What are the problems of liberal thinking and do any liberals agree and adjusted how they think? If Obama wins is it a time warp back to Carter or the Great Society? Can Liberals bring the change that conservatives can't. What's your take on hope? Are you the change you've been waiting for?
Conservatives fear that if liberals win there will be disaster
- Thread starter Moonbeam
- Start date
AnnonUSA
Senior member
- Nov 18, 2007
- 468
- 0
- 0
The New Liberalism is that of Obama and Hillary Clinton, which leans very heavily towards socialism.
Based on the recent Government sponsored banking and Wall Street robbery of the American Public, the Democrats will most likely have to delay a few of their socialist policies and programs. One of the biggest misconceptions of the Democratic party is that it wants to end the war. It wants to end the war in Iraq, so it can redirect our troops (and our Tax dollars in the form of Foreign Aid) to Afghanistan and Pakistan to finish the war on Terrorism. And to an members here with high school age children, you would do well to read Obama's quotes on "Serving Your Country", as he has said if we are at war we will all serve...Which sounds very unlikely without what we used to call a DRAFT.
Lest anyone think I am shilling for McCain, nothing could be further than the truth. I firmly believe that the puppet masters that control Bush, will control McCain as well. There is no change coming to the American public with either of the two evils held before us.
The Bush administration took 911 and turned it into Orwell's 1984 for the American People. Huge Debt, removal of rights and freedoms, War, deception and socialist programs are what we will get.
Based on the recent Government sponsored banking and Wall Street robbery of the American Public, the Democrats will most likely have to delay a few of their socialist policies and programs. One of the biggest misconceptions of the Democratic party is that it wants to end the war. It wants to end the war in Iraq, so it can redirect our troops (and our Tax dollars in the form of Foreign Aid) to Afghanistan and Pakistan to finish the war on Terrorism. And to an members here with high school age children, you would do well to read Obama's quotes on "Serving Your Country", as he has said if we are at war we will all serve...Which sounds very unlikely without what we used to call a DRAFT.
Lest anyone think I am shilling for McCain, nothing could be further than the truth. I firmly believe that the puppet masters that control Bush, will control McCain as well. There is no change coming to the American public with either of the two evils held before us.
The Bush administration took 911 and turned it into Orwell's 1984 for the American People. Huge Debt, removal of rights and freedoms, War, deception and socialist programs are what we will get.
Jschmuck2
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2005
- 5,623
- 3
- 81
The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there anything whereof it may be said, see this is new? It has been already of old time, which was before us.
Ecclesiastes
perhaps a worry of repeating the disaster the last time we left DC in control of a single party with a rubber stamp white house and blind congress to remove any checks, balances, or oversight.
There isn't much I can say to vague charges of socialism. I don't even know what it is. Sounds like Bush's drug plan for seniors or some plan to take your money and allow you to determine where it will be invested for when you get old, market socialism or something.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Unfortunately, the conservatism of GWB and Ronald Reagan has contained all the spending sins of democratic liberalism without any regulatory controls. In case no one has noticed, it has turned into a train wreck total disaster. Conservatism it is not, although those in charge claim the image without an iota of the substance. It is simply naked power, in which principles are bought and sold on the premise that if only 50.1%
of the populace can be bribed with taxpayer money put on the national credit card, the merry go round will never stop. At least Ronald Reagan slunk out of office before the debts descended on GHB, but GWB is not even going to manage that as he has already basically bankrupted the country.
In a sense it no longer matters who our next President will be, when the rest of the world stops lending us money, our merry go round will stop. And so will our delusions of grandeur.
of the populace can be bribed with taxpayer money put on the national credit card, the merry go round will never stop. At least Ronald Reagan slunk out of office before the debts descended on GHB, but GWB is not even going to manage that as he has already basically bankrupted the country.
In a sense it no longer matters who our next President will be, when the rest of the world stops lending us money, our merry go round will stop. And so will our delusions of grandeur.
What's with this Ecclesiastes joker. We knew that ages ago. Wasn't that the motto of the Airline Pilots Association of Atlantis?
The mumbling of platitudes can numb the mind.
The pervasiveness and, to me, absurdness of this point of view is why I started this thread.
How does it go? I'm not your Daddy's Ford?
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
The last two times Democrats controlled government were total disasters.
1. Jimmy Carter was a disaster by just about every measure possible.
2. The first two years of Clinton's Presidency. Which were so bad that the Democrats lost 54!! seats in the 1994 election. 34 incumbent Democrats lost their seats in that election. That is a huge number when you realize that in 2006 only 31 seats changed sides.
Now based on the fact that the Democratic controlled congress has been a total disaster (10% approval) and that Obama has NEVER stood up to his own party I think it is possible that we will see a repeat of the above.
1. Jimmy Carter was a disaster by just about every measure possible.
2. The first two years of Clinton's Presidency. Which were so bad that the Democrats lost 54!! seats in the 1994 election. 34 incumbent Democrats lost their seats in that election. That is a huge number when you realize that in 2006 only 31 seats changed sides.
Now based on the fact that the Democratic controlled congress has been a total disaster (10% approval) and that Obama has NEVER stood up to his own party I think it is possible that we will see a repeat of the above.
db
Lifer
- Dec 6, 1999
- 10,575
- 292
- 126
AnnonUSA, I suppose we could say that, ie, Medicare and Social Security are socialist; however, they fill a necessary gap left by capitalism. Thank God Social Security did not get privatized (a free market capitalist dream) b/c the current sub-prime Wall Street disaster would be even more devastating for our millions of elderly Americans. So those programs are not going to turn us Communist.
I don't think there's a "New" Liberalism. Typical liberals are brainwashed just like typical conservatives are brainwashed into believing certain concepts which they "should" be for or against. All of us Americans would benefit if we did more thinking and research on our own rather than repeating what our favorite media pundits say.
I don't think there's a "New" Liberalism. Typical liberals are brainwashed just like typical conservatives are brainwashed into believing certain concepts which they "should" be for or against. All of us Americans would benefit if we did more thinking and research on our own rather than repeating what our favorite media pundits say.
Current liberalism represents three things
1) Spending within your budget (I'm going to get flamed for saying this, the dittoheads around here would claim that Bush ran a surplus if they could get away with it)
2) Spending that money on domestic projects, like healthcare and infrastructure (as opposed to war abroad and redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich)
3) Don't waste time trying to regulate peoples' personal lives (let the gays get married, allow abortion, etc.)
There are some D senators and representatives that aren't part of the current liberalism that I have described. Not only are there a few true socialists in the party, but there are also the conservative DINOs to consider (Democrat In Name Only) that never made the jump to the Republican Party.
On the whole, this new liberalism is what your average Democrat stands for and votes for. We don't want high deficits. We don't want money thrown away on unnecessary wars abroad. We don't want to regulate personal lives.
In other words, 'new liberals' are just the opposite of the neoconservatives, who represent big government and corporate welfare.
1) Spending within your budget (I'm going to get flamed for saying this, the dittoheads around here would claim that Bush ran a surplus if they could get away with it)
2) Spending that money on domestic projects, like healthcare and infrastructure (as opposed to war abroad and redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich)
3) Don't waste time trying to regulate peoples' personal lives (let the gays get married, allow abortion, etc.)
There are some D senators and representatives that aren't part of the current liberalism that I have described. Not only are there a few true socialists in the party, but there are also the conservative DINOs to consider (Democrat In Name Only) that never made the jump to the Republican Party.
On the whole, this new liberalism is what your average Democrat stands for and votes for. We don't want high deficits. We don't want money thrown away on unnecessary wars abroad. We don't want to regulate personal lives.
In other words, 'new liberals' are just the opposite of the neoconservatives, who represent big government and corporate welfare.
You may want to define what was so bad about it; the Democrats began the budget slashing trend that the Republicans would help continue throughout Clinton's presidency. You've used poor logic to equate lost seats with a disastrous term. How about backing up your claim?
Also, it's important to remember that Congress is barely controlled by the Democrats. The people are blaming Congress for being unable to immediately clean up the mess that the Republicans created during those first 6 years. Of course approval is low.
Furthermore, Congress' approval is almost always lower than the president's approval. With Bush's approval rating in the gutter, it's no surprise that Congress has a low approval rating as well.
After seeing what happened with the Repubs when in complete control, I will vote for divided govt wherever possible in the future. These fvckers on both sides have extremists whose sole purpose is to push their radical agendas, neither of which are good for the majority of us. So, they will either work together and compromise or they will be gridlocked and stonewalled. That's how it needs to be so that the American people are protected.
P.S. the only thing that worries me right now about the Dems getting full control is their party's antipathy toward gun rights. I remember how under Clinton we had the 10-round magazine limit under the guise of 'assault weapons ban' as well as the war that was waged on FFLs -- many of which quit the business. I never want that to be repeated.
P.S. the only thing that worries me right now about the Dems getting full control is their party's antipathy toward gun rights. I remember how under Clinton we had the 10-round magazine limit under the guise of 'assault weapons ban' as well as the war that was waged on FFLs -- many of which quit the business. I never want that to be repeated.
Originally posted by: daniel49
Just special for you moonie? for an encore, I'm mailing a new testament to Bill Mahre
Hehehehehehehe
That is of course quite possible. However, I have asked democrats if they are the same as the past or have they evolved. Obama can buck the trend if he is bottom up because I am all bottom. Oh wait.
Now Clinton was anything but a disaster politically. He was unpopular and Carter told Americans what they didn't want to hear, that their unbridled use of world energy was going to kill them and that they had to live within their means. He was hated for telling people the truth and we are still dying today because we won't hear it.
So unpopular with fools is one thing. Being a disaster is quite another.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
You are delusional dude.
1. Spending within your budget?? If that was true then Obama would be talking about balancing the budget first. But he never speaks about a balanced budget. Instead he speaks about increase spending first in the belief that all this new spending will lead to a balanced budget down the road. However, there is NO track record at all that suggests such a thing is possible.
2. I will give you this point. Democrats do favor domestic spending. Although the idea of 'redistribution' from the poor to the wealthy is total BS. 40% of Americans pay NO income tax at all. Therefore their tax dollars are not going to the rich. And since 'redistribution' can only take place when the government takes from one group and gives to another it is impossible to redistribute from the poor to the rich.
3. Both sides try to regulate the personal lives of people. They just go about it in different ways. And both sides do it based on their moral beliefs. Republicans do it via gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, creationism etc. Democrats do it via gun control and environmental legislation.
You mean Government spending on the militarism of US manufacturing in WW2 didn't end the depression and usher in a new age of American prosperity in the 50s?
That is hilariously false. There are a million ways to redistribute wealth outside of direct taxation, many of which the government can and does employ.
Pro-Jo, you're getting a little unhinged around here lately. Are you in full blown panic mode yet about the election?
Jesus Christ, you rave about radicals controlling things and roll right into an NRA chant. You're out in lala land
That's probably because (in my opinion) real conservatism is not a functional governance policy. A "real conservative" will never win the presidency... ever. The closest it ever got was Reagan I guess, and he still wasn't anywhere close.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter