rights, against fiscal responsibility, against middle and lower classes, against the constitution, american values. Voting for people that don’t think they should be helping you really makes no sense.

86

If you had a choice between a philosopy that helps all classes of society, or one that helps just the incredibly rich, wouldn’t ya pick the one that helps the most? And since liberals kick conservative ass at economics anyway, isn’t it a no brainer? Unless your only issue is the tax rate of the incredibly rich there is no reason to choose conservatism.

87

lumpy,

I thought about you when your pal, Warren Beaty was spouting off.

You are a “crackpot.”

North/South divide in the 2004 election!?!

Take a look at this:

www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/front.htm

Now look up a county by county representation.

The whole damn country is red!!!

lumpy wrote:

“Were those liberals voting for civil rights or conservatives? We all know the answer to that one!”

I do, you don’t.

"In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and Curricular Resources

It was appalling the other day to watch former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry totally gloss over Republican efforts in the name of civil rights. He implied that Lott’s foot-in-mouth statement was representative of Republican views about civil rights since forever.

Kerry knows better. Yet being a loyal and predictable Democrat, Kerry can create the big lie with the best of them. The media are so in sync with that effort that they don’t challenge him."

Just like my pal, lumpy.

lumpy went on to say:

“What became of the “dixiecrats” who didn’t vote for civil rights? That’s right, they’re Rethugs now”

So wrong!!!

"Kerry also maintained that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton’s mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.

In fact, very few party switches came about right after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Democrats like Bob Kerry will lie about Republicans but won’t tell you some facts about the heroes and icons of their own party."

lumpy, it’s been a fun day!!!

Now be a man, like LiftusMaximus and admit your error.

Come on lumpy, be the butterfly!!!

Turn the leaf!!!

JeffR

88

lumpy wrote:

Man, you are on a roll today!!!

“No elitism as in specifically benefitting elites, Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh, Bush family, Heinz family, Movie Stars, you know incredibly rich people— You know policy that helps mostly yourself, instead of the other 99 percent of us.I just kind of resent paying for millionare tax benefits, and of course it makes no economic sense.(How many times will this have to be demonstrated till voters remember----trickle down never trickles down :(”

You’ve heard it today!!!

Sixty two million, forty thousand, six hundred and six people are "incredibly rich people!!!

All right!!!

We are rich!!! “We’re in the money!!!”

Also remember that that constitutes 1% of the population.

By my calculation: That means that the other 99% of the population would equal:

Six billion, two-hundred-four million, sixty-thousand-six hundred.

I had no idea America was that large!!!

I’m going to start calling Democratic America, Earth.

Let’s pander to the Earth vote.

Aren’t you glad that everyone who voted Republican is “incredibly rich!!!”

Now I do have one question lumpy. Remember when your DNC chairman, Dean, said that the Rebublicans in the south drove pickups with Confederate flags emblazoned upon them?

With their incredible riches, why would Republicans drive pickups with decals?

Shouldn’t they at least have a stretched hummer?

Having a ball at your expense!!!

JeffR

P.S. You are a rube.

89

[quote]100meters wrote:
If you had a choice between a philosopy that helps all classes of society, or one that helps just the incredibly rich, wouldn’t ya pick the one that helps the most? And since liberals kick conservative ass at economics anyway, isn’t it a no brainer? Unless your only issue is the tax rate of the incredibly rich there is no reason to choose conservatism.[/quote]

How do liberals kick conservatives ass at economics?

By raising taxes and business expenses?

I am no fan of the way big business operates and treats it employees, yet all I see from the liberal side is feel good crap.

It has been shown time and again that tax increases chase away business and jobs. There is a reason jobs are fleeing blue states towards the red states. The red states have figured out that lower taxes attract business.

90

Jesus you are dense.

Were those republicans liberal or conservative? Were those democrats liberal or conservative? Those democrats aren’t democrats anymore—they’re republicans or at the least conservatives! What was LBJ told if he signed civil rights, we (Liberal Dems) will lose the south forever! THOSE ARE RED STATES! Next you’re gonna say the duelfer report said Iraq had WMD–wait you already did that—Jeff you are the King of Wingnuttia.
Lets simplify for you
Liberals for civil rights
Conservatives against civil rights.
Duelfer Report = NO wmd.

91

After your detroit=iraq calculations you might not want to continue with the “calculations” Uhhhhh… Jeff the people who vote republican aren’t rich, the people that benefit from rethugism are rich. Micheal Moore is rich. He didn’t vote for Bush. He will get huge tax breaks from Bush. Al Franken will benefit. Steven Spielberg will benefit. RICH people will benefit. The rest of us are the 99 percent we vote for mostly 2 parties but there are others.
It’s who benefits.
Not who votes.
It’s called reading.

92

[quote]100meters wrote:
After your detroit=iraq calculations you might not want to continue with the “calculations” Uhhhhh… Jeff the people who vote republican aren’t rich, the people that benefit from rethugism are rich. Micheal Moore is rich. He didn’t vote for Bush. He will get huge tax breaks from Bush. Al Franken will benefit. Steven Spielberg will benefit. RICH people will benefit. The rest of us are the 99 percent we vote for mostly 2 parties but there are others.
It’s who benefits.
Not who votes.
It’s called reading.
[/quote]

I am nowhere near rich, yet benefited substantially from the Bush tax cuts.

I have used the money to purchase made in America items such as a new kitchen set (Harley Davidson, kitchen set, I made the right choice).

How can you possibly say only the rich are better off?

93

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
If you had a choice between a philosopy that helps all classes of society, or one that helps just the incredibly rich, wouldn’t ya pick the one that helps the most? And since liberals kick conservative ass at economics anyway, isn’t it a no brainer? Unless your only issue is the tax rate of the incredibly rich there is no reason to choose conservatism.

How do liberals kick conservatives ass at economics?

By raising taxes and business expenses?

I am no fan of the way big business operates and treats it employees, yet all I see from the liberal side is feel good crap.

It has been shown time and again that tax increases chase away business and jobs. There is a reason jobs are fleeing blue states towards the red states. The red states have figured out that lower taxes attract business.

[/quote]
In terms of the economic management, liberalism is better (obviously). Feel good crap would be terms like “ownership society” or “record home ownership” (seriously he’s still using that one) Seriously though higher taxes haven’t been shown to chase away jobs—In fact it would be the opposite in this country. When Clinton/dems raised taxes on the top 1 percent I think it created what 22 million jobs. Bush’s tax cuts created how many jobs? At what cost? Wise investment? Probably not. Would better targeted tax cuts have helped more? Most likely. In essence there’s more to running the economy than the idealogy of “cutting taxcuts” (for the rich) In addition the neo-con agenda adds the deliberate element of the welfare state—cutting taxes and big spending=not good.

94

[quote]hedo wrote:
The best guarantee that you will stay poor is waiting for someone else to do something for you and not working. IT’s not the governments responsibility to make you successful.

That’s really what wealthy successful people brag crow about. Blaiming someone else is an excuse not a reason.

[/quote]

Where the hell do people get that libs (dems or greens) don’t work or don’t want to work? Because I care that a grandmother raising two of her grandchildren receive adequate healthcare and subsistence I am to blame for the economic disparity of a whole class of people? I wish these so called compassionate conservatives would quit preaching and do something worthy of Christ. I’ve never seen a conservative republican hanging out at a soup kitchen or donating their time at a battered woman?s shelter. Just because you drop a wad of cash in the collection plate on Sunday so your minister can drive a Cadillac doesn’t make you compassionate nor a good Christian.

I don’t think poor people are blaming the system per se. But what do expect them to think when they see CEOs get away with corporate crime or hire lawyers to fight their way out of paying taxes. You can’t tell me the system is fair. Meanwhile they can’t afford to feed their children or pay for childcare , etc. I’m not asking you to take care of them–just try to understand why things maybe difficult for them. That is my definition of compassion.

95

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am nowhere near rich, yet benefited substantially from the Bush tax cuts.

I have used the money to purchase made in America items such as a new kitchen set (Harley Davidson, kitchen set, I made the right choice).

How can you possibly say only the rich are better off?[/quote]

If you’re telling us that you’re not rich but could afford a Harley and a Kithcen set with your tax cut then you deffinitely fall into the upper 10%. Which is 90% better than everyone else.

96

[quote]100meters wrote:
If you had a choice between a philosopy that helps all classes of society, or one that helps just the incredibly rich, wouldn’t ya pick the one that helps the most? And since liberals kick conservative ass at economics anyway, isn’t it a no brainer? Unless your only issue is the tax rate of the incredibly rich there is no reason to choose conservatism.[/quote]

Interesting debate for an academic to ponder. In the real world the economic classes are fluid and in constant movement.

Liberal economics is an unvarnished attempt at grabbing votes. If they wanted to eliminate poverty they would create opportunity, not regulate it.

The agenda that you promulgate is even losing steam in your own party. As the younger, non-radical dems, move up the tax and spend liberals will be moved aside.

And by the way research the word neo-con. You may be suprised to find when it cam into common useage and who it was used to describe…and by whom.

97

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
The best guarantee that you will stay poor is waiting for someone else to do something for you and not working. IT’s not the governments responsibility to make you successful.

That’s really what wealthy successful people brag crow about. Blaiming someone else is an excuse not a reason.

Where the hell do people get that libs (dems or greens) don’t work or don’t want to work? Because I care that a grandmother raising two of her grandchildren receive adequate healthcare and subsistence I am to blame for the economic disparity of a whole class of people? I wish these so called compassionate conservatives would quit preaching and do something worthy of Christ. I’ve never seen a conservative republican hanging out at a soup kitchen or donating their time at a battered woman?s shelter. Just because you drop a wad of cash in the collection plate on Sunday so your minister can drive a Cadillac doesn’t make you compassionate nor a good Christian.

I don’t think poor people are blaming the system per se. But what do expect them to think when they see CEOs get away with corporate crime or hire lawyers to fight their way out of paying taxes. You can’t tell me the system is fair. Meanwhile they can’t afford to feed their children or pay for childcare , etc. I’m not asking you to take care of them–just try to understand why things maybe difficult for them. That is my definition of compassion. [/quote]

Why do success of others breed contempt on your part? Why do you assume compassion is only possible if you are liberal?

Never saw a conservative at a soup kitchen. Come on down to the City Team Rescue Mission…you’ll meet a lot. Charity is not restricted to being a liberal. That’s naive and clueless.

I volunteer for Habitat for Humanity alot. It was started by a liberal who’s politics I despise. So what…it does good work. I was told by them I can’t hammer a nail to save my soul but I am good at talking people into donating their cash. That’s what I do for them and I raise a lot of money for them and I tap my friends quite often for a donation.

People become sucessful thru hard work, skill and luck. Nothing wrong with being proud of that. Trying to tie wealth to lack of compassion is a bias based on too much television and lack of experience. Research the Bill Gates foundation and see the good work a wealthy person can do.

98

[quote]hedo wrote:
Why do success of others breed contempt on your part?
[/quote]

Where did he write that he had contempt for those who are successful? Who do you know of on this board that has contempt for success?

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I’ve never seen a conservative republican hanging out at a soup kitchen or donating their time at a battered woman?s shelter.[/quote]

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/images/20011220-7.jpg

I think you are precious!!!

JeffR

100

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
Why do success of others breed contempt on your part?

Where did he write that he had contempt for those who are successful? Who do you know of on this board that has contempt for success?[/quote]

Perhaps you read a different post?

The obvious coorealtion he was making is that if you are Conservative (successful in business) then you have no compassion.

“drop a wad of cash”, “ministers driving cadillacs”.

What do you think he was saying?