the same as the republican platform only it's spun 180, in todays world anyone that votes republican or democratic on the basis that one is better than the other is a damn fool and hasn't the guts to actually vote for someone (3rd party) who more clearly matches their own political idealsim, (cowards)
...unless the third party is a bunch of friggin lunatics. In which case, you did better voting for the crappy Dems or Pubs.
GW-- What's the Dem platform...?
Here's a link Lash:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dem_Platform_2004.htm
I don't feel qualified to speak for the Democratic party, but I can tell you the big issues for me are the environment, reproduction rights and deficit spending.
Excuse me if I don't get back tonight, I'm dealing with a dog that refuses to pee.
Lash, you once chastized me for asking just what was Bush's plan for social security reform and then stated something to the effect that his "plan" was common knowledge, it wasn't then and it isn't now. You accepted the spin that Bush had a plan and rebuked the dems for now offering a plan of their own when in fact Bush offered no plan and has not to this date. that was an excellent example of pretending that Bush had a plan and the dems were simply being obstructive by not offering a plan of their own. This is typical of both sides of the aisle but it also is immensely stupid and serves no one well. Bush apparently made his speech last night to demonstrate that he as a "plan" for Iraq, and then proceeded to offer no such thing. For whatever reason, good or not, the people will tire (they already are) of the cost in so many ways, of the failed invasion of Iraq. You can, of course, continue to pretend that for some unknown reason Republicans have some superior agenda over the Democrats but you would only be deluding yourself to the same degree that Democrats delude themselves. Bus will, eventually, be in a position to only offer "peace with honour" and bug out of Iraq by claiming he has won the war on terrorism (which can never be "won") If you so need to "win" a war you need to stick with Reaganism and only invade such nations as Grenada.
ehBeth wrote:Brandon, it seems Green Witch is trying to get at the difference between political conservatives and American Republicans. They can be rather different critters.
The whole "political spectrum" issue often comes into this discussion, as people don't agree on what "conservative" means - and it means different things in different cultures at different times.
A conservative who believes in small government / minimal government involvement in personal affairs is likely going to have some difficulty reconciling him/herself to what Republicans are about now in America. The growth of the U.S. government in recent years, and the Schiavo case are very simple examples of where an old-school conservative Republican may no longer recognize the party that once represented him/her.
You say this as a conservative, or as a Republican? Forgive me, but I am not sure you are qualified to understand what we think. Your above description certainly does not represent me, a conservative Republican. So, now you're telling us what
we think?
Green Witch wrote:Brandon -I'm sure there are people who are happy with the Bush Adminstration. Many liberals would be happy if Ralph Nader was sitting in the seat, but that does not mean all liberals would be happy with that choice. I just don't think conservative platforms are any more honest than liberal platforms when it comes to politics. You have to look at your source and decide how much is "gospel" and how much is propaganda. Biased sources on both sides are fond of propaganda. I think the sources you listed could be called biased. I try to find more neutral sources for information.
As to undermining Bush - I don't think the liberals have a monopoly on that. I think the hounding of Clinton was just as bad, and just like Clinton, I think Bush supplies the ammunition for his critics.
I think the hounding of Clinton was almost as bad. As to the radio shows, what about the thousands of callers from all over the country whom I have heard. Conservatives are generally happy with Bush, and the most common area of unhappiness is that he doesn't do what he does even more aggressively. I'm sorry to have to point out that you are not an expert on conservative thought.
Green Witch wrote:I hadn't thought of it before, but I think part of what triggered my head scratching about this issue was my elderly father. Big Republican in his day, he's kind of losing it now. Bush was on some TV news channel talking about the war and my father turns to me and says something to the effect of 'That (edited for niceness) Democrat can't make a simple statement without tripping over his own ignorance" . I remind him Bush is a Republican - he looks at me with open eyes and says "no way, no Republican would vote for that guy". Maybe ehBeth is right, many old time Republicans can't reconize their own party anymore.
I find it incredible that the liberals are now representing themselves as authorities on what we think.
dyslexia wrote:Lash, you once chastized me for asking just what was Bush's plan for social security reform and then stated something to the effect that his "plan" was common knowledge, it wasn't then and it isn't now. You accepted the spin that Bush had a plan and rebuked the dems for now offering a plan of their own when in fact Bush offered no plan and has not to this date. that was an excellent example of pretending that Bush had a plan and the dems were simply being obstructive by not offering a plan of their own. This is typical of both sides of the aisle but it also is immensely stupid and serves no one well. Bush apparently made his speech last night to demonstrate that he as a "plan" for Iraq, and then proceeded to offer no such thing. For whatever reason, good or not, the people will tire (they already are) of the cost in so many ways, of the failed invasion of Iraq. You can, of course, continue to pretend that for some unknown reason Republicans have some superior agenda over the Democrats but you would only be deluding yourself to the same degree that Democrats delude themselves. Bus will, eventually, be in a position to only offer "peace with honour" and bug out of Iraq by claiming he has won the war on terrorism (which can never be "won") If you so need to "win" a war you need to stick with Reaganism and only invade such nations as Grenada.
dys--
No matter what either of us think about Bush's SS plan, he has been running up one side and down the other trying to tell people what his plan to reform SS is. I don't know how you could miss it. I would think you'd have become nauseated hearing it so much.
The same with his plan for Iraq.
Stay until Iraq is self-sufficient. That's it in a sentence.
Why do you act as though you don't know what his plans are? Don't agree with them if you don't want to--but how can you act as though you haven't heard both a multitude of times?
Can't imagine "chastising" you, though.
At the risk of getting my head bitten off - Brandon I don't think that was the point. I say that because I've got much the same confusion.
Quote:The whole "political spectrum" issue often comes into this discussion, as people don't agree on what "conservative" means - and it means different things in different cultures at different times
A very salient point. Political definitions shift like the sand. Before the Republicans and Democrats didn't America have Whigs and Tories?(genuine question - not rhetorical).
And on ehBeth's point about conservatives and big government. My understanding of conservatives is that they prefer a minimal form of government - especially in the economy, while others want more government involvement (sort of free marketeers v Keynesians).
Lash, FLASH! There is no emergency in Social Security. Past administrations have "talked" about the need to address social security, but Bush makes it sound as if it needs to be handled during his term. Not true; it needs to be handled 'soon,' but it's not a CRITICAL ISSUE compared to many other needs of our citizens.
BTW, Bush's "private investments" will(has) fail(ed), so now he's back-tracking.
Says you. I don't consider you a valuable source of information.
I don't want a bunch af indecisive know-nothing Democrats to loll around and when it IS a critical issue, look around for someone to blame.
Why do you even bother to respond? LOL
Why do you? LOL!!
You can't seem to stay away from my posts. You follow me around.
Brandon9000 wrote: You say this as a conservative, or as a Republican? Forgive me, but I am not sure you are qualified to understand what we think. Your above description certainly does not represent me, a conservative Republican. So, now you're telling us what we think?
Brandon --
In your opinion, would Barry Goldwater qualify as someone who would "understand what we think"?
Wikiquote.org cites a 1994 interview with the Washington Post, where he talked about recent developments in the Republican party, and expressed just the kind of alienation with them that I think Green Witch was getting at.
Barry Goldwater wrote:"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. "
A Google search on (Barry Goldwater quotes) brings a lot of Goldwater citations that no young Republican could make today. Not if he wants a carreer in politics. From eyeballing the quotes, they make up about a quarter of the total, so we're not talking about something marginal here. For example:
Barry Goldwater also wrote:"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
"If everybody in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of chasing women and drinking, you would have no government."
I cannot speak for Green Witch -- but I think she was getting at the apparent conflict between what Republicans of Goldwater's generation believed in and what the leadership of today's Republican Party officialy believe in. And just to prevent misunderstandings, my intention in posting those quotes is to document that conflict whose existence you appear to doubt -- not to put down the present generation of Republicans.
Lash wrote:dyslexia wrote:Lash, you once chastized me for asking just what was Bush's plan for social security reform and then stated something to the effect that his "plan" was common knowledge, it wasn't then and it isn't now. You accepted the spin that Bush had a plan and rebuked the dems for now offering a plan of their own when in fact Bush offered no plan and has not to this date. that was an excellent example of pretending that Bush had a plan and the dems were simply being obstructive by not offering a plan of their own. This is typical of both sides of the aisle but it also is immensely stupid and serves no one well. Bush apparently made his speech last night to demonstrate that he as a "plan" for Iraq, and then proceeded to offer no such thing. For whatever reason, good or not, the people will tire (they already are) of the cost in so many ways, of the failed invasion of Iraq. You can, of course, continue to pretend that for some unknown reason Republicans have some superior agenda over the Democrats but you would only be deluding yourself to the same degree that Democrats delude themselves. Bus will, eventually, be in a position to only offer "peace with honour" and bug out of Iraq by claiming he has won the war on terrorism (which can never be "won") If you so need to "win" a war you need to stick with Reaganism and only invade such nations as Grenada.
dys--
No matter what either of us think about Bush's SS plan, he has been running up one side and down the other trying to tell people what his plan to reform SS is. I don't know how you could miss it. I would think you'd have become nauseated hearing it so much.
The same with his plan for Iraq.
Stay until Iraq is self-sufficient. That's it in a sentence.
Why do you act as though you don't know what his plans are? Don't agree with them if you don't want to--but how can you act as though you haven't heard both a multitude of times?
Can't imagine "chastising" you, though.
Ok call me a silly goose but what I have seen/read/heard from the White House is that there is/will be a serious problem with funding SS and a request that a solution should contain privatized accounts. So perhaps I don't get around as much as I used to but that, in my opinion, does not constitute a "plan" anymore than "when Iraq is self-sufficient" is a plan for the US involvement in Iraq. I tend to think a "plan" would have some degree of substance. Lets say I have a goal to live a happy fulfilled life and I announce that my "plan" is to become rich, would you accept that to be a considered operational agenda? I wouldn't.
Perhaps I might be best able to shed some light on this question, or at least try.
Being raised Mennonite, conservatism floated in the very air we breathed. It was also in the very cabbage soup we ate, but there, for some reason, it sank to the bottom. Ours was a strict upbringing...no dancing, no lipstick, actually we weren't even allowed to grow pubic hair until fifteen.
There came a point, though, where we - my loving family, that is - splintered off from the main community about us. The urge and the direction of change was liberal in nature. I confess that partly we suffered temptation for material things. It wasn't long before mom had a ride-on butter churner. But also, there was another liberalizing influence, though my siblings and I had no inkling of this until both of my parents had passed on and mother's diary was discovered. The relevant passages surprised us at first, but in retrospect, I think it makes sense. We were left with one unexplained mystery though as mother never said just why it was dad had brought the buggy whip into their bedroom in the first place.
We became something new in this splintering. We became Mennolites. Still, we held fast to certain conservative roots. For example, when mother died, we followed the traditional ways and stuffed her with sawdust, then stitched her up and left her out for the dogs to play with.
So, direct any questions you might have on this subject to me directly and I'll do my best to help.
Sincerely
Quote:When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
Brandon,
You say "trying to?" Please look around you. These "fellows," the religious right
have taken over the Republican Party. They've been at it for thirty years. The Republicans decided to win by courting the Christian fanatics, and now the real Republicans have no party without them. I think it was Ralph Reed, but I'm not sure and I don't have time to look it up, but Ralph or someone like him said, during some campaign in the 90s, I think it was the 92 said, "we (the religious right) don't have enough votes to win the election alone, but we have enough votes to [cause the Republicans] to lose it." Thanks not an exact quotation, but close. Getting rid of this million pound gorilla will not be easy for any of us.
(Barry Goldwater said it, not Brandon.)
(Btw I share Thomas' take on Green Witch's intentions here -- honorable intentions, and I think she's done a great job of keeping things on track and ignoring bait. Still reading with interest.)
