- Apr 24, 2004
- 3,288
- 0
- 76
I see it as these two:
Gay marriage...National Security
The Democratic leaders have taken the far left view on these. Again, not all Democrats & Liberals but the Democratic leadership of the Party.
I see it as these two:
Gay marriage...National Security
The Democratic leaders have taken the far left view on these. Again, not all Democrats & Liberals but the Democratic leadership of the Party.
Describe a national security view of Protection at home as leftist and a "world Policeing and World forming" policy as from the right please.
It just isnt possble. The current Administrations National security policy of using military power to "Mold " the world is as far left as it gets.
Just as the Far right view is that of isolationism and protectionism.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since I'm an Independent why should I care if the Democrats win. If the Republicans would have run someone like John McCain instead of that thick tongued muddle minded hand puppet of the Christian Right I would have voted for the Republican over Kerry. If the Democrats cuddle up to the Ridiculous...err..the Religious Right to win the next election you can be assured that I will not vote for their candidate. If that means I will be on the losing side then so be it.Originally posted by: Skoorb
That's what I'm talking aboutInstead of questioning why the democrats lost, and wondering how to make the party better, ya'll just insult those who won, kind of like if a sprinter loses a match; instead of vowing to train harder next time he says that the other guy had better shoes. It's not an attitude that's going to contribute very well to winning elections in the future, because as much as people like negativity at times, too much of it is simply annoying.
Its more than the Religioius Right. The Religious Right will always vote Right. Also the South had alot of religoius people that voted left. I think the Religious Right is too easy being passed off as the excuse why Kerry lost.
Look at Penn for example. While Kerry won the state, Bush still got 2.7 million votes (49%). Were they all Religious Right votes? I seriously doubt it. And I also don't think the Relgious Right accounted for 59 million votes.
If the Democrats want to win they need to provide an option that is better than atleast we aren't the other guy. Which as an independant, is the message I got from Kerry. And other independants I know felt the same thing. And while a few of them said ok, others thought that wasn't a good enough reason to vote for him. IMHO, Clinton was closer to the middle than any of the candidates since Reagan. Also I personally believe if the country had been doing better econmically, (not something I blame on Presidents), this election would have much closer resembled 1996 when Clinton easily beat Dole.
While I think Kerry wasn't near as left as someone like Dean, he was still too far left for most moderates in this country.
And as we have seen in the past few elections, when it comes to two candiates equally from the middle, more Americans prefer the right.
What I am trying to say is that if they want to regain control they need to find out what the majority of the American wants. Not what the Democrats in the US want to hear. Because on the whole Democrats vote Democrat and Republicans vote Republican. 1984 is the best example of this. While Reagan took 525 Electoral votes with 54 million votes, Mondale still got 37 million votes. The middle (independents) decide who is president and I feel as though th Democrats aren't moving towards the middle as much as the Republicans are. Thats why they have lost the last few elections. Its more than the Religious Right. The Religious Right has been around forever, I doubt (as a group of imbred hicks as people continue to call them), has just now found out a way to steal elections. If the Democratic Party wants to take control back, they need to listen and make sacrifices. Because lets be honest, no matter how much the Democratic Party pisses off the far left, they'll still vote for them. And thats something I think the Republican Party of recent has learned. You can piss off the lunatics from your party, and your still the better option than the other guy.
Once your in office you, you can naturally lean whichever way you are. But as long as you stay close to the middle, you'll stay in power.
Hey thats just my opinion
- Apr 24, 2004
- 3,288
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: Ynog
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since I'm an Independent why should I care if the Democrats win. If the Republicans would have run someone like John McCain instead of that thick tongued muddle minded hand puppet of the Christian Right I would have voted for the Republican over Kerry. If the Democrats cuddle up to the Ridiculous...err..the Religious Right to win the next election you can be assured that I will not vote for their candidate. If that means I will be on the losing side then so be it.Originally posted by: Skoorb
That's what I'm talking about
Its more than the Religioius Right. The Religious Right will always vote Right. Also the South had alot of religoius people that voted left. I think the Religious Right is too easy being passed off as the excuse why Kerry lost.
Look at Penn for example. While Kerry won the state, Bush still got 2.7 million votes (49%). Were they all Religious Right votes? I seriously doubt it. And I also don't think the Relgious Right accounted for 59 million votes.
If the Democrats want to win they need to provide an option that is better than atleast we aren't the other guy. Which as an independant, is the message I got from Kerry. And other independants I know felt the same thing. And while a few of them said ok, others thought that wasn't a good enough reason to vote for him. IMHO, Clinton was closer to the middle than any of the candidates since Reagan. Also I personally believe if the country had been doing better econmically, (not something I blame on Presidents), this election would have much closer resembled 1996 when Clinton easily beat Dole.
While I think Kerry wasn't near as left as someone like Dean, he was still too far left for most moderates in this country.
And as we have seen in the past few elections, when it comes to two candiates equally from the middle, more Americans prefer the right.
What I am trying to say is that if they want to regain control they need to find out what the majority of the American wants. Not what the Democrats in the US want to hear. Because on the whole Democrats vote Democrat and Republicans vote Republican. 1984 is the best example of this. While Reagan took 525 Electoral votes with 54 million votes, Mondale still got 37 million votes. The middle (independents) decide who is president and I feel as though th Democrats aren't moving towards the middle as much as the Republicans are. Thats why they have lost the last few elections. Its more than the Religious Right. The Religious Right has been around forever, I doubt (as a group of imbred hicks as people continue to call them), has just now found out a way to steal elections. If the Democratic Party wants to take control back, they need to listen and make sacrifices. Because lets be honest, no matter how much the Democratic Party pisses off the far left, they'll still vote for them. And thats something I think the Republican Party of recent has learned. You can piss off the lunatics from your party, and your still the better option than the other guy.
Once your in office you, you can naturally lean whichever way you are. But as long as you stay close to the middle, you'll stay in power.
Hey thats just my opinion
Very well thought out post.
I agree. The gay marriage issue especially, they went against it and it turns out even Oregonians don't agree with them, not just the southern conservatives like they may have presumed.
Originally posted by: Ynog
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Since I'm an Independent why should I care if the Democrats win. If the Republicans would have run someone like John McCain instead of that thick tongued muddle minded hand puppet of the Christian Right I would have voted for the Republican over Kerry. If the Democrats cuddle up to the Ridiculous...err..the Religious Right to win the next election you can be assured that I will not vote for their candidate. If that means I will be on the losing side then so be it.Originally posted by: Skoorb
That's what I'm talking about
Its more than the Religioius Right. The Religious Right will always vote Right. Also the South had alot of religoius people that voted left. I think the Religious Right is too easy being passed off as the excuse why Kerry lost.
Look at Penn for example. While Kerry won the state, Bush still got 2.7 million votes (49%). Were they all Religious Right votes? I seriously doubt it. And I also don't think the Relgious Right accounted for 59 million votes.
If the Democrats want to win they need to provide an option that is better than atleast we aren't the other guy. Which as an independant, is the message I got from Kerry. And other independants I know felt the same thing. And while a few of them said ok, others thought that wasn't a good enough reason to vote for him. IMHO, Clinton was closer to the middle than any of the candidates since Reagan. Also I personally believe if the country had been doing better econmically, (not something I blame on Presidents), this election would have much closer resembled 1996 when Clinton easily beat Dole.
While I think Kerry wasn't near as left as someone like Dean, he was still too far left for most moderates in this country.
And as we have seen in the past few elections, when it comes to two candiates equally from the middle, more Americans prefer the right.
What I am trying to say is that if they want to regain control they need to find out what the majority of the American wants. Not what the Democrats in the US want to hear. Because on the whole Democrats vote Democrat and Republicans vote Republican. 1984 is the best example of this. While Reagan took 525 Electoral votes with 54 million votes, Mondale still got 37 million votes. The middle (independents) decide who is president and I feel as though th Democrats aren't moving towards the middle as much as the Republicans are. Thats why they have lost the last few elections. Its more than the Religious Right. The Religious Right has been around forever, I doubt (as a group of imbred hicks as people continue to call them), has just now found out a way to steal elections. If the Democratic Party wants to take control back, they need to listen and make sacrifices. Because lets be honest, no matter how much the Democratic Party pisses off the far left, they'll still vote for them. And thats something I think the Republican Party of recent has learned. You can piss off the lunatics from your party, and your still the better option than the other guy.
Once your in office you, you can naturally lean whichever way you are. But as long as you stay close to the middle, you'll stay in power.
Hey thats just my opinion
Yes secure the middle and you win the elections. But what exactly is the political "middle"? It keeps shifting away from the poor democrats into right wing territory. What's the point in having two right wing parties and no left? Perhaps it is as simple as that as the US economy has been growing so has the nation moved right politically.
I'm sorry if you where expecting the left to have it head up the DNC ass as the right has it head up the RNC ass.
The issue of international security and how the administration handles it is one of unilateralisism vs multilateralism. While no proposed approach by anyone to date has truly represented a pure interpetation of either philosophy, the core conservative principle of individualism dictates that a unilateral approach is the one most suited for the principles of the right.
The left is beyond a shadow of a doubt the party of isolationais and protectionists as of this point. Their biggest asset for a long time has been their ability to put fear into their followers(which much to the dismay of reasonable people the right has seemed to now realize the power of) playing on the 'evil mega corporations'- 'outsorcing jobs'- 'rich citizens setting up tax shelters oversees' ad nauseam- closing our borders and significantly restricting trade is a standard issue liberal stance as of this point to 'protect' blue collar middle class jobs.
And it is this simpleton view that will prevent the left from ever realizing why their philosophy has always and will always fail. Increasingly collectivist ideals have come before the fall of nearly every civilization throughout history. Their inability to see the serious flaws of humans themselves and make the correlation between that and the fact that their Utopian society can never exist precisely because of this will continue to be their downfall. Their own egos dictate to them that the reason why collectivist ideals have always proved inferior over time throughout history is because the wrong people were making the crucial decissions for the society. They can't phathom that the reasoning behind the declines of all major collectivist shifts is that collectivism in and of itself is seriously flawed as humans themselves are. When the left are capable of some honest assement of humans and of their own egos perhaps they will be able to realize the assinine flaws in their approach to dealing with humans.
"And it is this simpleton view that will prevent the left from ever realizing why their philosophy has always and will always fail. Increasingly collectivist ideals have come before the fall of nearly every civilization throughout history. Their inability to see the serious flaws of humans themselves and make the correlation between that and the fact that their Utopian society can never exist precisely because of this will continue to be their downfall. Their own egos dictate to them that the reason why collectivist ideals have always proved inferior over time throughout history is because the wrong people were making the crucial decissions for the society. They can't phathom that the reasoning behind the declines of all major collectivist shifts is that collectivism in and of itself is seriously flawed as humans themselves are. When the left are capable of some honest assement of humans and of their own egos perhaps they will be able to realize the assinine flaws in their approach to dealing with humans."
Hehe, sounds like this was written by George Bush. Is it supposed to mean something or were you just holding your fingers down your throat?
Hehe, sounds like this was written by George Bush. Is it supposed to mean something or were you just holding your fingers down your throat?
Typical response from you. All the members of the Bush family have been, at the extreme, moderate right wingers with all of them showing significant leanings towards collectivist ideals. Of course, you are aware that you line of thought is vacant of any rational though, logic, or history to back your stance of collectivist superiority. Instead, you try and imply that someone who points out the idiocy of your belief system is somehow associated with a current and very weak political figure who is a centrist in most political aspects. About what I would expect from you. Whatever level you wish to offer your discourse to my views on, feel free. I figured, accurately, that your initial attempt would be an infantile and extremely inaccurate attempt at relating my comments to someone who is quite far removed from my stance. Much as your type frequently use the Socialist Nazis- who had Joe Kennedy as a big booster- as a comparison for current conservative parties.
Sorry but I don't speak Spinglish. Look up lucid and see if you can apply it. You must be very young and haven't noticed that your stream of consciousness babble makes no real sense.
I honestly didn't expect you have such little faith in your devotion that you fail to even pretend to have a leg to stand on. Your inane drivel may impress the liberal arts undergrads, but it is clearly devoid of any rational thought.
- Apr 24, 2004
- 3,288
- 0
- 76
Moonbeam .... stop trying ....You're not even close my friend.
BenSkywalker .... very well put statements and I've learned a bit more insight about the Left from your replys. Thanks.
BenSkywalker .... very well put statements and I've learned a bit more insight about the Left from your replys. Thanks.
So you mean things like steal tarrifs or soft wood tarriffs or maybe shrimp tarriffs, that kind of freee trade or clintion NAFT free trade?
What the party needs to do is NOT be defined by the winners of the election. That's absurd. It would be like the Democrats advising Repubs to go left after Clinton was re-elected. Come on, wise up. The gloating will end once Bush's disastrous policies disintegrate.
There is no point in arguing with somebody why expresses himself in incomprehensible poorly constructed English. However I can say:
That owing to the extremely overt impasse extended beyond hyperbola expressed in your dire lamentation I am ineluctably drawn to the conclusion that teraforming syllogism comprehensible to your machinations would produce only an effluvium of soiled counterparts. And since the refutable glyphs required of your precognitive genera are beyond your ken, your fruitless bipartisanship is forfeit. Nice try but no cigar.
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Moonbeam .... stop trying ....You're not even close my friend.
BenSkywalker .... very well put statements and I've learned a bit more insight about the Left from your replys. Thanks.
I guess anyplace would be up for you.
Bush is not, never has been, and likely never will be an economic conservative. Although NAFTA clearly fails at protecting our industries from having fair footing in the Canadian market(which is a failure of all those involved, not just Clinton). Clinton was very reactionist to the popular whims of the nation, I honestly don't think he was particularly devoted to any idealology except that of furthering himself in the public's eye. He was behind his wife's push for socialization of the entire medical care industry and then swapped over to push through serious wellfare reform that placed relatively serious limitations on the previously open ended social program. That kind of morphing was typical throughout the Clinton administration.
Your implication is bald on its face, utterly devoid of any merit whatsoever. Your comments are also rather contradictory in numerous aspects to what it is you are responding to(your phrasing and choice of vocabulary are both quite poor). I can assure you that there are no points which you can offer that will be anywhere close to beyond my comprehension, and my comments if allowed to stand are effective in terms of end results as they were initiated by your statement that conservatives defining trait was lacking the ability for introspection which is what you are displaying at this time.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter