rainjack : would you still have voted for bush knowing the way he has handled things?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I was not saying that you personally claimed that all liberals are “scum of the earth fringe radicals.” How do you feel about them? I personally feel that true liberals are naive and misguided with a misunderstanding of human nature and an overwillingness to use a state apparatus to correct inequities to an extent that is unfair to those who are better off. But I do believe in safetey nets and social iniatives, and I do think we as a society have some degree of responsibiltiy to try to elevate people.
It certainly sounde like you were saying that.
How do I feel? I wish there were a more honest political dialogue in this country. At the very least I wished that both sides would carry some intellectual honesty with them. What you have now is partisanship.
I am as guilty as the next guy for arguing from a partisan stance. But I would like to think that my partisanship only extends as far as the ballot box.
By that, I mean that I think I am openminded enough to have friends that disagree with me. I don’t think anyone is necessarily the scum of the earth because of their beliefs. I get along famously with ProfX in most all other areas. I find myself on vroom’s side of the fence in most other subjects that are not political. Hell, my best friend’s wife is a stone-cold yellow-dog democrat, and she seems to get more liberal each year. We get along just fine. I think she’s going to burn for eternity in the firey bowels of hell, but I’d give her my kidney if she needed it. [/quote]
Good to hear. I agree.
Thunder, that’s exactly what I’m saying and exactly what the problem is. I think that much of the Democrat elite is most likely liberal, but you would never know it from their positions. You would never know anyting from their positions or lack thereof. They will be forced to articulate and express or formulate (if they haven’t already) a platform as the next election nears. Or they will be condemned to ongoing losses.
I hope this is not the case. I do think their are Democrats that have ideas. Leadership is just atrocious as is expression of ideas to the people. Vroom, you’re right that it’s hard to articulate positions and policy as the opposition party. But the Democrats are doing a worse job than has ever been done before. And it’s letting Republicans define them.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When you say that Republicans had a better command of the hot button topics, or a better catch phrase, you are saying that the voter is gullible. I hate to break it to you vroom - but if a postition, or idea resonates with voters, then the holder of said position or idea has a better than average chance of winning. If you are saying that the right has been more successful at this, then you are admitting that it is about the message - which is what I have been saying all along.
It is about the message, which is why people can’t cry “elitist” when someone points out that catch phrases are what helped win that election. “flip flopper” was tossed around so many times by people who don’t even follow the issues deeply that it stands to reason that it did its job.
I find it hilarious how many posters on this site can jump on the general public for being lazy and fat. They are degraded for watching too much television and for being unmotivated, yet when someone claims that the majority don’t even follow or understand the issues but latch onto “catch phrases” all hell breaks loose as if suddenly the entire world is so bright and intelligent. [/quote]
Hahahahha. Score one for the Prof. Read his post again fellas.
You all damn the general public, and then say that even though they eat too much, cause themselves to get hurt because of neglect in care of their own body, curse them for believing stupid gym myths like the concentric portion of curls works your triceps…and then you want to give them a couple internet blogs, some Conservative anchors on Fox News, and tell them to pick a leader of the free world.
I hate to say it lads, but there is only about 10% - 15% of the country that really knows whats going on in politics and foreign relations. Democrats, Republicans, Moderates, Compassionate Conservative (I thought Red staters were baby eaters?)…The same companies donate to both parties. And the majority of the population is too busy watching “Survivor: Tanzania” to give a fuck about staying in shape or picking a competent leader, or recognizing the corruption in the National Government.
If you walked up to them on the street, how many people would even know who Frist was (before this happened)?
How many know Obrack Obama? Does it even matter?
check out this video of bush drunk at a wedding reception , what a d!ck
dubya showing the ol charm on another occasion…
at least we have a texan in the white house i cant say much more for him
Hey we’re gonna get this thread over the 2000 mark…
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m not so sure this is true. It’s hard to be the “opposition” party and also be the party of leadership and ideas. While you oppose you generally criticize and don’t want to put anything out there for criticism on your own until an election.[/quote]
Actually, I think the opposite is true. When you are the opposition party, you have the advantage of less to lose. The Contract With America circa 1994 is a good example.
The opposition party will always criticize - that is fine. But no one is content with just criticism - criticism without a plausible alternative will never advance any party to anything beyond minority status.
So, in my view, if you want to be something other than the minority party, you have to voice an alternative a long time before elections - like, by doing your job in the legislature. That is what elected officials do.
I think when you don’t define yourself, you allow you opponent to do it for you, and I think that is what is happening.
And that is fine. No one has to like Bush, especially the Democrats. But constantly trying to sell the story that Bush is part of a blood-for-oil Jewish conspiracy - which gets way too much mainstream play without denunciation from Democratic leaders.
Well, there is a slight difference. Most conservatives don’t think liberals are evil, just misguided in their policy choices, which is a fair label. Some go too far in overgeneralizing, I agree. However, too many modern liberals are not content to think conservatives are just wrong, and that was my point.
As for elitism, it is a fair label. No way to get past all labels - why would we? That is how we can tell a difference between the candidates running. But as for the elitism charge - the party is run primarily by wealthy coastal liberals who tend to sneer at middle-class values. And it causes problems, because you can’t be both a populist and elitist political party.
[quote]Ramo wrote:
ZEB: Two questions…
Do you believe in our two-party system?[/quote]
Yes and no…
[quote]
What is your opinion of those who are unable to consider alternative viewpoints in anything more than an utterly superficial manner before summarily dismissing them?
Just curious…[/quote]
I would say welcome to Internet debate.
The professor and his cheerleaders are all to excited and all to incorrect to throw the presiential electioon into the mix. I have stated explicitly that I am not talking about presidential politics.
Tip O’Neal said that, “All politics is local”. Winning the majority in congress has nothing at all to do with the slogans the ProfessorX trotted out. It has to do with a candidate knowing how to get his message across to the local yocal. To do this successfully, you have to have a message. That’s where the democratic party falls on their face. They have had a free ride for so many years, in so many districts, that they have no idea what it means to work for the vote. And the ballot box shows how inept they are every November.
Nice try at the argument switching. But I’m not taking the bait. Try a different tactic.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
rainjack : would you still have voted for bush knowing the way he has handled things? [/quote]
If it is a choice between him and Kerry - hell yeah - I’d vote for him again.
If it were the primaries, I would hope that Forbes is running.
Until the democratic party starts running to the right of the republicans, I will not vote for anyone representing the beliefs of MMoore.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
What do the liberal democrats want to do?
I am wondering what the answer is to this myself. Anyone in fear of what the democrats will do should at least have a concept of what that is.
Mandatory gay marriages.
Mandatory abortions.
Raise taxes.
Well, I’m guessing that this is sarcasm or a joke. If not, please tell me one politician whose advocated mandatory abortions or madatory gay marriages. what does that even mean-madatory abortion? The majority of Democrats, I believe, don’t even support gay marriage beyond a civil union. Raising taxes, well-I don’t actually agree with it though I’m fine with where they are now.
[/quote]
Of course it is a joke. I can’t wait to see who gets bent out of shape.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Rainjack, I think this radical left you speak of is a figment of collective, conservative imagination. The majority of Democratic voters are not leftist liberals. And as of yet, you’ve been completely unable to come up with a list of radical, liberal politicians and illustrate it by articulating their policies.[/quote]
While I don’t think the Democratic leadership or most Democrats buy into what the fringe left is selling, they rarely or never speak against it.
They are more than happy to let the fringe lunatics speak for them.
The Republicans often denounce what the fringe right is saying although they may do it quietly. A good example is the White House denouncing Pat Robertsons call for assasination of Hugo Chavez.
The Democrats have to do a better job distancing themselves from the kooky left if they want my vote in a presidential election.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
While I don’t think the Democratic leadership or most Democrats buy into what the fringe left is selling, they rarely or never speak against it.
They are more than happy to let the fringe lunatics speak for them.
The Republicans often denounce what the fringe right is saying although they may do it quietly. A good example is the White House denouncing Pat Robertsons call for assasination of Hugo Chavez.
The Democrats have to do a better job distancing themselves from the kooky left if they want my vote in a presidential election.[/quote]
Bingo.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
A good example is the White House denouncing Pat Robertsons call for assasination of Hugo Chavez.[/quote]
I didn’t hear them denounce this…which doesn’t mean it wasn’t done…just like because you haven’t personally heard any democrats denounce fringe left antics doesn’t mean they haven’t.
Besides, what is the fringe left saying anyway, who is saying it and what needs to be denounced? Sheehan? In her case, what is there to speak out against? There are many people who think we shouldn’t be losing anymore troops lives in Iraq right now.
I am being serious in asking these questions because I am apparently missing the horrors of the fringe left.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
While I don’t think the Democratic leadership or most Democrats buy into what the fringe left is selling, they rarely or never speak against it.
They are more than happy to let the fringe lunatics speak for them.
The Republicans often denounce what the fringe right is saying although they may do it quietly. A good example is the White House denouncing Pat Robertsons call for assasination of Hugo Chavez.
The Democrats have to do a better job distancing themselves from the kooky left if they want my vote in a presidential election.
Bingo.[/quote]
Well said, and part of that is because the Democrats know if they come out against the radical fringe, the moonbats take their vote to a 3rd party and produce a Nader effect.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well said, and part of that is because the Democrats know if they come out against the radical fringe, the moonbats take their vote to a 3rd party and produce a Nader effect.
[/quote]
Follow the money. The Dem leadership is too greedy to bite the hand that feeds them.
I think that a break in the democratic party is a very real possibility. In my opinion, a break from the fringe left is going to be the only thing that can save the Democratic Party.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
A good example is the White House denouncing Pat Robertsons call for assasination of Hugo Chavez.
I didn’t hear them denounce this…which doesn’t mean it wasn’t done…just like because you haven’t personally heard any democrats denounce fringe left antics doesn’t mean they haven’t.
Besides, what is the fringe left saying anyway, who is saying it and what needs to be denounced? Sheehan? In her case, what is there to speak out against? There are many people who think we shouldn’t be losing anymore troops lives in Iraq right now.
I am being serious in asking these questions because I am apparently missing the horrors of the fringe left.[/quote]
The White House did denounce Pat Robertson. I am not sure if it was quiet because it was in a low key way or if it was under reported.
I don’t want to drag Sheehan into this because she is a nut. It is too easy to blast anyone that has associated themselves with her.
I have purposely distanced myself from the debate shows on TV for a while so I am not up on the current debate.
An easy example is the chairman of the Democratic Party (at the time he was a candidate for the nomination) implying that Bush had prior knowledge and was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
Rather than ignore or denounce this lunancy, Dean gives it national attenton, call it an "interesting theory "and then mealymouths a statement that he is not sure if it is true. Dean is not some fringe nut. He is the chairman of the party.
There are a lot more examples of this type behaviour.
I know the Republicans do it too, but I think the Democrats are much worse.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
Well said, and part of that is because the Democrats know if they come out against the radical fringe, the moonbats take their vote to a 3rd party and produce a Nader effect.
[/quote]
I think you are right. I would like to see the Reps distance themselves from the over the top Moral Majority BS and the Dems distance themselves from the anti-everything crowd and see what happens.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
An easy example is the chairman of the Democratic Party (at the time he was a candidate for the nomination) implying that Bush had prior knowledge and was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
Rather than ignore or denounce this lunancy, Dean gives it national attenton, call it an "interesting theory "and then mealymouths a statement that he is not sure if it is true. Dean is not some fringe nut. He is the chairman of the party.[/quote]
How do you know this isn’t true? What was the exact statement? I am asking, not because I don’t watch the news (because I do regularly) but I am not hearing these things that many of you harp on as if they are being loudly displayed…much like I never heard of anyone publicly denouncing Pat Robertson. This is either a case of some of you blowing things out of proportion while shining a light on the smallest blurb released by conservatives, or I am just missing this entire commentary somehow whenever I turn on cable news. I haven’t even read what you mentioned in any articles.