Cowards, every last one... or why I'm voting Democrat this Fall

[Don Corleone]

Under the 'Straw that broke the camel's back' category, I just can't believe this. Congress, after a 6 week break, resumed work and immediately declared that securing the border, in the words of Senator Bill Frist, would be "impossible". In the 7 weeks they have before they break for the Fall elections, no business on immigration reform or border security will transpire. Translation: Walmart and other labor intenstive industry's lobbying groups have paid the necessary hush money to let the flow continue, at least until after the election.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/05/dobbs.September6/index.html

Actually, the Democrats are no better, as they're pushing for blanket amnesty, even for illegal immigrants who since have gone on to commit crimes in this country. Yeah, maybe if we let their previous crimes go, they won't commit any new ones. Let's ask MS-13 what they have to say about gringos bending over and taking it once again...

I give up. Maybe Ahminedijad is right, America is too corrupt to continue to stand. :shame:

[Papewaio]

Form you own lobby group.

Letters from lots of voters are a cheap means of pressure.

[Don Corleone]

Form you own lobby group.

Letters from lots of voters are a cheap means of pressure.

Uhm, yeah. Been doing that. Heard of the Minutemen, perhaps? It's no good. It's a friggen cabal. Bush talks about fighting the war on terrorism but lets Al Queda move into Texas and California. Labor leaders talk about protecting American jobs, then organize rallys for people to take come and take them at a lower wage (because they pay no taxes).

This is one issue that seems to transcend all political boundaries. Those in power are bound and determined to maintain an open border and bankrupt State and local governments by forcing them to cover illegal, non-taxpaying immigrants hospital and social spending costs. And they don't seem to concerned that Osama and company might ride up from Texicali, maybe carrying a nuke instead of a carload of more illegal immigrants.

[Papewaio]

KISS

You know it is the port cities that a nuke would do the most damage.

A yacht has a lead lined keel.

Get into the middle of a quay inside say San Fran or New York or go via the great lakes and be in Chicago. Capsize said yacht and detonate nuke.

Far easier then manipulating multiple governments, unions, businesses and voters so that you can use a truck to ship it.

[Geezer57]

I give up. Maybe Ahminedijad is right, America is too corrupt to continue to stand. :shame:
Think Libertarian!

[Reenk Roink]

You know, I was approached by someone to register to vote at college yesterday... :laugh2: :laugh3: :laugh:

[Ice]

You know, I was approached by someone to register to vote at college yesterday... :laugh2: :laugh3: :laugh:

Just remember, if you don't vote you can't complain.

[Mooks]

I read in a newpaper that some schools in Virginia (East coast america) are considering paying for spanish to english tranlators...pathetic.

[Strike For The South]

Just remember, if you don't vote you can't complain.

um yes you can. The 2 parties are crap. Im starting my own party.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Think Libertarian!

They're more pro-taking it in the rear from illegals than democrats.

But the Senate's scumminess is depressing, too. argh

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

Well first of all- voting Democrat would be of absolutely no help at all. As you point out, they're even more pro-amnesty that Republicans. Second, not all Republicans are with the party line on this one. They're very much in our corner- the trouble is that there isnt enough of them and that they arent in leadership positions. So, before voting against your incumbent make sure (if you havent already) that he/she isnt one of the "good" ones.

I'd say vote Libertarian... but they're generally more 'open-borders' than either mainstream party is. :no: Of course, Libertarian covers such a broad spectrum that you might find one who agrees with you. Really though, the best bet is to take out the RINOs in the primaries and get a real Republican in their place.

[ezrider]

um yes you can. The 2 parties are crap. Im starting my own party.

The choice is always between a Turd and a giant Douch

[monkian]

The choice is always between a Turd and a giant Douch

Or joing PETA :laugh4:

[yesdachi]

Or joing PETA :laugh4:
I thought they were the giant douche? :laugh4:


What I don’t understand is why these congressmen won’t do their jobs and represent the people from their state. Find out what their people want and vote that way, they don’t have to make the entire country happy, just the people they represent.

Sometimes I feel like the answers to all our problems are inside a piñata (fits nicely with our Latin issues)and congress is a blindfolded 6 year old with a stick that just cant seem to hit the darn thing. Even if it is a 6 year old that you don’t like you still want to see him whack that sucker so hard the answers comes flying out, but they (swing) keep (swing) missing (swing). Or in this case they don’t even decide to swing at it. Come on Congress, its right there, you can do it, hit it!

Leans over and whispers to his wife “Congress swings like a girl”. Wife whispers back “Be nice they are our only child”. Go ahead honey, you can do it!

[Axeknight]

The choice is always between a Turd and a giant Douch
Oh come on. It's giant douche and you know it. I mean, you want a turd sandwich?

[Devastatin Dave]

Check out my sig... choices are slime...

[Xiahou]

Take the time to write anti-corruption clauses in a new addendum to the constitution while we're at it--things that are not vague, but explicitly pertinent to our current situation. The trouble with that is that the people who write those anti-corruption rules are the same ones who will enforce them.

Rather than more archaic rules about whether or not lawmakers can accept a monogrammed pen from someone or not I'd rather see more transparency. Make it easily accesible to see who they get their funding from and make it easy to see who's giving pork to their cronies. A good first step would be the earmark transparency bill that was put on hold by "porkmaster" Ted Stevens.

[Reenk Roink]

Just remember, if you don't vote you can't complain.

I don't see why that is. A legitimate reason raised by other non-voters (this is not representative of myself) is that there is no good candidate to vote for.

My personal reason is the inefficiency of it all, along with the realization that the "power" a voter has is essentially illusory, especially in large elections.

[AntiochusIII]

The trouble with that is that the people who write those anti-corruption rules are the same ones who will enforce them.

Rather than more archaic rules about whether or not lawmakers can accept a monogrammed pen from someone or not I'd rather see more transparency. Make it easily accesible to see who they get their funding from and make it easy to see who's giving pork to their cronies. A good first step would be the earmark transparency bill that was put on hold by "porkmaster" Ted Stevens.Why, Xiahou, I believe I'm agreeing with you completely.

The only way for a modern country to achieve truly effective governments would be the transparency. Cry all you want that the public is inactive, apathetic, couldn't care less, and lacking in responsibility (I hear that *a lot*, and it pisses me off a lot), but if there is transparency there is someone out there in a modern free society who would be interested in an issue, and who would spread the word, and successfully brings change where change is needed. And there will also be people out there who will always keep an eye on all the details, and would catch what is now easily hidden.

The classic government excuses for lack of transparency -- discretion, espionage, sensitivity, and all those crap -- simply are masks for corruption. Keep the spies in the Intelligence Agencies (providing indirect public scrunity, of course, lest these organizations be manipulated themselves), and have the rest of the government open to public scrunity.

It's pathetically ridiculous when individual privacy is a myth and a public government's information are notoriously hard to seek out.

Just remember, if you don't vote you can't complain.Why, yes, you can. There are a thousand reasons not to vote. To assume it for a lack of responsible -- as is far too often assumed -- is to give in to stasis.

[Xiahou]

I don't see why that is. A legitimate reason raised by other non-voters (this is not representative of myself) is that there is no good candidate to vote for.

My personal reason is the inefficiency of it all, along with the realization that the "power" a voter has is essentially illusory, especially in large elections.
You won't change anything by sitting at home. Locally, we used to have the 'green monster' voting machines with levers and switches- but now that there are touchscreen ones there's really no excuse to stay home. Now, when I get to a category where I dont like any of the candidates- I can just tap in my own name. :smile: Better still though, if you cant stand to vote for the Republican or Democrat candidate- vote 3rd party. It doesnt even matter who*- just vote for a 3rd party. We cant go around whining about the lack of viable third parties when we ourselves just sit home whenever we dont like people from the major parties.

*Were they an actual, viable candidate, you might want to give the 3rd party more discretion- but since they never are picking any is better than a non-vote. :yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If federal elections required the following option on the ballot for all offices:

_____ The Office should remain vacant.

The incumbent system would likely be stunned by both the voter turnout and the number who'd opt for that choice.

[Ice]

I don't see why that is. A legitimate reason raised by other non-voters (this is not representative of myself) is that there is no good candidate to vote for.

My personal reason is the inefficiency of it all, along with the realization that the "power" a voter has is essentially illusory, especially in large elections.

There are around 300 million people in this country, I'm sure you can find one to vote for that suits your views.

[Divinus Arma]

DON CORLEONE. You got it all wrong. They declared the "comprehensive" part dead. The Senate has come to terms with the fact that only a border security bill has legs right now.

Jeeze man. Run to the enemy. Democrats want open borders and just cause the debate is still going on, you are leaving the party? With all due respect, my esteemed fellow Orgah: Get a grip.


I read in a newpaper that some schools in Virginia (East coast america) are considering paying for spanish to english tranlators...pathetic.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! WE HAVE THEM ALL OVER CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS!!!!!! HALF THE @#$%ING STUDENTS DONT SPEAK ENGLISH HERE!!!! I know. I taught the little buggers. Our entire school system is FILLED with illegal immigrant teens and kids. I dont mean the children of illegals (which there are many many), I mean actual youth illegals.

IT'S @#$%ING OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Jeeze man. Run to the enemy. Democrats want open borders and just cause the debate is still going on, you are leaving the party? With all due respect, my esteemed fellow Orgah: Get a grip.

Only a few on the fringe want open borders. Mostly, the DEMS just want to be back in power. They don't worry about the Southern border as much, though -- the larger the Hispanic vote, the more votes for Democrats.

[Divinus Arma]

Only a few on the fringe want open borders. Mostly, the DEMS just want to be back in power. They don't worry about the Southern border as much, though -- the larger the Hispanic vote, the more votes for Democrats.

That is completely wrong. Just look at the house bill and the vote.


Party line. The Dems thrive on a victim class. They must have an "oppressed" people in order to remain in power. They rely on the minority vote, the unions, and the women. They promise these groups power through the democratic party. The Democrats simply must have a victim class to support, otherwise they have no voter base. They will do whatever it takes to remain in power, and that includes keeping the victims down and importing victims.

The liberal elites feel they have a right to power (much like nobility), and the "victim" masses rely on the liberal elites to provide them with equalizing benefits. The Democratic party is a classical nobility power scheme. Elites require the peasants for power, and peasants require the elites for security (free crap).

Sadly, the peasants must be kept in their place in order for the elites to thrive. This is done through social behavioral modification, via propoganda and indoctrination, also known as the media and public schools.

In black communities education is a social taboo. A black youth attempting to gain advantage in socsity through education is discouraged by peers who claim that the young academic is "trying to be better then them" or "trying to be white". How did this come about? Rap music, sports, and hollywood promotion of the black man as "tough" and "angry". Furthermore, the Jessie Jacksons promote the concept that Blacks are inequals in America, reinforcing the Black self-image as victims who are owed something.

The same thing is happening in latino communities. Latinos are encouraged to accept "traditional hispanic values" of large families at a young age and hard work through labor. Contraceptives are discouraged, and this helps both the catholic church and the American liberal elites who all require large numbers of uneducated "victims".



This is no conspiracy theory. It is reality. The Democratic Party of yesteryear has been replaced by a neo-nobility power structure.

[Lemur]

The Dems thrive on a victim class. They must have an "oppressed" people in order to remain in power. ... The liberal elites feel they have a right to power (much like nobility), and the "victim" masses rely on the liberal elites to provide them with equalizing benefits. ... Sadly, the peasants must be kept in their place in order for the elites to thrive. This is done through social behavioral modification, via propoganda and indoctrination, also known as the media and public schools. ... The Democratic Party of yesteryear has been replaced by a neo-nobility power structure.
I learn more interesting things here at the Org. All I need to do is listen to Navarros about evolution and morality, DA about the Democratic party, and the helpful russian fellow (can't remember his handle) who told us all about the correct way to beat your children.

I tell ya, sometimes the Org is just a cornucopia of useful information.

[Xiahou]

Meh, I don't believe that's the intent of rank and file Democrats- but I do think that it's the effect of their policies. They keep people poor by making them dependant on the government.

The unions are being completely two-faced on immigration though.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not so much enthralled with the Democratic party, and if you'll read my initial post, you'll see I allow as much. I'm so anti-incumbent, I'm ready to vote for that dude that lied about killing Jon Benet Ramsey at this point.

Sorry DA, one of these days you need to quit reading those emails coming in from Ken Mehlman and LOOK at what they've actually done and what they haven't over the past 12, 6 or 4 years... :dizzy2:

[Spino]

I learn more interesting things here at the Org. All I need to do is listen to Navarros about evolution and morality, DA about the Democratic party, and the helpful russian fellow (can't remember his handle) who told us all about the correct way to beat your children.

I tell ya, sometimes the Org is just a cornucopia of useful information.

If you like I could show you how to shuck a weasel... :listen:

[Don Corleone]

If you like I could show you how to shuck a weasel...

Tell a politician you're redrawing his district? :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm not so much enthralled with the Democratic party, and if you'll read my initial post, you'll see I allow as much. I'm so anti-incumbent, I'm ready to vote for that dude that lied about killing Jon Benet Ramsey at this point.

Sorry DA, one of these days you need to quit reading those emails coming in from Ken Mehlman and LOOK at what they've actually done and what they haven't over the past 12, 6 or 4 years... :dizzy2:

I agree that the GOP hasn't lived up to its goals well enough. DA is right about the impact of the DEM approach. No viable third party exists.

My choices are under-whelming. I'd like to pull the lever for the GOP because of what they would be doing -- not merely to avoid an even worse alternative.

[Ironside]

I agree that the GOP hasn't lived up to its goals well enough. DA is right about the impact of the DEM approach. No viable third party exists.

My choices are under-whelming. I'd like to pull the lever for the GOP because of what they would be doing -- not merely to avoid an even worse alternative.

Gridlock, gridlock, gridlock, the only hope for US politics these days :idea2:

[Lemur]

Gridlock, gridlock, gridlock, the only hope for US politics these days
I've been saying that pretty much since forever. Divided government is what our American system is designed for. The only way you can really short-circuit the Founders' intentions is by getting a single group in control of all three branchers of government. Then their delicate balance ceases to exist.

The Bushistas have gotten their way on absolutely everything for the last four years, with no real opposition. And still the right-wingers are as shrill, angry and Coulterized as ever. They're still blaming everything from head lice to rap music on the liberal elite. I love that. We're in charge, we control the entire government, we've beaten the opposition into a bloody pulp, but hey! Look at the sock monkey! It's all the sock monkey's fault! Don't examine our behavior, don't hold us accountable -- blame the sock monkey!

Just read DA's rant about how the Liberal Elite orchestrated rap music, the educational system and the structure of everyone making less than $30k a year. You would think the Dems had been in power for the last six years. You would garner the impression that the Republicans were a bunch of fainting virgins who have had absolutely nothing to do with running the country. Nope, it's all about the Liberal Elite.

We need a divided government like never before. But don't expect to hear that from the far right -- they've turned the volume up in their echo chamber, and all they can hear is the reflected shouting of their own angry talking heads. I've never understood why a state of permanent pissed-offness is so necessary to them.

[doc_bean]

Because angry people are rarely rational and easier to control ?

Mind you, many liberals do the same, from the 'outrage' over animal rights to the hatred towards Bush. Getting people angry is one way of getting them on your side, and this seems to be well known to politicians.

[rotorgun]

I am fast becoming a Libertarian. I have just about lost faith with either party. From the extremist left wing liberals (essentially elitists) to the outrageous right wing neoconservatives (former liberal elitists who have "seen the light" of reality), what is left for a person to chose? Many members from each of these stalwart groups support amnesty or some such gibberish. It's enough to make a person want to become a monk and live in Tibbet.

Good Lord Almighty!

PS: Editted for spelling of elitist.

[AntiochusIII]

I am fast becoming a Libertarian. I have just about lost faith with either party. From the extremist left wing liberals (essentially elitests) to the outrageous right wing neoconservatives (former liberal elitests who have "seen the light" of reality), what is left for a person to chose? Many members from each of these stalwart groups support amnesty or some such gibberish. It's enough to make a person want to become a monk and live in Tibbet.Congratulations on putting all the blame of the current political malaise to supposedly former and current "liberal elitists."

The Backroom is indeed an impressive place. The neocons = former liberals? :dizzy2:

[whyidie]

Congratulations on putting all the blame of the current political malaise to supposedly former and current "liberal elitists."

The Backroom is indeed an impressive place. The neocons = former liberals? :dizzy2:


From :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#Overview_of_Neoconservative_views






The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also, neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative socio-political thought. It derived from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II, including literary criticism and the social sciences.


Although I suppose this would be more telling:



The fact that the use of the term "neoconservative" has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker, offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

[AntiochusIII]

I withdraw my statement, then, with apology, but only partially. For the far-right part of the Republican party is far from being only neoconservative, unless one would argue that Christian fundamentalism/moralism is in-line with the neoconservative movement.

[whyidie]

I withdraw my statement, then, with apology, but only partially. For the far-right part of the Republican party is far from being only neoconservative, unless one would argue that Christian fundamentalism/moralism is in-line with the neoconservative movement.

It seems that even the neocons aren't really the same former liberals for whom the term was coined. I think the newest group are neo-neocons.

[rotorgun]

I withdraw my statement, then, with apology, but only partially. For the far-right part of the Republican party is far from being only neoconservative, unless one would argue that Christian fundamentalism/moralism is in-line with the neoconservative movement.

Apology accepted, but there was really no reason to do so. It is gracious of you just the same. I had read the wikapedia definiton and a few others prior to making my claims, and thought it ironic and humorous. Just as a point of thought however, I did come across a guote by none other than Richard Perle in a book entitled Pretext for War, by James Bamford. I shall paraphrase it:

I guess that the description of we Neocons as former liberals is not far from the truth. I was a liberal in my past, during my college years and soon after, but reality and rigor have changed my views. (Perle) He goes on to describe how he felt that it was irresponsible to remain liberal when reality had shown itself to be quite diferrent, and called for a change of thinking.

When I was a child I spake as a child and thought as a child. Now I am a man and must put aside childish things. (Proverbs)

I just couldn't resisit the jibe, although I was pleasantly surprised to find out that I might be on the verge of Neoconservativeness myself. :inquisitive:

I would highly recommend a reading of the book. It is a very thought provoking view of 911, the handling of the events by both administrations, and the misuse of the rather poor intelligence about Al Quaeda and Iraq and WMDs by the Bush administration to build a pretext for the war in Iraq. There are some interesting connections made between the current Israeli aggression and the preemptive strike against Iraq by the Bushitas. Appearently the idea for this strategy goes back to the Clean Break proposal made to former (now late) Isreali Prime Minister Ninyetin Yahou (spelling) before 2000. Richard Perle was one of the chief authors of the report.

http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

It ties in nicely with Paul Wolfowitz's (a freind of Perle's) and Dick Cheney's ideas put forth in there strategy recommended to former President Bush.

http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

Some interesting food for thought I think.

Cordially,

PS: editted to correct the name of the author mentioned from Bambaugh to Bamford.

[AntiochusIII]

Apology accepted, but there was really no reason to do so.I responded ignorantly, on a whim, which is rather embarrassingly foolish of me. :bow:

It ties in nicely with Paul Wolfowitz's (a freind of Perle's) and Dick Cheney's ideas put forth in there strategy recommended to former President Bush.I've read both your links and realized I've heard of them (and knew them in their general themes) some time ago. Thank you. :bow:

But gee, neither Wolfowitz nor Cheney seems to me as at all approving, considering both the track record and their tendency to decide that what the People really wants is a good deal of manipulation and control (in the name of leadership). Wolfowitz in the academic circles is tolerable (though I disagree with his, erm, political philosophies), but as a policy maker and an executive staff he is far too totalitarian and a manipulative politician for my tastes. Cheney...meh, blah, and to hell with him. Though I'm a liberal (repeat: elitist tree-hugging drug-using America-hating Democrat hippy -- even though I neither use drugs nor can I even vote ~:) ) I'm not really one of those Bush-bashers, considering him only to be relatively incompetent. I've never let a Cheney-bashing opportunity pass yet, though...

Neoconservatism simply does not goes well with me. Aggressive imperialism which essentially base its justification on the concept of national sovereignty above all else, and a warped understanding of what makes the "general good" -- both of which ought to be outdated, in my humble opinion -- and the assumption that the bypassing of Democracy for the sake of "the greater good" is simply too much for me, an immigrant of the USA (thus having neither great love for the country I left nor the country I adopted), a minority, a liberal in many senses, and an idealist to accept. Besides, their idea of stability often ends up in outdated conclusions tailored as New World: finding dictatorial allies against dictatorial foes, destabilizing the opposition in the hopes of limiting their influence, just like the Cold War days. And that strategy isn't half as good as it's claimed to be: the beloved allies of the USA, the aristocratic, medieval, repressive, and unreasonably rich Al Sauds rule over what used to be the number one (or two) terrorist breeding ground in the Middle East, prior to the Iraq debacle. If anything, Osama's just a Saudi noble gone rogue. Musharraf isn't so much an ally as an opportunist who wouldn't aid the US a bit unless sufficiently pressured and given enough carrot to go through with it. And the tendency to leave dictatorial regimes all over the world tend to make people really despise the US in the long run.

This combination of "practical-minded" neoconservatives and "morally-motivated" religious fundamentalists that make up the far right end of the Republican party (and a far too influential wing at that) tends to make me a pretty vehement opposition of them. Why, I hope the Democrats win for once. In such a state any change would be better than stasis. That's why I'm quite frustrated to read posts like DA's that continues to embrace the Republicans in such blinding ways after six years of political debacles and deep-rooted corruption.

[Divinus Arma]

I've been saying that pretty much since forever. Divided government is what our American system is designed for. The only way you can really short-circuit the Founders' intentions is by getting a single group in control of all three branchers of government. Then their delicate balance ceases to exist.

True to some extent. However, the liberal elites are a bigger problem than the Neo-con wing of the GOP.


The Bushistas have gotten their way on absolutely everything for the last four years, with no real opposition.

Wrong:

Direct Opposition lead to the failure of (1) Bush open-borders (2) Social security reform.

Indirect opposition from within the GOP is causing problems for Bush with: (1) No child left behind, (2) bloated budgets, and (4) Medicare Part D. All of these have passed, but not with ease.


And still the right-wingers are as shrill, angry and Coulterized as ever.

And still the anti-war liberal elites are as shrill and Deanized as ever. I recognize that I am in the far-right fringe, but do not misunderstand the loudest as the majority. The same goes for Democrats. I recognize that not all Democrats are shrill and angry Dean Screamers or Sheehan wackjobs.

Both fringes are convinced that they are correct and no argument will sway them. Just as no argument will convince me that the liberal agenda is beneficial for America, so to will no argument convince you that the Republican Party still stands for state's rights and limited government (and you have every right to think that because of super-spend Bush and the Alaskan bridge to nowhere).


They're still blaming everything from head lice to rap music on the liberal elite.
I know you to be very intelligent. And you are totally above this type of argument. Why don't you discuss the specific faults of my position instead of falsely representing my position? I mean really, head lice?


I love that. We're in charge, we control the entire government, we've beaten the opposition into a bloody pulp, but hey! Look at the sock monkey! It's all the sock monkey's fault! Don't examine our behavior, don't hold us accountable -- blame the sock monkey!

Lemur, we both know that the government does not always control social behavior. This is why I find the Democrats and ultra-religious conservatives so unappealing. Look- The liberal elite (those who hold power and desire power within the left), simply must have a victim class to support. It is the base of their power. The "Black Vote", the "Latino Vote", the "Female Vote", the "Jewish Vote (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html)"; all have been historically favorable towards Democrats. Why? Because these are traditional victims.

I understand that a large portion of Americans also vote Democrat for their own reasons which are seperate from the liberal agenda. Sadly, the liberal agenda is what dominates over conservative-leaning Democrats. Look at what the Democrats do to aggressive anti-terrorist Democrat leaders. They oust them.

Sock monkey? You can do better. I absolutely hold Bush accountable for higher spending. But considering Katrina, Rita, 9/11, the tech crash, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, and rising oil prices: the economy is KICKING ASS! Despite all of these obstacles, the economy is doing terrific. Consumer spending is up even though cheap money is over. Unemployment rates are down. Home ownership is at all-time highs (which will level off after the mis-budgeters foreclose of course). The DOW went above 11,000 again.

I also hold Bush accountable for his immigration policies, which are an absolute betrayal. That is what finally turned me against Bush. That alone. But that does not mean I am going to run from the party.


Just read DA's rant about how the Liberal Elite orchestrated rap music, the educational system and the structure of everyone making less than $30k a year.

I am saying that liberal influence intentionally contributes towards the continuation of a victim class in America. What if their was no poverty in tyhis country not because of free government crapola, but because they all earned their way there? You would not have a Democratic party. Their very foundation rests with the concept of neo-nobility symbiotic support: You support me by keeping me in power and I will support you by giving you free crap.


You would think the Dems had been in power for the last six years.

Not at all what I said, nor what I intended to say.

I said that the liberal elite are in control of the major tools for indoctrination and propoganda, not that they were in control of government programs.

And this is where I derive that statement:

The Dems hold the school system: teachers unions, universities, and educational bureacrats.
The Dems hold the mainstream News media: LA Times, NY Times, CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR.
The Dems hold the entertainment media: Hollywood, movies, Mtv, the Music Industry.



You would garner the impression that the Republicans were a bunch of fainting virgins who have had absolutely nothing to do with running the country. Nope, it's all about the Liberal Elite.

Again, a told misrepresentation. You are creating the ultimate strawman by misrepresenting my position as your argument instead of challenging my ideas with open debate on merit. This is my perception of the Democratic Party and it is based on observable influence. The Republican Party has their influences as well:


Churches: The use of religion is in line with the view of social conservatism. This country was founded by believers, and social conservatives wish to continue with the relevance of divine morality. Atheism is every bit an existential perspective as christianity, and does not deserve a place higher than christianity. Forcing atheism is the same as forcing christianity.

Talk Radio: The use of talk radio is so successful because liberalism cannot win in open debate. Conservative positions are easy to explain and are logical, fair, and speak to American values of had work, sacrifice, commitment, and entrepreneurialism. Liberalism fails so readily in open debate because its modern form is defeatist, apologist, and anti-divinity arrogant. Liberalism speaks to the values of instant gratification, conflict-avoidance, and cowardice in the face of challenges.



We need a divided government like never before.

What we need is the formation of a viable third party that abandons the imperialist visions of the neo-con fringe and the cowardice appeasement of the neo-nobility Liberal elite. What we need are brave politicains from both party to abandon their fringes and come together in the center and stand as a party.


But don't expect to hear that from the far right -- they've turned the volume up in their echo chamber, and all they can hear is the reflected shouting of their own angry talking heads.
I'm far right. And I agree in a divided government. But not with the liberal elite. Combine social behavior control with power and you have a recipe for disaster, no different from your fears now.

[/quote]I've never understood why a state of permanent pissed-offness is so necessary to them.[/QUOTE]

Really, this applies to Dean-Screamers more. Sheehan, Dean, Keenedy, & Co. A-N-G-R-Y. But, if you want, we can say that both fringes are pissed. And everyone in the middle is screwed. As always.

[rotorgun]

Divinus Arma, that was a very eloquent defense of your position. You almost persuade me to become a republican. The main problem I have with doing so is that there must be some voice for the opposition, don't you agree? I am a bit disconcerted by the fact that the "give-aways" that you speak of, the "free crapola" has not been only the province of the poor. Many a big business handout has greased a palm or two through the use of taxpayer dollars by the Republican party as well. There is such a thing as corporate welfare too.

Another area which concerns me, a practicing Southern Baptist, is the use of religion by the Republican party as a way of garnering support for their cause.


Again, a told misrepresentation. You are creating the ultimate strawman by misrepresenting my position as your argument instead of challenging my ideas with open debate on merit. This is my perception of the Democratic Party and it is based on observable influence. The Republican Party has their influences as well:

* Churches: The use of religion is in line with the view of social conservatism. This country was founded by believers, and social conservatives wish to continue with the relevance of divine morality. Atheism is every bit an existential perspective as christianity, and does not deserve a place higher than christianity. Forcing atheism is the same as forcing christianity.

While I agree with you that forcing one's beliefs down the throats of others is fundamentilly wrong, I have often felt that this is a defensive attitude taken by many Christians. I am for the complete seperation of church and state, be it Christianity, Atheism, Buddahism, Isamism, or Satanism for that matter. While I love Christ, and would die for him for my beliefs, I never once read of his forcing his views on others. The only people he ever was confrontational with were the alleged religous leadership of Isreal. I worry that we are in danger of having a theocracy in this country if certain fundamentilists had their way within the Republican ranks. Bush, for one, scares me a little in this regard. While I respect his acceptance of Christ, I would not wish to have his brand of religion forced upon anyone.


What we need is the formation of a viable third party that abandons the imperialist visions of the neo-con fringe and the cowardice appeasement of the neo-nobility Liberal elite. What we need are brave politicains from both party to abandon their fringes and come together in the center and stand as a party.

Here is where you and I totaly agree. Where is the leadership to come from? The money machines pumping out campaign funding for both sides will never let it happen. What is called for is compromise, not of principles, but of ideals and ideas. That is where Americans are at their best, and is why I love this country so much. We are still the only country where we can make such disparite elements work together for the overall good. It all starts with the vote, and then writing to your representatives to remind them what they were elected for. That is the only way to beat the lobbyists and special interests.

Cordially,

[rory_20_uk]

First off, are the Republicans for a smaller government? They seem to be rather keen on increasing the numbers in homeland security (the $21bn a year on missile defence must employ a few). Similarly, to say that they are for the state seems to be against Bush's drive to give himself (and by extension the Federal government) powers that override the states.

I view myself as a liberal. But that means IMO freedom of the individual, not a massive slush fund for everyone who thinks that life is unfair as they want goods and services that they feel entitled to. If you do something in your own home, it's all consenting adults then you can go hog wild. Drug filled orgies? Not my concern. If you break you leg whilst stoned, just have good medical cover.

I agree that there needs to be a third choice. Or possibly a root and branch alteration to the way the whole system is run with an independant body publishing information on dandidates for all elections and massive fines for anyone trying to curry favour in any other way. So no more 24/7 TV coverage and the richest man wins. Small parties have a chance, and people are elected on principles and results, not nepotism and bribes.

But seriously, who is going to want to open that can of worms?? :laugh4:

~:smoking:

[Divinus Arma]

Divinus Arma, that was a very eloquent defense of your position. You almost persuade me to become a republican. The main problem I have with doing so is that there must be some voice for the opposition, don't you agree?

Of course opposition is appropriate. But that does not mean there must always be a voice for the opposition. Should there be a voice against the illegalization of murder? Should there be a modern voice against the amendment to abolish slavery? Of course not.

My point is this: We must not promote opposition for opposition's sake.

Debate is good. Discussion is good. Alternative viewpoints are good. But once debate fleshes out the ethically better of two positions, then there is little use for oppostion other than policy/decision review for betterment of said policy.

That was a big problem with the sixties movement. The youth wanted a change and to alter the establishement. The problem is that they had nothing to replace the establishment. Their idealism ran into a brick wall because while they realized that American Democracy is not perfect, there is nothing better to replace it with yet.

Some of these 60s activists refuse to surrender the idea that the "status-quo" could be changed. A large number of these folks sought change through socialist principles of redistribution of wealth. They revolted against the capitalist system that requires social competition. Their replacement thus became the pursuit of a socialist agenda with them as the leaders.

The FDRs were replaced by the Kennedys, Kerrys, and Clintons. The "Old Democrats" were no more. This was the key evolution of the Democratic Party inot its modern form. Where before the Old Democratic Party sought the betterment of minorities, labor, and women through equal opportunity to gain, the New Democrats sought betterment of these "victims" by providing them with equal gain. Let me explain: The blacks, women, and unskilled in this country truly were victims at one point. They really had no opportunity for advancement in America, and were denied the American dream. The potential for them to gain wealth was unequal. For these people colleges were closed, businesses paid reduced wages, and home lenders red-lined. That has all since changed. But the Democratic Party today has also changed. They must have victims in order to be successful, so instead of promising equal opportunity to succeed, they gave these people unfair advantages- benefits that are unfairly attained which create a disadvantage for others. Let me provide some examples:

*minimum wage: Frank is an unskilled burger flipper with no ambition who makes 5.75 an hour. Ted is an ambitious young man who went to trade school and is an electrician who makes 10.00 as a starting journeyman. The Democratic Party provides a minimum wage increase to 9.00 an hour. Now, frank makes almost as Ted and did no school and provided nothing extra to the economy or society. Is this fair? Wages are paid based on several factors, one of the major reasons being the inidividuals worth to society. Movie stars make millions of dollars because society values them. This is not the fault of the movie star, but the fault of the culture of our society. Does a burger flipper deserve to make more? No. Because he can be easily replaced. The economic advancement of our modern society requires individual motivation to self-improve. Otherwise, we would still have jobs that no longer exist such as coachmen, door-to-door tupperware salesmen, and the abacus as a mainstream teaching aid. The sad thing is the increase in minimum wage encourages Ted to remain as a burger flipper instead of requiring him to innovate, thus hurting our economy by stifling motivation for self-improvement.

*Afirmative action: As a business-educated employer, I care nothing for the color of a man's skin. I want the best and brightest. Blacks and hispanics are unfairly admitted to jobs and universities because of the color of their skin. I understand that their is an economic disadvantage in coming from poverty and that blacks, in some instances, were deprived of economic opportunity. But what about the Irish, who were discriminated against? What about poor white people? if anything, provide greater opportunities for education based on poor economic background, not skin color.



I am a bit disconcerted by the fact that the "give-aways" that you speak of, the "free crapola" has not been only the province of the poor. Many a big business handout has greased a palm or two through the use of taxpayer dollars by the Republican party as well. There is such a thing as corporate welfare too.

Corruption and lobbying occurs in both parties by various industries and reform is needed. Economically, The fundamental difference between the two parties rests in the philosophical foundation of their policy agenda: In the Republican party, wealth is earned and belongs to the individual. In the Democratic party, wealth is granted and belongs to the government. This is evidenced by terminology used by the Democratic Party when sp[eaking of Tax Cuts: Such as: "Bush's tax cuts give more money to the rich". Give? It was theirs to begin with.


Another area which concerns me, a practicing Southern Baptist, is the use of religion by the Republican party as a way of garnering support for their cause.

I can speak on this point as well. Again, the fundamental difference between the two parties rests in the philosophical foundation of their policy agenda:
In the Republican Party, there is a belief in God and that man's laws are based upon an ultimate morality. In the Democrat Party, since there is no God, laws can only come from man. This means that there is no good or evil, only what an individual believes to be good or evil. Certainly, educated individuals will debate Kant, utilitarianism, or relativism- but ultimately there must be a good and evil that comes from an entity other than man or else the concept of evil is as artificial as Santa Claus. This is why partial-birth abortion, free sex, drug use, and immoral behavior are okay to Democrats. They place more value on the life of an endangered bird then they value the life of a child in the moment of birth. We can stick a knife in the baby's head at crowning, but we can't cut down a tree.


While I agree with you that forcing one's beliefs down the throats of others is fundamentilly wrong,
Sure you do. Theft, rape, and murder are all illegal. You hold the belief that they should remain illegal. So do most Democrats. But the difference is in how the decision to make these laws came about. For Democrats, it is the fact that a society can not exist when theft, rape, and murder are rampant. In other words- it is a matter of their perspective. Others would say these things are evil, and that is why they should be illegal.


I have often felt that this is a defensive attitude taken by many Christians. I am for the complete seperation of church and state, be it Christianity, Atheism, Buddahism, Isamism, or Satanism for that matter. While I love Christ, and would die for him for my beliefs, I never once read of his forcing his views on others. The only people he ever was confrontational with were the alleged religous leadership of Isreal. I worry that we are in danger of having a theocracy in this country if certain fundamentilists had their way within the Republican ranks. Bush, for one, scares me a little in this regard. While I respect his acceptance of Christ, I would not wish to have his brand of religion forced upon anyone.

Neither would I, but nor would I want an atheist to enforce his views on me. Atheism, while not an organized religion, is still a religion insofar as it worships man as the peak of evolution. It holds the existential perspective that all is the cause of chance. In this world there exists no ultimate universal evil nor good.



As for the third party, the problem rests with a lazy electorate who refuses to get involved. Why bother? After all, dinner is ready and the Simpsons are on.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let me provide some examples:

*minimum wage: Frank is an unskilled burger flipper with no ambition who makes 5.75 an hour. Ted is an ambitious young man who went to trade school and is an electrician who makes 10.00 as a starting journeyman. The Democratic Party provides a minimum wage increase to 9.00 an hour. Now, frank makes almost as Ted and did no school and provided nothing extra to the economy or society. Is this fair? Wages are paid based on several factors, one of the major reasons being the inidividuals worth to society. Movie stars make millions of dollars because society values them. This is not the fault of the movie star, but the fault of the culture of our society. Does a burger flipper deserve to make more? No. Because he can be easily replaced. The economic advancement of our modern society requires individual motivation to self-improve. Otherwise, we would still have jobs that no longer exist such as coachmen, door-to-door tupperware salesmen, and the abacus as a mainstream teaching aid. The sad thing is the increase in minimum wage encourages Ted to remain as a burger flipper instead of requiring him to innovate, thus hurting our economy by stifling motivation for self-improvement.

Economic value does and should create the incentives individuals require to change. However, in your specific example, Ted the electrician is likely in a trade union, and thus will receive the same $3.25 increase as his pattern-bargained contract likely contains the "X above minimum wage" pay language. This is, of course, one powerful way for the DEMS to reward one of their staunchest support groups.

[Lemur]

You are creating the ultimate strawman by misrepresenting my position as your argument instead of challenging my ideas with open debate on merit.
Of everything you wrote, this struck me as the most ironic. You're throwing down the terms of everything, up to and including the entire composition of the Democratic party, erecting a substantial edifice of selective, self-reinforcing imaginings, and then you turn around and tell me I'm erecting a straw man.

Ugh. Am I really supposed to respond to every single assertion you've made? All of the assumptions, implications and conclusions? Oh, right, if I do anything less, then I'm running from "open debate," and demonstrating the paucity of my ideology. And yet, you seem so fiery, so full of passionate certainty, I can't imagine much of anything I could say that would make a dent in the wall of your certitude.

It seems to me that you have demonized a large percentage of your fellow countrymen, blamed the majority of the nations's ills on the Liberal Elite, and rejected moderation. You've placed a shockingly large swathe of your countrymen in the enemy category. You've got some very strong ideas about where this country should go, and none of them involve anyone who falls into your many definitions of dangerous, harmful or useless people.

You're a revolutionary, DA, and you're full of a revolutionary's zeal and anger. You are possibly the least conservative person I've ever seen.

Just as an exercise, what would have to happen in this nation to mollify your anger?

[Xiahou]

Of everything you wrote, this struck me as the most ironic. You're throwing down the terms of everything, up to and including the entire composition of the Democratic party, erecting a substantial edifice of selective, self-reinforcing imaginings, and then you turn around and tell me I'm erecting a straw man.You did erect a strawman. Your post was a complete caricature of DA's position. I'm glad he broke-down your post and responded to it. I thought about refuting your broad stroke generalizations, but didnt feel up to the effort required.


Ugh. Am I really supposed to respond to every single assertion you've made? Howabout any of them? Instead you come back with more generalizations.

[rotorgun]

I know, let's all of us, Lemur, Divinus Arma, Seamus Fermanagh, and the many other contributors to this excellent thread, form a new party (sorry rory_20_uk, but I'm afraid you'll have to move here). We can call it the Party for Social and Polititcal Reform Through Rigorous Debate, or PSPRTRD something like that. :laugh4:

Seriously, I am thinking much more along the lines of a Libertarian these days. I truly believe that each person should make their way through life by hard work, believe in the God of their choice, respect the property of their nieghbors, pay low taxes (Render to Ceaser what is Ceaser's...), and above all serve their country in some capacity.

In the words of a great old style Democrat, Ask not what your country may do for you, but what you may do for your country. (John F. Kennedy) I ask you, is that not a sacred call to duty? What have we had lately? I did not have sex with that woman. (William J. Clinton) Or No mulligans allowed on the first tee. George W. Bush.

It's enough to make a good horse lame.

Editted to change Aks to Ask. (Opps, my Ebonics slipped out a bit)

[Divinus Arma]

Of everything you wrote, this struck me as the most ironic. You're throwing down the terms of everything, up to and including the entire composition of the Democratic party, erecting a substantial edifice of selective, self-reinforcing imaginings, and then you turn around and tell me I'm erecting a straw man.

Ugh. Am I really supposed to respond to every single assertion you've made? All of the assumptions, implications and conclusions? Oh, right, if I do anything less, then I'm running from "open debate," and demonstrating the paucity of my ideology. And yet, you seem so fiery, so full of passionate certainty, I can't imagine much of anything I could say that would make a dent in the wall of your certitude.

It seems to me that you have demonized a large percentage of your fellow countrymen, blamed the majority of the nations's ills on the Liberal Elite, and rejected moderation. You've placed a shockingly large swathe of your countrymen in the enemy category. You've got some very strong ideas about where this country should go, and none of them involve anyone who falls into your many definitions of dangerous, harmful or useless people.

You're a revolutionary, DA, and you're full of a revolutionary's zeal and anger. You are possibly the least conservative person I've ever seen.

Just as an exercise, what would have to happen in this nation to mollify your anger?

Xiahou pretty much nailed it. Respond to any of my comments.

From Drudge Report:



***

Millions stricken with PSPRTRD
Associated Press 9/10/2006

Millions have woken up to discover that they are afflicted with PSPRTD, a formerly-rare disease that attacks the central nervous system. Reports indicate that emergency rooms are overflowing with patients complaining of PSPRTD symptoms. These symptoms include: rational thought, respectful tone in communication, and empathy.

The President is expected to make a National Televised Address tonight urging calm in the face of intelligence.

Developing...

***

[Lemur]

Oh, for pete's sake, you ubercons are relentless. Okay, if nothing less than a point-by-point will satisfy you, here's a late-nite stab at one. Sheesh.

However, the liberal elites are a bigger problem than the Neo-con wing of the GOP.
Firstly, "liberal elites" is a generalization without substance. Blaming the ills of the current admin on the "neo-con wing of the GOP" seems facile, and a bit of a dodge.

Direct Opposition lead to the failure of (1) Bush open-borders (2) Social security reform.
It's over-generous to posit the Democrats had enough power to torpedo those initiatives. If the GOP had its ducks in a row, the Dems couldn't have done a thing. Both were controversial moves (there's a reason Social Security is known as the "third rail" of politics -- old people vote, and in large numbers).

Indirect opposition from within the GOP is causing problems for Bush with: (1) No child left behind, (2) bloated budgets, and (4) Medicare Part D. All of these have passed, but not with ease.
Resistance to NCLB has been on the state level, from what I understood, and largely from Governors who are sick of the unfunded mandates put upon them. If you have deeper understanding about the issue, please share. (2) Bloated budgets? The GOP is opposing bloated budgets? Since when? (4) Medicare Part D is yet another entitlement for the elderly, so we shall see whether it can ever be stripped away. I haven't noticed anyone making any substantial progress on opposing/repealing it, but again, if you have mor current info, pelase share.

I recognize that I am in the far-right fringe, but do not misunderstand the loudest as the majority. The same goes for Democrats. I recognize that not all Democrats are shrill and angry Dean Screamers or Sheehan wackjobs.
That's fair enough.

Both fringes are convinced that they are correct and no argument will sway them. Just as no argument will convince me that the liberal agenda is beneficial for America, so to will no argument convince you that the Republican Party still stands for state's rights and limited government (and you have every right to think that because of super-spend Bush and the Alaskan bridge to nowhere).
Well, I think an essential difference between our positions is that I want conservatives to be active and have a share of power, just as I want some liberals to be in the stew. I'm a pretty un-fringe kind of guy. I don't think that conservatives or liberals want to destroy America or our way of life. I don't go in for elaborate conspiracy theories of any sort -- I dont' believe in the smoky room where the oil cartels issue Bush his orders, and I don't believe in your seemingly paranoid idea of a Liberal Elite who seek an underclass to keep oppressed.

There are bad actors and bad elements to every movement, agreed. But it's dangerous to over-simplify and demonize people who (a) also want what's right for the nation and (b) are fellow citizens in good standing.

Why don't you discuss the specific faults of my position instead of falsely representing my position? I mean really, head lice?
Are you suggesting that head lice are not the fault of the Liberal Elite? I'm gonna tell Coulter on you.

Look- The liberal elite (those who hold power and desire power within the left), simply must have a victim class to support. It is the base of their power. The "Black Vote", the "Latino Vote", the "Female Vote", the "Jewish Vote (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html)"; all have been historically favorable towards Democrats. Why? Because these are traditional victims.
It's statements like this that make me want to throw up my hairy lemur paws and walk away whistling. You posit a legitimate question -- why do minorities trend toward the Democratic party? And then answer your question with a single, certain, simplistic and probably false answer. Do I, the lemur, know exactly why minorities trend Dem? No, I don't. And neither do you. And it's absurd that you can say, "Oh, I know exactly why -- because they are traditional victims, and the Democrats seek out pawns to make dependent on their parasitic ideology." I suppose one could say the same thing about first aid clinics -- they seek out the injured to make them dependent on their bandages and stitches. Anyone who reaches out to any downtrodden group, by your line of reasoning, might be looking to create a dependent, parasite class.

I understand that a large portion of Americans also vote Democrat for their own reasons which are seperate from the liberal agenda. Sadly, the liberal agenda is what dominates over conservative-leaning Democrats. Look at what the Democrats do to aggressive anti-terrorist Democrat leaders. They oust them.
Good lord, are you talking about Joe Liberman? Read up on his race, DA. There was a lot more going on than his voting record.

Sock monkey? You can do better. I absolutely hold Bush accountable for higher spending.
Really? I'm sure you mean it, but I doubt that has any meaning. "Hold accountable" how? You are so convinced of the pure evil of the Liberal Elite that any candidate run against Bush would become the focus of so much fear and loathing on your part, well, need we say more? How can anyone be held accountable when you have utterly eliminated the other party from being viable in any contingency? Are you not locked into the GOP, for good or ill? Do you really have an alternative? And without one, how on earth are you going to hold anyone in the GOP accountable for anything?

I also hold Bush accountable for his immigration policies, which are an absolute betrayal. That is what finally turned me against Bush. That alone. But that does not mean I am going to run from the party.
As I said a paragraph ago, I don't understand what this means. If you're going to continue with the party no matter what they do, where is the accountability?

I am saying that liberal influence intentionally contributes towards the continuation of a victim class in America. What if their was no poverty in tyhis country not because of free government crapola, but because they all earned their way there? You would not have a Democratic party. Their very foundation rests with the concept of neo-nobility symbiotic support: You support me by keeping me in power and I will support you by giving you free crap.
Again, flat declarations of some very questionable conclusions. Life is neat when you can construct both the hypothetical (no poverty because everyone is gainfully employed) and the conclusion (Democratic party evaporates due to lack of victims). This is tiresome, but let's slog through it. If everyone were gainfully employed and there were no meaningful levels of poverty, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would exist in their current form. As conditions change, parties change. Remember back when parties were defined by their positions on slavery? Well, that issue went away, but the parties remained. Remember back when every issue was framed as Tory versus Whig? Etcetera.

The point your were making, again, was that the current Dem party is all about victims and the poor scum who take money from your tax check. Look at government spending, DA. What is the single biggest chunk? Oh, right, Social Security. After which comes medicare and medicaid. So by your logic, Dems should dominate the old and the infirm, not the coloreds and the Jews.

Also look at voting breakdowns by income. It's been said time and time again, and it's been demonstrated by smarter people than the lemur -- Americans do not vote in their economic self-interest. Rich people who could use the lower taxes will often vote and support leftist candidates. Poor people who could desperately use a subsidized health clininc or two will vote for a no-government rightist. It just doesn't berak down as neatly and logically as you suppose.

People are more complex than you make out, and the chains of causality are neither so neat nor as direct as you presume. People are illogical. That's a very important thing to come to grips with. All of your theories about the Liberal Elites and their Chosen Underclasses presuppose this very sensible arrangement of needs and fulfillments. That should be your first tip-off that the theory is overly simplistic.


The Dems hold the school system: teachers unions, universities, and educational bureacrats.
The Dems hold the mainstream News media: LA Times, NY Times, CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR.
The Dems hold the entertainment media: Hollywood, movies, Mtv, the Music Industry.

There are at least four threads' worth of debates contained in this one little list. Let me just ask you a question -- how many aspects of American life need to be dominated by people with whom you have substantial or total agreemnent before you will be content? We can certainly agree that Republicans have control of all three branches of government, and several media outlets. It seems as though the existence of non-conservatives in any aspect of American life is an irritant. Extreme, no?

Churches: The use of religion is in line with the view of social conservatism. This country was founded by believers, and social conservatives wish to continue with the relevance of divine morality. Atheism is every bit an existential perspective as christianity, and does not deserve a place higher than christianity. Forcing atheism is the same as forcing christianity.
Oh for heaven's sake, do we need to go into the religious leanings of the Founders again? The founders were deists and unitarians at best. For their time, they were raging liberals of the most extreme stripe. A person with profoundly Conservative (i.e., Royalist) views would have hated their guts. Secondly, who is trying to place atheism higher than Christiantiy? Does the absence of explicit religion in an environment equate atheism? Isn't that a bit of an absurd position? Are we gearing up for War on Christmas again? I thought we couldn't get into the War on Christmas/Chsitianity Under Assault posts until Thanksgiving at the earliest? And who, exactly, is trying to "force" atheism? Are you equating science with atheism? Please clarify.

Talk Radio: The use of talk radio is so successful because liberalism cannot win in open debate.
So talk radio is the only format in which open debate takes place? All other media are different, somehow? And that's the only reason conservatives do well on talk radio? Where does Howard Stern fit into this worldview? And why doesn't Rush debate anyone except himself? Curious.

Conservative positions are easy to explain and are logical, fair, and speak to American values of had work, sacrifice, commitment, and entrepreneurialism. Liberalism fails so readily in open debate because its modern form is defeatist, apologist, and anti-divinity arrogant. Liberalism speaks to the values of instant gratification, conflict-avoidance, and cowardice in the face of challenges.
This is an extreme charicature of both positions. Furthermore, I think it unduly cheapens debate when you villify your ideological opponents in such a manner. Are we erally to believe that anyone who describes themselves (or more importanly, is classified by you) as liberal is defeatist? If they're all defeatist, how do they win any elections ever? How do they accomplish anything? They're all apologists? For what? They're all anti-divinity? Wouldn't Jesus fall into your definition of a liberal? After all, he went on like a soft-hearted hippie about helping the poor and the detitute. So Jesus would be anti-divinity? And liberal priests are anti-divinity?

Doesn't your position sound a little simplistic?

Getting back to the broad strokes of your negative generalizations: Liberalism is about instant gratifuication? More so than any other political philosophy? And yet we see our current (Republican) congress spending money with abandon, passing the debt on to future generations. Isn't that instant-gratification behavior? Isn't a person who can't control themselves with a credit card an instant-gratification type? So how do the dreaded Liberal Elites outdo the GOP in this department? What else was ther ... oh, right, cowardice in the face of challenges and conflict-avoidance. I wouold be interested to know if you would voice those opinions to the Democrats who served in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What we need is the formation of a viable third party that abandons the imperialist visions of the neo-con fringe and the cowardice appeasement of the neo-nobility Liberal elite. What we need are brave politicains from both party to abandon their fringes and come together in the center and stand as a party.
Right, but until that day comes, you're going to support the GOP come hell or high spending.

I'm far right. And I agree in a divided government. But not with the liberal elite.
Good Lord, the Liberal Elite again! Say it with me, everyone chant it to the rafters -- LIBERAL ELITE! LIBERAL ELITE! LIBERAL ELITE! For pete's sake, DA, make a list of the liberal elite, and send them off to Siberia. See how much it actually changes the things that are bothering you. I really feel you've made an all-purpose bugaboo out of this ill-defined term ...

But, if you want, we can say that both fringes are pissed. And everyone in the middle is screwed. As always.
The middle, of late, is rightfully pissed off at the people in power. Independents (like me) have skewed away from the GOP in a big way since '04.

We've tried the all-GOP-all-the-time show. It hasn't worked terribly well. Examine results, actual results, and you'll arrive at different conclusions. Intricate theories about how the world works are all fine and dandy, and they make for great drinking games, but at the end of the day you need to measure how well something actually works. If you lock everything into one party -- whatever party that might be -- you're going to get people behaving very, very badly. So until a third party arises, it's time to go for divided government again. And yes, that means some small portion of power will pass to the Democrats, whom you believe are utterly bankrupt, atheist, etc.

Look on the bright side -- you'll be able to devote all of your anger to them, instead of being forced to notice how the GOP is capable of screwing things up all by themselves.

[Papewaio]

I said that the liberal elite are in control of the major tools for indoctrination and propoganda, not that they were in control of government programs.

And this is where I derive that statement:

The Dems hold the school system: teachers unions, universities, and educational bureacrats.
The Dems hold the mainstream News media: LA Times, NY Times, CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR.
The Dems hold the entertainment media: Hollywood, movies, Mtv, the Music Industry.



Since Fox (Rupert), and the more 'right wing' entertainers (Steve Irwin, Mel Gibson) are/were Aussies... and they cover two out of three of those categories. Well all you need is a few more Aussie teachers.

[Divinus Arma]

Lemur, I will read and reply to your comments on Tuesday. I have to rack out and I work a 24 hr shift tomorrow.

I did not expect a full answer, but kudos to you for playing. Just a few straight answers would have been okay, but this will be far more fun. Oh and from what I did read, I meant that Social Security et al was torpedoed by Republicans. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll finish reading on Tuesday.

And Pape: Two Conservative Actors hardly qualify as "hollywood". You are wait out in left field on this one. Mel Gibson, while individually powerful, is not at all representative of hollywood. You must think that Aussie actors are dominating influences in American entertainment. Good for you. But you are totally wrong. You must either be joking or full of Aussie pride. And everyone is well aware of Fox news being a conservative leaning station. But that is just one station, compared against all the others. Seriously Pape, you are totally off-base on this issue. Your sense of weight placed on these groups is out of wack. You basically said that (as an analogy) "you have gold, therefore you must be rich", without factoring that the gold was one broken 10k hoop earing.

[Papewaio]

One has taken American citizenship, the other was born there and the third is dead. So yes I believe I was joking.

[Lemur]

So yes I believe I was joking.
I quite liked the image of an army of right-wing Ozzies invading our school system.

[Ironside]

As Lemur covered DA:s posts quite throughly and has a better shot commenting (as he lives in the US), I'll only comment on some stuff not mentioned by Lemur.


In the Democratic party, wealth is granted and belongs to the government. This is evidenced by terminology used by the Democratic Party when sp[eaking of Tax Cuts: Such as: "Bush's tax cuts give more money to the rich". Give? It was theirs to begin with.

Firstly, I suspect that the Democrats haven't been taken over by communists yet, secondly your proof is quite weak. Somehow I suspect that the argument "Bush's tax cuts, makes the state take less money from the rich" doesn't sell that well, just like "more polices will cost you more, or reduce other services and it will also give you more speeding tickets".


Sure you do. Theft, rape, and murder are all illegal. You hold the belief that they should remain illegal. So do most Democrats. But the difference is in how the decision to make these laws came about. For Democrats, it is the fact that a society can not exist when theft, rape, and murder are rampant. In other words- it is a matter of their perspective. Others would say these things are evil, and that is why they should be illegal.

Aside from your adding of every Democrat into the field of moral relativism (I might use the word wrongfully here though, I'm not sure how's it's defined, when it's based on the principle of humanism), I'll still debate the actual point you try to make.

Have you murdered someone DA? Do you know anybody that has? Or to put the question differently, have you killed in combat, or know anybody who has?
Is a childmurderer seen with the same eyes as a murderer of childmurderer?
Is the Robin Hood of the stories evil? Is an agent stealing evil documents, that will save thousands of American lives evil? (I'll handle rape later as it's always considered evil in Western society).

As you can see, you're already living in a world of relativism, not absolutes.


Neither would I, but nor would I want an atheist to enforce his views on me. Atheism, while not an organized religion, is still a religion insofar as it worships man as the peak of evolution. It holds the existential perspective that all is the cause of chance. In this world there exists no ultimate universal evil nor good.

I'm curious how exactly you came to the conclusion that the atheists, that you refer to, consider humanity the peak of evolution? I mean, atheism is based on science and the scientiffic view on humanity is certainly not that humanity is the peak of evolution. Unlike most religions emerging from the Middle East, I may add.

What's the basis you plan to base human laws on then? The Bible? The only laws it literally contains is outdated and not even used by most fundamentalists, and as Jesus never said what laws he meant to stay and what new laws that would replace the old ones. What's actually more important is the lack of athourity outside christians.

What does your laws have for athourity on a person, whose holy book says that raping is a correct punishment for indecency, if it's based on what Christianity currently finds acceptable or not? Making forced convertion of everyone a must to give the proper athourity to the laws. To not oppress me, everyone must be oppressed.

And please no talk about allowing thier laws into our society, because you're not allowed the protection of your own laws into thier society either, based on that principle. You have to adapt, simply as that. But with a base from the principle of humanism, you're standing on a more neutral ground and has more weight into your arguments of why those things should be illegal and as the rules are general, makes them supposed to protect you, everywere.

To wrap it up: Because humans are already having different views on what is the ultimate universal evil or good, we're already dealing with relativism. It is then better and more neutral (aka less oppressive) to base the laws on something that everyone can understand the principle of and agree, then something that only a group of people agrees on and can understand the why of it.

[rotorgun]

After reading many of these fascinating posts, I thought I would look into this Liberal vs Conservative thing a bit more closely. These definitions are all from Wikipedia, so bear this in mind.


Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.[3][4] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants.[5] It is a blend of political liberalism and economic liberalism[1] which is derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant.

Many elements of this ideology developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, and it is often seen as being the natural ideology of the industrial revolution and its subsequent capitalist system. The early liberal figures now described as "classical liberals" rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, and focuses on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance.[6]. Such thinkers and their ideas helped to inspire the American Revolution and French Revolution.

The qualification "classical" was applied in retrospect to distinguish the early 19th century laissez-faire form of liberalism from modern interventionist social liberalism.[7] The terminology is most applicable in the United States, since in continental Europe, "liberalism" does not refer to social liberalism as seen in American modern liberalism but to ideology that is closer to classical liberalism.

The above mentioned is likely how the founding fathers thought when thinking of Liberism.


Conservatism is a philosophy defined by Edmund Burke as "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve".[1] The term derives from conserve; from Latin conservāre, to keep, guard, observe. While not in itself an ideology, it is a political philosophy that is determined almost entirely by its context. Defined in part as an "emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated,"[1] Conservatism necessitates a defense of established values and the status quo.

There is Cultural Conservatism.....


According to the subset called social conservatives, the norms may also be moral. For example, in some cultures practices such as homosexuality or abortion are thought to be wrong. In other cultures women who expose their faces or limbs in public are considered immoral, and conservatives in those cultures often support laws to prohibit such practices. Other conservatives take a more positive approach, supporting good samaritan laws, or laws requiring public charity, if their culture considers these acts moral.

Cultural conservatives often argue that old institutions have adapted to a particular place or culture and therefore ought to persevere. Depending on how universalizing (or skeptical) they are, cultural conservatives may or may not accept cultures that differ from their own. Many conservatives believe in a universal morality, but others allow that moral codes may differ from nation to nation, and only try to support their moral code within their own culture. That is, a cultural conservative may doubt whether the broad ideals of French communities would be equally appropriate in Germany.

....and Religous Conservatism:



Religious conservatism is unlike other forms of conservatism, because of the many different forms it can take. Many religious conservatives are resistant to all change, because they see their beliefs as coming from an all knowing and unchanging God. St. Paul illustrates the importance of tradition in First Corinthians: "I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." The Latin word for delivered here is traditio.

Conservative governments influenced by religious conservatives may promote broad campaigns for a return to traditional values. Modern examples include the Back to Basics campaign of British premier John Major. In the European Union, a conservative campaign sought to constitutionally specify certain conservative values in the proposed European Constitution. Most prominently, Pope John Paul II lobbied for inclusion of a reference to God, which was narrowly defeated.

Radical movements within established religious traditions illustrate the paradoxical method by which branches of religious conservatism can emerge that, rather than trying to preserve an existing social order, seek to overthrow that order in the name of a puritanical ideal, and enforce adoption of a perceived 'pristine' form of the religion, often based on a very strict reading of a holy text. Such radical or revolutionary movements may be a reaction against perceived abuses, corruption, or heresy within the existing tradition. One example of such a movement was the Protestant Reformation.

In Islam, the Salafist movement is often politically and socially radical, and is violently repressed by governments and distrusted by the majority of mainstream Muslims for that reason. Salafism seeks to impose, by force if necessary, its vision of a model Islamic society such as existed at the time of Muhammad's passing from this world and for a short time thereafter. It rejects the later developments of Islamic societies, and can therefore be classified as a radical religious conservatism.

Similar phenomena have arisen in practically all the world's religions, in many cases triggered by the violent cultural collision between the traditional society in question and the modern Western society that has developed throughout the world over the past 500 years. Much of what is labelled as radical religious conservatism in the modern world is in fact an indigenous fusion of traditional religious ideals with modern, European revolutionary philosophy, sometimes Marxist in nature.

I almost forgot! There is a difference between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism.


Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. (See Liberalism worldwide.) One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (writing in 1962), "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain." [2]

According to Girvetz and Minogue writing in Encyclopædia Britannica, "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook."[3]

In late 20th century and early 21st century political discourse, "liberalism" has come to mean support for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, reproductive rights for women, a progressive income tax, the right to privacy, equal rights for homosexuals, equal rights for the disabled, affirmative action, the reduction of poverty by government intervention, affordable quality health care for all as provided by government intervention, and the protection of the environment and of endangered species. In many European countries, some of these are non-issues, and European liberals share many positions in common with Christian Democrats and Social Democrats.



Now I could go on and on finding more and more definitions elaborating further on these subjects, but, and I'm sure your all thankful I won't. I only wanted to sort of set the boundries a bit more for these discussions as we all tend to get off the beaten path at times with our favorite themes. After reflection, I find myself in some agreement with Divinus Arma that this last is what the Democratic Party has come to represent. I am a Democrat of the Henry "Scoop" Jackson, John F. Kennedy era, and the turbulent years of the Viet Nam War and Watergate. In effect, an inheritor of the New Deal thinking taught to me by my father. I am not so much for hand-outs, as I am for a helping hand up. (help one another, and so fulfill the law of Christ) While conservative in my religous thinking, I am a firm believer in seperation of church and state.(Render unto Ceaser the things that are Ceaser's and to God the Things that are God's) Being a bit of an isolationist, I am not opposed to some of the ideas of the Neo-conservatives in that the United States should take a leadership role in the world, as long as this is not just a disguise for imperialism. I would not want my country invaded by another, so I am for the (do unto thy nieghbor as ye would have done to thyself) walk softly, but carry a big stick approach.

Finally, here is a list of the the main ideas of both schools of thought:
Liberalism

Freedom
Rights
Liberal democracy
Open society
Negative & positive Liberty
Individualism
Free market
Mixed economy
Social justice

Conservatism

Capitalism
Free Market
Freedom
Individual rights
Originalism
Private property
Rule of law
Social conservatism
Social order
Tradition

Not all that far apart really, and combined make for a powerful form of government. The "iron" of conservatism mixed with the "clay" of liberalism are at the heart of Republicanism and Democracy. Together they made up the constitutional rule of law by which we can agree to disagree with one another without resorting to bloodshed.

Sorry to go on for so long. Please forgive my poor attempts at intellectualism, but I think these ideas are worthy of consideration by such an august body of thinkers as are represented in this thread debate.

Sincerly,

PS: Was Julius Ceaser a Liberal or a Conservative? How about Jesus? :inquisitive:

[Xiahou]

I wouldnt be terribly offended is someone referred to me as a Classical Liberal. I believe in small, limited government and Im definitely a big believer in capitalism. But, I also believe we should respect our moral and social tradition that has served us well for generations and that we shouldn't cast it aside casually.

To me, this is what the Republican party is supposed to represent. Unfortunately, many of our elected representatives have abandoned this position for political expediency. Even more unfortunately, the only alternative (Democrats) are even worse- making them an even less appealing choice. :no:

[Lemur]

Looks like Don C is ahead of the curve. Washinton Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html) posted a page with prominent conservatives arguing that the current GOP should lose the next election.


Time For Us To Go

Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006.

With Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, conservatives these days ought to be happy, but most aren’t. They see expanding government, runaway spending, Middle East entanglements, and government corruption, and they wonder why, exactly, the country should be grateful for Republican dominance. Some accuse Bush and the Republicans today of not being true conservatives. Others see a grab bag of stated policies and wonder how they cohere. Everyone thinks something’s got to change.

Now seven prominent conservatives dare to speak the unspeakable: They hope the Republicans lose in 2006. Well, let’s be diplomatic and say they’d prefer divided government—soon. (Perhaps that formulation will fool Dennis Hastert.) Of course, all of them wish for the long-term health of conservatism, and most are loyal to the GOP. What they also believe, however, is that even if a Speaker Pelosi looms in the wings, sometimes the best remedy for a party gone astray is to give it a session in the time-out chair.

[edit]

One of the essayists must have been reading the discussion between me and DA, since his thoughts are a straight continuation of our thread-hijacking debate:


This must all be shocking to my Republican friends who still believe our country would be a better place if our party controlled every branch of government as well as every news network, movie studio, and mid-American pulpit. But evidence suggests that divided government may be what Washington needs the most.

[Xiahou]

I certainly agree that our "conservative" Republican leadership in Congress stinks out loud. Where Im not totally sold is when it comes to the "screw em, let's vote Democrat" action plan. I'd much rather dump encumbent Republican screwups in favor of new-comers or established small government conservatives in primaries or by voting for like-minded third-party candidates.

I'd like to see some examples made with Senators like Chafee or even Lott (unlikely)- but I dont think we'll solve anything long-term by having Democrats in charge...

It would seem Im in the curious position of wanting our Republican leadership to lose, but not wanting Democrats to win.:dizzy2:

[Xiahou]

I'd like to see some examples made with Senators like Chafee or even Lott (unlikely)- but I dont think we'll solve anything long-term by having Democrats in charge...
Well, so much for that- Chafee won his primary. :shame:
Here's hoping his Democrat challenger takes him out in November....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, so much for that- Chafee won his primary. :shame:
Here's hoping his Democrat challenger takes him out in November....

Which, aside from procedural/caucus votes, will change the political mix of the Senate how?:laugh4:

[yesdachi]

It would seem Im in the curious position of wanting our Republican leadership to lose, but not wanting Democrats to win.:dizzy2:
I’m looking in a mirror!
The phrase "the lesser of two evils” comes to mind.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I maintain that it's time for revolution, but nooo.. nobody listens to the Cube.

We wouldn't need a revolution. Can you just imagine the shenanigans that would be created by another constitutional convention?

[rotorgun]

All this trouble over being disatisfied with one's political party could be resolved if one just votes for the candidate that best exemplifys his desires in a politician, regardless of party. I have voted many times for Republican candidates that met my expectations, despite being a lifelong (conservative) Democrat. I call it moral courage, and voting my concsiense. Believe it or not, I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 precisely because I was so disgusted with the Clinton administration, and Bill Clinton's sexual escapades with Monica Lewinski. At the time, George W. seemed to offer a new direction of moral certainty and a better plan for America; that I was wrong is now certain, but what other choice was there at the time? AL Gore!

In 2004, I was given the choice of four more years of what the Bush admnistration had shown was their true agenda, which was in direct contradiction to their campaign promises of the 2000. What choice was I given by my party? Edward Kerry! I had no other choice but to choose what was the lesser of two evils at the time, so I voted for Kerry.

On the local and state elections, I voted for whoever I thought was going to do the best for my town, county and state-be they Republican or Democrat. I have not been disappointed a by any of them as much as I have been so with the Presidential candidates. We just can't seem to produce the kind of national leadership as we did in the past. I don't know why, but I think that special interst groups controlling the parties are behind much of the selections. Money talks, and....well you know the rest. What does everyone think? Where do you stand, fellow Americans, with your party or with your country?

Respectfully,

[Xiahou]

Unfortunately, for me, it's usually a choice between someone I disagree with on most things or someone I disagree with on everything.

[Major Robert Dump]

The parties choose the candidates, not you. In 2000 McCain led Bush in damn near every poll but the party got behind Bush because he has rasied so much money, he had the networking connections, and the RNC shifted its cash to him.

Look at what the DNC did when they were orchestrating the date shifts of the dem primaries: anyone who didn't campaign on the DNC timetable or appeared to be disregarding the state shifts would lose DNC funding and have their earned delegation votes reassigned to another candidate. Total Crap.

The only way we are ever going to have a viable 3rd party candidate is if someone with political aspirations wins a billion dollar powerball payout. And even then, that wouldnt be enough money to run for president and the person would have to start out as a governor somewhere.

Tom Coburn for president, please.