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

Lola wrote:

liberals are pro-respect for all religions, not just the religion of the majority.

You'll have a hard time justifying that.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Lola wrote:
liberals are pro-respect for all religions, not just the religion of the majority.

You'll have a hard time justifying that.

This is better, McG.

My Fellow Liberals,

Notice how the emphasis is still on defining liberals as something we are not. Respect for the beliefs of others requires that there be no imposition of religion. If only we could be truly free to believe and teach our children to believe as we choose. But that right is dangerously threatened. The threat is being disguised as "pro-religion" when in fact it is "pro-majority religion."

Liberals are for freedom, and respect for the rights of our fellow man. Liberals are pro-respect.

0 Replies

Quote:

This is true, but it fails to address the tug of social conservatism on many Americans who are otherwise open to the very kind of liberalism that Bryan (or, for that matter, Niebuhr) represented. It fails to deal seriously with religious moderates whose social views are broadly tolerant but who share with conservatives an unease about the direction of the culture--people who may be sympathetic to gays and lesbians but have no use for wardrobe malfunctions or trashy television. It fails to take seriously that there is loss as well as gain when too sharp a line is drawn between those in politics who emphasize social change and those who emphasize self-improvement. You do not have to be a neoconservative to believe that the public interest does depend, at least in part, on private virtue.

Private virtue according to whom? Compare the importance of one "wardrobe malfunction" to the rights and equal treatment of gays and lesbians. I mean, take a stand for something important, please.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

...Liberals are for freedom, and respect for the rights of our fellow man. Liberals are pro-respect.

Liberals are for killing Terri Schiavo and innocent babies ... but against killing convicted murderers. Compare the importance of that.

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

Pork is unprecedently out of hand with this administration.

Quote:

Fox, I gather that of your six points of criticisms regarding the Republican Party, (only) numbers 1 and 2 (and perhaps 3) would count as criticisms of the President and his administration as well?

The President and most of his administration are registered Republicans and the President is the assumed titular head of his party in practice, not by law. The president can propose an agenda but cannot enact most of it without the consent of Congress. Congress puts together a budget and enacts legislation that the President either signs into law or vetoes. That the president has not used his veto power makes him culpable in any budgetary indiscretions. When he isn't on the record as supporting or objecting to any particular action, we can assume he consents to whatever initiatives Congress undertakes or does not undertake. So we criticize or compliment the President for vision, ideas, and leadership, but it is the responsibility of Congress to follow through to get it done. The President can't spend a dime or obligate the USA to a single penny that is not first authorized by Congress and outside a very narrow process of executive privilege, the President can't do much of anything that is not authorized automatically by the Constitution or by the constitutional consent of Congress.

Lola writes

Quote:

Have you ever thought of putting money into alternative sources of energy? All other sources of energy are superior to oil in every way except expediency.

Yes, and eventually we'll have to do that. We would have already done that if the environmental wackos had not nixed development of nuclear powered energy sources. We have virtually limitless coal resources, but that industry is pretty well shut down until better environmentally-friendly ways to use it can be found. They're even objecting to the wind farms now as birds are being diced by the wind chargers. How many more wild rivers do we want to dam to generate more electricity?

Petroleum, with adequate environmental controls, is the mostly plentiful, environmentally friendly, and affordable fuel source available for many purposes, and there are sufficient reserves to take us well into the next century if we are allowed to tap it. (There is probably enough oil on the U.S. coastal shelves plus Alaskan reserves to make us entirely self sufficient for instance.) Use of petroleum now will buy us time to develop new and better energy sources for the time when the petroleum reserves run dry.

Lola writes

Quote:

What exactly is "bowing to political expediency?" If you mean that they've been forced to consider the opinion of 49 per cent of the voters and have recognized the dangers they face if they continue to push for less and less democracy, then I suggest you re-think your priorities.

Well Roosevelt thought it was a good idea. Clinton thought it was a good idea. The Democrats were one loud chorus that social security was in crisis and had to be saved until it looked the GOP might actually act to do that. So now they scare the old folks and spew their venomous propaganda that the GOP intends to dismantle social security, instead of putting their shoulder to the wheel and helping find solutions now before there truly is a crisis. The President is already starting initiatives to educate the public as to possibilities and intentions and reassure them that nothing is going to be done that is not a good thing for them and for generations to come.

Lola writes

Quote:

It's not Bush that's doing anything. And there's very little that is honest or sincere about him. The extremists in your party are driving us crazy because of the utter audacity with which they have dismembered our representative government.

And it is this kind of irresponsible rhetoric that is going to keep the GOP in office for a very long time I think. Smile

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Lola wrote:
...Liberals are for freedom, and respect for the rights of our fellow man. Liberals are pro-respect.

Liberals are for killing Terri Schiavo and innocent babies ... but against killing convicted murderers. Compare the importance of that.

Liberals are for any number of things:

Gangsterism

Bombing innocent Christian nations into the stone age for the benefit of narco terrorists

Burning churchloads of the more esoteric Christian denominations to death including women and kids because they lack the competence to nab one guy on his thrice wekly trips to the 7/11.

Selling thermonuclear secrets to the chicoms for campaign cash

Selling presidential pardons for quick spending money.

Sealing off a trillion dollar US coal asset as "national park" for the LIPPO conglomerate, again for campaign donations.

Denouncing the idea of a black conservative like Clarence Thomas telling dirty jokes as the crime of the century while laughing off entirely credible rape allegations against somebody like Slick Clinton as the boyish pranks of a typical "alpha male", whatever that means.

Insisting on a devine right to rule over judicial nominations with a 45% vote after the people have totally rejected them in the marketplace of ideas.

Running outright traitors on a presidential ticket, and conducting themselves ina generally treasonout manner during a political campaign over a two year span....

Positively preventing any new development of energy resources over a 40-year span laying the country open to blackmail by OPEC.

Destroying California via similar policies. Ann Coulter calls California a Petrie dish for liberal social experiments in which the subject has died.

I mean, I could go on, but you get the basic idea....

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Lola wrote:
...Liberals are for freedom, and respect for the rights of our fellow man. Liberals are pro-respect.

Liberals are for killing Terri Schiavo and innocent babies ... but against killing convicted murderers. Compare the importance of that.

Liberals are for any number of things:

Gangsterism

Bombing innocent Christian nations into the stone age for the benefit of narco terrorists....Destroying California via similar policies. Ann Coulter calls California a Petrie dish for liberal social experiments in which the subject has died.

I mean, I could go on, but you get the basic idea....

yyyyaawwwnnnnnn... also borrring...

0 Replies

nimh

Dionne's piece is, as usual, excellent. Thank you kindly for posting it. I think he's pretty much smack on the money. I'll do a reread a bit later but I don't think there will be much I'll contest.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Proportionately, I am reasonably certain the current administration has probably had less pork in the budget than was identifiable with prior administrations, but I'm not sufficiently interested to look it all up.

I'm not sufficiently interested in looking back up the source in question, but I did see the numbers on "pork" spending for the first few years Bush Jr was president, and they suggested very much the opposite.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nimh writes

Quote:
Fox, I gather that of your six points of criticisms regarding the Republican Party, (only) numbers 1 and 2 (and perhaps 3) would count as criticisms of the President and his administration as well?

The President and most of his administration are registered Republicans and the President is the assumed titular head of his party in practice, not by law. The president can propose an agenda but cannot enact most of it without the consent of Congress. Congress puts together a budget and enacts legislation that the President either signs into law or vetoes. That the president has not used his veto power makes him culpable in any budgetary indiscretions. When he isn't on the record as supporting or objecting to any particular action, we can assume he consents to whatever initiatives Congress undertakes or does not undertake. So we criticize or compliment the President for vision, ideas, and leadership, but it is the responsibility of Congress to follow through to get it done.

So would you criticize the President (or his administration) for a (lack of) vision when it comes to, say, immigration policy or overspending?

I'm having some trouble cutting through what you wrote to find back an answer to my question, to be honest. When you write, later on in that paragraph, that "outside a very narrow process of executive privilege, the President can't do much of anything that is not authorized by the constitutional consent of Congress", it seems to refer to how you lay the eventual responsibility for the areas of disagreement you indicated with Congress. But you do give the President credit for the various things you are happy with in terms of the last four year's results, don't you? Isn't there a bit of, what goes right is credited to the President, but what goes wrong is debited to Congress going on here?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Liberals are for killing [..] innocent babies

Embryos is the word you're looking for I think, Tico.

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

I'm having some trouble cutting through what you wrote to find back an answer to my question, to be honest. When you write, later on in that paragraph, that "outside a very narrow process of executive privilege, the President can't do much of anything that is not authorized by the constitutional consent of Congress", it seems to refer to how you lay the eventual responsibility for the areas of disagreement you indicated with Congress. But you do give the President credit for the various things you are happy with in terms of the last four year's results, don't you? Isn't there a bit of, what goes right is credited to the President, but what goes wrong is debited to Congress going on here?

Well what I am perceiving in your writing is you won't be satisfied unless I say Bush sucks. Well, in my opinion, he doesn't suck. He is a good man with good ideas and a heartfelt and sincere desire to make a positive difference. You cannot separate the President from Congress in what happens or what does and doesn't get done as both are necessary.

I have and do criticize the President for failure to exercise more leadership in the points I raised. Failure to exercise sufficient leadership is not the same thing as holding him exclusively responsible for what has happened or is happening as we have a government in which one person or one group of people can't call all the shots.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Liberals are for killing [..] innocent babies

Embryos is the word you're looking for I think, Tico.

What about "fetuses"? That seems to be another popular euphamism among the pro-abortion crowd.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Dionne's piece is, as usual, excellent. Thank you kindly for posting it. I think he's pretty much smack on the money. I'll do a reread a bit later but I don't think there will be much I'll contest.

I'm glad you liked it, Blatham. I swear I first wrote my own post, and only then looked his article back up - and subsequently re-reading my post, I found I had unconsciously incorporated at least one entire description of his in my own words, even though its several weeks ago that I read the piece.

Lola wrote:

Everyone is welcome, as far as I'm concerned nimh. But what I think you are missing is that we have no organized Christians who care about the poor, other than to use the opportunity to proselytize.

That's just not true though Lola. Take the conservative Republican Bob Riley from Alabama. He seems to fit the Christian Union model pretty well. In another era of liberalism, he might have been an ally of leftists. Now, he was ignored by them. More info in what, alas, is one of my five least viewed threads of all time: Sounds like a Republican after my heart ...

Lola wrote:

The point of the article above is that liberals are anti-religious.

I don't think it is.

0 Replies

I should amend my previous post to exclude the social security issue from those areas in which I think the President has not exercised adequate leadership. In this he has been superb. And he has been right.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:
Embryos is the word you're looking for I think, Tico.

What about "fetuses"? That seems to be another popular euphamism among the pro-abortion crowd.

If its not born yet, it's not a baby yet. Thats not a question of "euphemisms", its pretty much dictionary stuff.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well what I am perceiving in your writing is you won't be satisfied unless I say Bush sucks.

Nope, I was just kinda non-plussed at an apparent inability to give a straight answer to the question of what you would hold against the President('s administration). There's always something you dont like, isnt there? I'll chalk it up to the two-party system with its mentality of opposing camps and the taboo on overtly criticizing your own that comes with it. I was glad with McG's and your earlier answer re: the GOP though. I think some of the most creative/productive results emerge from when one is critically reflecting on one's own side. As you'll have noticed ;-)

0 Replies

Well you can't separate the President or the Republicans in Congress from the GOP as they are all part of the same party. You asked the question re the administration without designating how you defined that. So you got the broad answer. "Administration" can mean anything from the President and his cabinet/staff to the combined Executive/Legislative branches to a period of history. Had you asked for what we would specifically critiicze George W. Bush as President of the United States you would have received a different answer.

You have to ask clearly defined questions in order to get a clearly defined answer. Otherwise people are going to answer what they think you asked.
(edited to correct dumb mistake.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
Lola writes
Quote:
It's not Bush that's doing anything. And there's very little that is honest or sincere about him. The extremists in your party are driving us crazy because of the utter audacity with which they have dismembered our representative government.

And it is this kind of irresponsible rhetoric that is going to keep the GOP in office for a very long time I think.

Notice, if you will, how not only is what I said labeled as rhetoric, but it's irresponsible rhetoric. Such big words. It's only irresponsible if it's not true. Since what I said is true, it would irresponsible not to point it out.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
nimh wrote:
Embryos is the word you're looking for I think, Tico.

What about "fetuses"? That seems to be another popular euphamism among the pro-abortion crowd.

If its not born yet, it's not a baby yet. Thats not a question of "euphemisms", its pretty much dictionary stuff.

How about .... "If its not born yet, you can kill it." That pretty much encapsulate your thinking on this issue?

When you -- I mean -- when a pregnant woman goes to her doctor to have a sonogram, what do you think they call the little moving thing in her uterus? The nurse/doctor doesn't say: "There ... see your little embryo?" Or: "See your little fetus?"

I'll answer that for you ... they say: "See your little baby?" Not certain whether they resorted to a dictionary before doing so.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1050822#1050822

0 Replies

Lola, you don't think 'dismembered our representative government' is rhetoric? Shocked

0 Replies

Help, help! I'm being held against my will by a concerned citizen for the preservation of me.

He says if I read anymore of this, I'll go crazy and jump off my balcony to the street 19 floors below.

I protest!

(even though he is as right as right can be.) I can't take any more of this until I have a long nap. Hopefully then, I'll be less depressed and can be civil again. But I'll tell you that neither the walk or my work out at the gym helped. Although my physical appearance will be all the better for it. And that's a good thing, coming now into Spring in New York City.

Oh God! you people depress me.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know