0
   

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

 
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 08:30 am
Every once and awhile kill somebody with a bayonnet for no reason. This way you won't perceived as a bunch of whining liberal pussies.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 08:35 am
Good plan. Could you be at the corner of 78th and Lexington in ten minutes?
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 08:38 am
blatham wrote:
Good plan. Could you be at the corner of 78th and Lexington in ten minutes?


Only if you wear mountie outfit and call me Lola.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 09:29 am
Lash wrote:
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
I'll take that umbrella stand.

Except that umbrella stand.


LOL! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 09:34 am
From the NYTimes Interactive feature on the elections:

Quote:
So one thing that that means for the Democrats [..] is that the party has to find a nominee and a way of talking about religion to religious people of all faiths that doesnt make them feel as if the Democrats are Margaret Mead conducting a sociological experiment
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 09:37 am
nimh wrote:
[
(How can fellow conservatives just let this kind of nonsense go by without ever saying anything about it - even when they take the opportunity to tell those who rebut it off?)


My understand was that conservatives were not welcome on these exclusive threads - dedicated to mutual mourning, solace, and planning among the wounded elite.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:18 am
george darling, conservatives are welcome as far as I'm concerned, as long as they stay on topic and try to be thoughtfully helpful in the discussion.

My objection to what "conservatives" (I call them -- and you, sometimes--bullies) are writing on this thread is that you're not really trying to understand what went wrong and what we should do about it next time. You're all gloating. You're just getting off on rubbing it in.

Some of the exchanges on this thread are just silly.

But to all of you who believe that we should change our values and unite...........look at yourselves and see why I didn't vote for your candidate. Who can change their values, if they're true values? I value what is important to me and no amount of legislation or court intervention will change what I value. (And it won't help in the Middle East either.....duh....)

Legislated religion and conscience, that's what Bush and most of his supporters want. Well, go ahead and try it. It will only make matters worse.

I can't think of any idea more ridiculous than that the Dems should become Republicans and that's the way to win. Pleeeeese, a little original thought here, that's all we're asking.

This is the basis of the culture wars. Polarities are illusions anyway. But when two sides insist that there's only one right way......only one way to Heaven (as if I'd want to go there anyway and sit around for eternity with the likes of you) it's a set up for war and contention, nothing more..........unless you include conformity which seems to be your idea of a free state.

Poohy I say!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:20 am
McTag wrote:
Just wondering- and apologies in advance if this question is too off-topic for some contributors-

Is it a matter of any concern to you, that for the first time in its history the USA is opposed by all the developed countries in the world, with the possible exception of Israel?


Interesting and topical question.

In the first place the proposition itself is inaccurate. The universe of "developed" countries comprises nations with more or less democratic systems embracing a range of views, with the dominant view generally represented by that of the government. Australia, Japan, Poland, Italy, Great Britain, and (until recently) Spain actively support (ed) the U.S. in the contentious issues before us. Contrary minority views exist in all of these countries, just as do contrary minority views exist in those that oppose us.

Secondly, this is hardly the first time in history that this country has been opposed by other developed nations, particularly those in Europe. Indeed, prior to WWI our relations with Britain, France, Germany, and Spain were decidedly cool, even frosty. We fought wars with both Britain, Spain, and even France. Britain actively supported the South in our Civil war. In 19th century European literature the image of the uncultured, unfeeling, grasping, materialistic Yankee was ubiquitous from Bunin (see "The Gentleman from San Francisco") to Dickens and Sartre.

Contempt and hostility towards the U.S. have been the normal positions of the dominant classes in European countries throughout our mutual histories. Only the poor and alienated in those countries, the pools from which we drew our immigrants, saw this country as something good. The United States is indeed the creation of Europeans who sought to develop a different alternative to Europe.

The disasters of the unlamented 20th century, all the creations of hostile Europeans, created an anomalous situation in which suddenly the contending sides in Europe felt they needed our support to ensure their survival. Our entry into WWI on the side of the Allies was a close thing. Only the clumsiness of the German government and the skillful (and deceitful) propaganda of the British got us in. Unfortunately the Allies overreached themselves, deciding to bring down the Ottoman Empire and punish the German one. The disaster of Versailles only set the stage for the second round, while the Marxist poison that infected Russia prepared the third. Only recently has all that been resolved, and with it old attitudes have returned.

Unfortunately, in the debris of the Ottoman Empire, we are still dealing with the consequences of European greed and folly. The difference now is that our "loyal" European friends no longer feel directly threatened, so they have reverted to their normal hostility towards this country. This is the real underlying reality, McTag and I find it remarkable that you don't recognize it.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:21 am
blatham wrote:
Gosh. Jesus also said that thing about rich people getting into heaven (camel through eye of needle, you know). How's it looking for Cheney and Bush on that one? And how's you bank account?


so many people hink that means the rich can't in but those of us who understand what the "eye of the needle" actually was know that it merely means the rich must be more careful not to allow their riches to corrupt them...as bushco has failed miserably to do.....
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:24 am
Heaven is really just another offshore account.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:53 am
Quote:
Only if you wear mountie outfit and call me Lola.


LOL........but he looks a lot better in jeans...........
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 11:14 am
McTag wrote:

I think however there are dark forces at work in America, and all those Stepford-wives christians make me afraid for its future. Kerry had a tough job asking for a change in leadership during a "war", even though the war, it seems to me, was a device started in part to ensure the conservatives increased their hold on the country.


I suppose there is some truth in that. Certainly some Democrat zealots are considering such ideas and vowing to do a better job next time educating the ignorant masses so that they will learn what is really good for them. I hope they do - it will keep them out of office.

You should also consider the possibility that the images to which you referred are merely convenient stereotypes, bearing little relation to reality. Neither do I credit the notion that the war was started to ensure a conservative political victory. Consider how truly odd is your juxtaposition of ideas here : the enemy is both credulous and stupid ("Stepford wives christians") and at the same time scheming and Machiavellian ("devise started.. to ensure..."). Reflect on it: does this really ring true?

It also appears to me that you have not sufficiently reflected on the defects in Kerry's record and, by implication, character. There truly is a basis for all this and it did indeed affect the outcome. Not an invalid point either. History offers numerous lessons about the greater importance of the character of leaders than of their initial concepts of right policy in an ever-changing world.

Finally, modern variants of secularism have evolved from the absence of religion to opposition to it, and also to ever more intrusive, but secular, doctrines about how people should live their lives. (The contemporary religion of political correctitude is just as intolerant as any of the old ones. Consider the ease with which you let out the phrase "…all those Stepford-wives christians make me afraid for its future…". Would you have felt as comfortable if instead of "christians" you were to say, "homosexuals", or "women", or "Hispanics"?) This too was a factor, and the prospect of judges overturning the ability of legislators to regulate marriage did arouse some opposition.

The Democrat view is, "The people have spoken, and the people are wrong". Not very democratic when you think of it. The people are actually pretty smart.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 11:17 am
"The people have spoken and the people are wrong" is in no way incompatible with Democracy unless one is of the opinion that the majority can not ever make a mistake.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 11:22 am
In all seriousness, no "Gloating" intended or implied, it is my impression that so long as voices the likes of David Corn are more listened to by rank-and-file Democrats than are voices the likes of the DLC, The Democratic Party will continue to find itself increasingly less listened to by The Electorate.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 11:23 am
We all resent hypocrisy however. When the former Democrat president won with 43% of the vote, the cry was, the people have spoken and the rest of you shut up. When he won again, and again with less than 50% of the vote, the people have spoken and that was his mandate. Now the people have spoken, and the people are wrong?

Sorry, but putting cold, hard philosophical reasoning aside, this just rings really empty and only contributes to further driving a wedge to create stiffer polarization.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 12:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
We all resent hypocrisy however. When the former Democrat president won with 43% of the vote, the cry was, the people have spoken and the rest of you shut up. When he won again, and again with less than 50% of the vote, the people have spoken and that was his mandate. Now the people have spoken, and the people are wrong?

Sorry, but putting cold, hard philosophical reasoning aside, this just rings really empty and only contributes to further driving a wedge to create stiffer polarization.


How about, as a change of pace, digging up some actual examples or citations of what you claim rather than just setting your gums to the wind and letting fly.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 12:54 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
nimh wrote:
[
(How can fellow conservatives just let this kind of nonsense go by without ever saying anything about it - even when they take the opportunity to tell those who rebut it off?)


My understand was that conservatives were not welcome on these exclusive threads - dedicated to mutual mourning, solace, and planning among the wounded elite.


Leaning. Again. Always leaning.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 01:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
We all resent hypocrisy however.


The hypocrisy you attempt to establish below is only hypocrisy if you operate under the maxim "the people are always right".

I do not.

Quote:
When the former Democrat president won with 43% of the vote, the cry was, the people have spoken and the rest of you shut up. When he won again, and again with less than 50% of the vote, the people have spoken and that was his mandate. Now the people have spoken, and the people are wrong?


I have no participation in either cry.

To me, the "people have spoken" simply means that they have elected someone.

I don't think winning an election has any guarantee of being "right" so I'm not sure you think it should be hypocritical to think the people wrong.

When the Democrats win an election I would not fault Republicans from thinking the people were wrong.

Trying to hammer an election win over the opponents' heads is silly. An ultimately marginal election victory on either side is no immediate maxim of rightness.

Quote:
Sorry, but putting cold, hard philosophical reasoning aside, this just rings really empty and only contributes to further driving a wedge to create stiffer polarization.


I agree, which is why the rhetoric about "the people have spoken" from some Republicans now is counterproductive.

They insist on various posts that Democrats now need to change their position to a Republican one merely because the Republicans won the election.

They paint it as being a matter of "listening to the people".

This may come as a surprise to some, but "the people" are not monolithic.

Yes, "the people" have spoken but they did not all say the same thing.

As with almost any election there was a winner and a loser, this does not mean the majority sudeenly gains a "right" clause to bludgeon the "wrong" minority with.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 01:08 pm
The issue has never been that the Democrats have to adopt the Republican point of view. The point was that it was okay to declare that the people have spoken when a Democrat won, but the same people are now saying that an even more decisive victory by a Republican president cannot be extrapolated into the people have spoken.

I was speaking in generalities rather than specifics Craven. Everything isn't about you personally. Smile
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 01:12 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The issue has never been that the Democrats have to adopt the Republican point of view.


For many here on these boards it is. A number of Republicans now browbeat the Democrats with the admonition to listen to "the people" (a euphemism for "the people who think like me").

Quote:
The point was that it was okay to declare that the people have spoken when a Democrat won, but the same people are now saying that an every more decisive victory by a Republican president cannot be extrapolated into the people have spoken.


I think this is an imagined example of which you have no basis for.

Quote:
I was speaking in generalities rather than specifics Craven. Everything isn't about you personally. Smile


Never did I think it was about me Foxfyre.

Frankly, I don't think you can come up with any good examples at all, much less an example of mine.

So show me an example (just one will do, as my position is that you have none whatsoever) of the "same people" doing what you claimed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2024 at 04:23:06