The genius of Liberal Liberal Liberal in Republican propaganda.

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Blackjack2000

Originally posted by: BoberFett


And that's the truth. The left is moving further left, the right is moving further right, and the middle has found itself unrepresented. Both parties are in the business of doing nothing more than making sure it's members believe the other party is to blame for all of today's problems, while they alone have all the answers.

The Democrat and Republican parties today are nothing more than religions. Look at how they operate, the structures, the preaching, the money flowing in.

Praise Jeebus!

I see evidence of the right moving further to the right in the things they are fighting for: privitization of Social Security, elimination of the estate tax, massive tax cuts for the rich, reduced social spending. Where is the evidence of the Democrats moving further to the left? Of course there are fringe elements to any party, but the last democratic presidential cantidate, John Kerry was pretty moderate, and Hillary Clinton the next Democratic hopeful has mastered the art of falling into the non-controversial center of every debate.

BTW, I am not a Democrat, I vote for them only because it gives the greatest chance of keeping the slightly more dangerous Republicans out of office

1. Does the name Joe Lieberman mean anything to you? The guy votes with Democrats in like 90% of issues, but because of his stance on the war he is basically kicked out of the party.
Meanwhile the Republican Party supports Lincoln Chaffey who is as liberal as they come. There was certainly movement within the party to remove Chaffey via a primary, but the party apparatus stood behind him, just like they did with Arlen Specter.

2. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for years until switching parties because he saw the Republicans better able to fight communism. Zell Miller, a life long Democrat gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Republican convention where he accused his old party of losing its way, he also gave the keynote speech at the 1992 Democratic convention, that gives you an idea of how far the party moved in just 12 years.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Blackjack2000

Originally posted by: BoberFett


And that's the truth. The left is moving further left, the right is moving further right, and the middle has found itself unrepresented. Both parties are in the business of doing nothing more than making sure it's members believe the other party is to blame for all of today's problems, while they alone have all the answers.

The Democrat and Republican parties today are nothing more than religions. Look at how they operate, the structures, the preaching, the money flowing in.

Praise Jeebus!

I see evidence of the right moving further to the right in the things they are fighting for: privitization of Social Security, elimination of the estate tax, massive tax cuts for the rich, reduced social spending. Where is the evidence of the Democrats moving further to the left? Of course there are fringe elements to any party, but the last democratic presidential cantidate, John Kerry was pretty moderate, and Hillary Clinton the next Democratic hopeful has mastered the art of falling into the non-controversial center of every debate.

BTW, I am not a Democrat, I vote for them only because it gives the greatest chance of keeping the slightly more dangerous Republicans out of office

1. Does the name Joe Lieberman mean anything to you? The guy votes with Democrats in like 90% of issues, but because of his stance on the war he is basically kicked out of the party.
Meanwhile the Republican Party supports Lincoln Chaffey who is as liberal as they come. There was certainly movement within the party to remove Chaffey via a primary, but the party apparatus stood behind him, just like they did with Arlen Specter.

2. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for years until switching parties because he saw the Republicans better able to fight communism. Zell Miller, a life long Democrat gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Republican convention where he accused his old party of losing its way, he also gave the keynote speech at the 1992 Democratic convention, that gives you an idea of how far the party moved in just 12 years.

And the Republicans haven't strayed? Barry Goldwater wouldn't recognize the Republicans of today.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Blackjack2000

Originally posted by: BoberFett


And that's the truth. The left is moving further left, the right is moving further right, and the middle has found itself unrepresented. Both parties are in the business of doing nothing more than making sure it's members believe the other party is to blame for all of today's problems, while they alone have all the answers.

The Democrat and Republican parties today are nothing more than religions. Look at how they operate, the structures, the preaching, the money flowing in.

Praise Jeebus!

I see evidence of the right moving further to the right in the things they are fighting for: privitization of Social Security, elimination of the estate tax, massive tax cuts for the rich, reduced social spending. Where is the evidence of the Democrats moving further to the left? Of course there are fringe elements to any party, but the last democratic presidential cantidate, John Kerry was pretty moderate, and Hillary Clinton the next Democratic hopeful has mastered the art of falling into the non-controversial center of every debate.

BTW, I am not a Democrat, I vote for them only because it gives the greatest chance of keeping the slightly more dangerous Republicans out of office

1. Does the name Joe Lieberman mean anything to you? The guy votes with Democrats in like 90% of issues, but because of his stance on the war he is basically kicked out of the party.
Meanwhile the Republican Party supports Lincoln Chaffey who is as liberal as they come. There was certainly movement within the party to remove Chaffey via a primary, but the party apparatus stood behind him, just like they did with Arlen Specter.

2. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for years until switching parties because he saw the Republicans better able to fight communism. Zell Miller, a life long Democrat gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Republican convention where he accused his old party of losing its way, he also gave the keynote speech at the 1992 Democratic convention, that gives you an idea of how far the party moved in just 12 years.

And the Republicans haven't strayed? Barry Goldwater wouldn't recognize the Republicans of today.

QFT. He'd be a pretty "liberal" democrat.

 

[1EZduzit]

Of course the Rpublicans are moving to the right, that's their prime directive. They have, for the most part, been in control of the power AND the direction the country has been headed for the last 25 years. They have gotten so far to the right and become so corrupted by the power they've bee able to weild that they are ripe for an upset. If not this election, then most certainly the next.

 

[Blackjack2000]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

1. Does the name Joe Lieberman mean anything to you? The guy votes with Democrats in like 90% of issues, but because of his stance on the war he is basically kicked out of the party.
Meanwhile the Republican Party supports Lincoln Chaffey who is as liberal as they come. There was certainly movement within the party to remove Chaffey via a primary, but the party apparatus stood behind him, just like they did with Arlen Specter.

I'm not familiar with Lincoln Chaffey, so I'll comment on Liberman. He is a spotty Liberal at best. He is for the Iraq war, against gay marrige, for tort reform, for NoChildLeftBehind, for school vouchers he was a member of the "gang of 14" that ceded all power the Democrats had at the time of the federal judge nominations. But... he is also for stem cell research, pro choice, and has a good gun control and environmental record.

The reason the Liberals in Conneticut refused to re-elect him in the primary was because his views on Iraq were too far outside the scope of what Liberals in Conneticut believe in. Iraq is not really a Liberal/Conservative question. It is a question of violence versus peace, hegemony vs. cooperation, and it is a question of how the US will deal with conflict in the future.

2. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for years until switching parties because he saw the Republicans better able to fight communism. Zell Miller, a life long Democrat gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Republican convention where he accused his old party of losing its way, he also gave the keynote speech at the 1992 Democratic convention, that gives you an idea of how far the party moved in just 12 years.

What does that have to do with the price of tea? These are just people that switched parties. Tell me about legislation, action, what are the Democrats in power doing that show a shift to the left?

 

[Craig234]

1. Does the name Joe Lieberman mean anything to you? The guy votes with Democrats in like 90% of issues, but because of his stance on the war he is basically kicked out of the party.
Meanwhile the Republican Party supports Lincoln Chaffey who is as liberal as they come. There was certainly movement within the party to remove Chaffey via a primary, but the party apparatus stood behind him, just like they did with Arlen Specter.

Why don't you tell us now how the party is standing behind the republican nominee running against Lieberman? He agrees with republicans on more issues than Lieberman.

Oh, that's right, they're not - no money for him, they're officially not giving him any assistance, they won't even say they endorse him that I've seen.

 

[Lemon law]

In terms of Chafee---the repubs ended up backing him in the primary because if his Republican opponent had won---they knew the democrat would surely win. So better a Liberal R
than any democratic D---same with Lieberman in CT.---no big Repub name would run when when it looked like Lieberman was certain to win as a democrat---so only one totally waco Republican ran---and won---and now the Repubs know their man can't win with a horrible gambling problem---but Lieberman might running as an independent---and IF Lieberman wins--it will be interesting to see where he sits----as a D or an R or an I.---but between you me and the lampost---I think Lieberman wants Rummy's job---with Lieberman perhaps one of the few people in the country who would probably do an even worse job than Dumsfeld.

But what is that old saying---something about politics makes for strange bedfellows.