Old vs New USA
- Thread starter ledroit
- Start date
- b.c.,
Appreciate your interesting and thought provoking posts. Read it all earlier but decided to digest it over a breakfast (involving some rather tiny biscuits - "take two, they're small").
Without going over everything previously discussed I'll touch on a few points made (or my understanding of the gist of them):
1. You seem to favor a third alternative to both parties that, as you quite astutely pointed, have failed to live up to their promise. While this is perhaps a preferable option given that fact, the reality is (for the present at least) that we have only these two candidates to choose from.
As I've already stated, given that, one is left with two choices: (1) pick the candidate/party that you think most closely embraces (or as you suggest promises to embrace) that ideology closer to your own; or (2) make no choice at all, thereby leaving the choice to everyone else.
2. Yes I agree, neither party quite lives up to their promise. I do not think Obama ignorant of the partisanship he will encounter. I am neither intoxicated by the man nor dissuaded by the similarity of the promise to that which has been promised before.
I'm am however in support of the "promise" (at least) because I am opposed to the "promise" of four years of McCain; even if neither promise cannot be fully realized because of the nature of our goverment.
The gist of the point I think you make being that real change doesn't occur under either party. This is because whoever is president has to work with Congress and so many others. Change (real change) doesn't occur too suddenly in our democracy anyway (THANK GOD). Our founding fathers had the foresight (in that "balance of powers" thingy) to prevent that from occurring.
But while neither party quite lives up to their promise, either can affect change in subtle ways that can have not-so-subtle effects of one's life - the selection of Supreme Court justices for example. (Here I could go into many examples of such but I think you get my point).
3. My reference to the successful being penalized is to something you originally wrote. I gathered by "penalized" you meant via taxes and you went through lengths to substantiate this argument, the gist of which (I think you're asking) is at what point is taxation fair or punitive?
I understand your arguments and position about taxes, the concerns under the capital gains proposals, the feeling of your tax dollars going to supporting someone else. I'm part of that heavily burdened middle-class too. In some way form or fashion I guess we all (those of us who work at least) feel "penalized".
I can only say that my personal view is that Republican ideology favors the wealthiest among us (though some believe that also favors the less wealthy - trickle down philosophy). And since I am not among that upper 1/3 of our society, I am more inclined to embrace an ideology while, perhaps not perfect, is less likely to penalize the middle class on behalf of those who have more.
(And yes, Im not exactly tickled pink about being "penalized" for those who have less either, though I am more understanding of the need for it more so than Id be for code that favors the wealthy).
4. Your ideas re. the financing of affordable healthcare are...well...interesting. But legalization of marijuana is less likely to happen than that third party alternative you allude to.
Again I understand (and agree) with your objection to paying for someone else's health coverage, and that you should have the option to elect (and pay for) your own coverage without having to pay double for yours (through payroll deductions or premiums) and someone else's (through taxes). The proposed plan provides for the former but doesn't exclude the latter. Nevertheless, I'd continue to maintain my own personal coverage under such a plan.
(BTW, part of the plan addresses the high costs of healthcare. I personally believe that there should be some kind of across the board limitations to healthcare and hospital charges too. Damn! Five dollars for a Tylenol seems rather steep, dont you think?)
Last edited:
Obama = Good + New
McCain = Bad + Old
Even a common garden slug could entertain a more nuanced worldview, wouldn't you say?
midlifebear
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Posts
- 5,789
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 179
- Points
- 133
- Location
- Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
And WHAT PRECISELY have republicans done this past 12 years to address this?
Irresponsible borrowing? How unlike the greatest generation.
Refusing to DRAFT an Army to fight a major war? How unlike the greatest generation.
The greatest generation PAID for a war with victory gardens and RATIONING- with metal and rubber drives to- with War Bonds....
The Republicans have not done ANY of this- just encouraged Americans to rack up debt buying crap.
Look
I agree with your characterization and admiration of My father's generation...
I just don't see ANY of it in THIS crop of republicans.
That greatest generation that you point to was born and raised in the GREAT DEPRESSION--- another economic fiasco created by free market theory.
They were raised under FDR- the NEW DEAL- they got electricity thru the TVA and jobs thru govenrment jobs programs... The greatest generation was the generation that organized LABOR unions... and drove wages up thru strikes and collective bargaining.
They are the generation that VOTED FOR Social Security- and Medicare....
They bought their first homes thru the G.I. Bill- and a great many of them got their medical care thru Veterans Administration Hospitals. ( a national health care system)
You claim to admire the greatest generation and their pluck and repsonsiblity and work ethic...
But you don't even KNOW anything about them... about the nation they were raised in...
A nation where government HELPED it citizens to have opportunities to thrive.
A nation of regulated markets... and expanding civil rights...
You want another great generation?
Vote for the party that helped CREATE the greatest generation.
The Generation that had all the benefits you conservatives imagine they didn't.
Stop LYING about the past to further a cruel and compassionless agenda.
This is a COMMUNITY we live in.
The greatest generation understood that-
That's why THEY VOTED FOR SOCIAL REFORMS.
Last edited:
ironic, since the democrats helped to repeal those laws (Glass Steagall) which had worked in regulating the markets for 66 years (1933-1999) when powerful democrats insured that those regulated market laws were revoked, right next to their republican buddies...Schumer, Dodd, Biden, Edwards, and PResident Clinton smiled on as they helped push it through and repeal those regulations.
also ironic, since the democratic party was not, in fact, the party of civil rights up until the schism of Nixon's southern strategy, when all the vicious, conservative racist democrats in the south, flipped, and became what are todays, vicious, racist, conservative republicans....all the progressives left the Republican party to join the new democrats.
or do you not recall those southern democratic governors who opposed de-segregation? spare me.
the democrats who voted for the new deal, had a lot of help from the evil southern democrats, who felt the new deal was great...as long as it did not include blacks.
FDR appointed two noted segregationists to the supreme court, just FYI...ah those lovely old new deal democrats...South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes and Alabama Democratic Senator Hugo Black(Klan Member)
Senator Robert Byrd - Democrat (Klan Member) i guess he was on of those great civil rights crusaders too...after all, he took to the senate floor for a famed 14 hour fillibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it only passsed when republican leader everett dirksen invoked cloture so it coud pass
it is funny that he is now referred to as the conscience of the democrats.
or how about Ernest Hollings, the "liberal" democratic senator from South Carolina?
He rose out of the Democrat Party's segregationist wing in the 1960's as governor of South Carolina. While in office as governor, Hollings personally led the opposition to lunch counter integration in his state. The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that then-governor Hollings "warned today that South Carolina would not permit 'explosive' manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services." According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he "challenged President Eisenhower's contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations" against segregation. In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as "confused" and asserted that Eisenhower had done "great damage to peace and good order" by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at the lunch counters.
Governor Hollings' support for segregation continued throughout his term and included his attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist Democrats to organize their opposition to the civil rights movement. Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them Democrats. The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting, noting that among the strategies discussed were using the segregationist White Citizens Council organization to mobilize political opposition to desegregation.
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement: A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.
Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.
Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats:
- Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's political heroes
- George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama
- Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia
The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Courts order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.
Democrats and segregation?!?!?! Nooooooooooooooooooooo...I can't believe it.
spare me the hypocrisy.
when you use the terms cruel or compassionless in regards to the republicans, please at least make sure you spread the jelly of your hypocrisy evenly over your political party toast.
You will excuse me if do not exactly compare Obama and Biden to FDR and Truman....LOL
don't you dare call me it as you, who sit there on your soapbox who voted for Reagan and George Bush the 1st have the nerve to talk about lying and compassionless agendas...YOU voted for those agendas...four times apparently, in a row...(Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush) i never did. what a hero you are.
you are a hypocritical liar, Phil....it would not be so despicable if you argued with me on the facts, but the fact that you need to lie about my political leanings while cloaking yourself in righteousness, when you in fact voted into power the beginning of the conservative revolution, (Reagan) is utterly hysterical in its pathetic irony.
I vote for social reforms...i do not vote for this "new generation" that has no business comparing itself to the greatest generation, which you somehow insultingly try to compare to the greatest generation as if they bore even 1% of the resmblance to that generation.
that generation sacrificed everything, and received what was deserved in return.
this generation sacrifieces nothing, and wants what is not deserved, yet cloak themselves in their phony and totally offbase comparisons to a generation whose, if you'll pardon the language, jockstrap they could not even pretend to hold.
Texting alot, saying like three times in a sentence, and shouting Obama for Change, does not put a 20 year old on a par with the generation that saved the world and changed this nation...
that 20 year old wants change without sacrifice, and wants more change and support than is deserved.
as an american, i support a safety net, i support unemployment insurance, i support a *FAIR* universal healthcare system, i support the GI Bill, I support Social Security, I support MEdicaire/medicaid, i support, free public education, i support food stamps, i support safe and affordable public housing...
you have some nerve, to trot out "COMMUNITY" to me, and to say that i somehow *OWE* this generation *MORE* than that which is listed in the paragraph above, on *MY* dime, when they have done absolutely fuck-all to deserve anything more than the absolute *BOUNTY* they already have....i tell you what...you grab one of these young Obama supporters, have him tell me how unfair it all is, and i will take his concerns, to a young man in Ghana who wishes he had the same type of opportunities...and offering him citizenship and the same package deal that this young american is complaining about, and make the same exact offer to the young Ghanian, and see if he wants to take a crack at the whole "unfair american dream thing"...i bet i know what he will say...the fact is, that this new generation of americans, does not have the first idea of what being an american means, and the people who actually *WANT* to come here, are far betterr representative of the american dream and the great society thEN these spoiled, ignorant kids are.
until then, i will be voting independent...again.
you will excuse me if i laugh when you tell me that i do not know anything about the greatest generation, when you have the gall to somehow compare this one to that one, when they sit on their ass reaping the fruits of what that greatest generation did NOT have, and fought and worked to get.
spare me the hypocrisy.
when you use the terms cruel or compassionless in regards to the republicans, please at least make sure you spread the jelly of your hypocrisy evenly over your political party toast.
LOL...you have the *NERVE* to say that the *CURRENT* democratic party bears *ANY* resemblance to the democratic party of the "New DEal"...laughable, in the extreme.
You will excuse me if do not exactly compare Obama and Biden to FDR and Truman....LOL
one. don't you dare call me a conservative, while accusing me of "lying" about the past. I am an independent, and have never voted for a republican or a democrat in my life. I support gay rights, the environemnt, universal health care, legalization of marijuana among many other things...
don't you dare call me it as you, who sit there on your soapbox who voted for Reagan and George Bush the 1st have the nerve to talk about lying and compassionless agendas...YOU voted for those agendas...four times apparently, in a row...(Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush) i never did. what a hero you are.
you are a hypocritical liar, Phil....it would not be so despicable if you argued with me on the facts, but the fact that you need to lie about my political leanings while cloaking yourself in righteousness, when you in fact voted into power the beginning of the conservative revolution, (Reagan) is utterly hysterical in its pathetic irony.
[/quote]
I vote for social reforms...i do not vote for this "new generation" that has no business comparing itself to the greatest generation, which you somehow insultingly try to compare to the greatest generation as if they bore even 1% of the resmblance to that generation.
that generation sacrificed everything, and received what was deserved in return.
this generation sacrifieces nothing, and wants what is not deserved, yet cloak themselves in their phony and totally offbase comparisons to a generation whose, if you'll pardon the language, jockstrap they could not even pretend to hold.
Texting alot, saying like three times in a sentence, and shouting Obama for Change, does not put a 20 year old on a par with the generation that saved the world and changed this nation...
that 20 year old wants change without sacrifice, and wants more change and support than is deserved.
as an american, i support a safety net, i support unemployment insurance, i support a *FAIR* universal healthcare system, i support the GI Bill, I support Social Security, I support MEdicaire/medicaid, i support, free public education, i support food stamps, i support safe and affordable public housing...
you have some nerve, to trot out "COMMUNITY" to me, and to say that i somehow *OWE* this generation *MORE* than that which is listed in the paragraph above, on *MY* dime, when they have done absolutely fuck-all to deserve anything more than the absolute *BOUNTY* they already have....i tell you what...you grab one of these young Obama supporters, have him tell me how unfair it all is, and i will take his concerns, to a young man in Ghana who wishes he had the same type of opportunities...and offering him citizenship and the same package deal that this young american is complaining about, and make the same exact offer to the young Ghanian, and see if he wants to take a crack at the whole "unfair american dream thing"...i bet i know what he will say...the fact is, that this new generation of americans, does not have the first idea of what being an american means, and the people who actually *WANT* to come here, are far betterr representative of the american dream and the great society thEN these spoiled, ignorant kids are.
until then, i will be voting independent...again.
you will excuse me if i laugh when you tell me that i do not know anything about the greatest generation, when you have the gall to somehow compare this one to that one, when they sit on their ass reaping the fruits of what that greatest generation did NOT have, and fought and worked to get.
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
Sorry pal- I call em as I see em.
And that is not an argument.
I am not saying Democrats are faultess- I am saying they generally have more compassion for average people than do republicans.
Who gets served is what I look at and Republicans serve the rich. And the religious.
Republicans Refuse to comply with subpoena but Clinton complied when he got served.
IF you can't see the difference, then you really are not an independent- you're just indifferent.
LOL? really? LOL? What are you, 12?
Are you saying the current republican Party bears any resemblance to the party of Lincoln? of Eisenhower?
You keep pulling shit out of your ass that is immaterial. I look at Clinton's presidency and see a democratic party that is BETTER than that of FDR. Better than that of LBJ.
LESS willing to spend, MORE fiscally moderate. Yet still willing to back the needs of the middle class and poor.
Again...
You have a CHOICE to make... what the fuck parameters will YOU make that choice on?
Come next January...We will have EITHER a republican or a democrat at the wheel. PERIOD.
What part will you play in that result?
Again with the LOL?
Your unsubstantiated "claims" of mirth notwithstanding...
Truman was not VP when FDR had to deal with the depression. Garner was.
And I can tell you this... the pressure on Obama to be a "great" president will be far greater than any other candidate. I like the idea that he is not only playing for himself- but for an entire race. For an entire idea that White Old Men are not the only pool for leadership.
However, Again... you are full of critique...
That doesn't impress me. Any jackass can critique.
What the fuck are you FOR?
Fuck off with your dare...
If you can accuse me of being a democrat I can accuse you being a Oompa Loompa- so fucking what?
So- you have never voted effectively in your life? Greate strategy... Who HAVE you voted for?
Of those 4 items you list ONE party with a chance to win fully endorses at least 3 and will consider the forth...
has ALREADY legalized medical marijuana in several states.
You can Whine all day about politics and politicians... I feel very much the same. They are all ambitious manipulators seeking power...
But I could give a rat's ass about how you FEEL about the personalities involved..
This is about GETTING THINGS DONE.
Democrats in power are more likely to endorse the issues you claim to care about.
Some third party boutique candidate has NO chance to get elected, and therefore NO chance to support your agenda.
YET- your vote for a third party nobody COULD increase the chance that a Republican will get into office... a Party that VIOLENTLY OPPOSES EVERY ONE OF YOUR STATED POSITIONS.
So, seriously... if you really are interested in the agenda you espouse... it seems you would have to be a functional idiot to not vote for the option most likely to further your interests.
simmer down, missy... maybe you just aren't old enough to remember, but things were different way back when.
I voted for Ford because the alternative was Carter- who simply did not have the teeth for the times.
Ford was a pretty good president. His handling of the Mayaguez incident was masterful.
I was incensed that he let Nixon off the hook... but again, the only other option was Carter.
I liked Carter, personally... I still think he was one of the most ethical and decent men we have ever had in office... But he was ineffectual with both economic and geopolitical crises... And an ineffectual president is not good for anyone.
I voted for Reagan the first time- because the option was Carter... But I was not happy about it.
Once he was in office, the character of the republican party began its dramatic transformation into what we see today.
By the time of Reagan's second election, I voted against him vehemently.
While I feel he did a fairly good job of restoring the credibility of the US and the office... I began to see a move in Republican platform that made religious extremism acceptable as party policy.
I voted for Bush 1 because he was a good president. He understood foreign policy and managed to do exactly what he said he would do and no more.
However, I voted for Clinton rather than Bush 1 again because Clinton was a better choice. HE had the intelligence of Bush 1 PLUS the more liberal social agenda I prefer.
I was DELIGHTED to discover that he was also a fiscal moderate.
And voted for him again.
So- to be clear...
MY record shows I am TRUELY an independant. Not in thrall to any specific party.
I vote for the candidate who, at the time, has the policies and credentials that I feel will best further the needs of this nation... Not merely MY agenda... but the overall needs of the greatest number.
Thus far- you claim independence... but offer ZERO evidence that you are willing to evaluate honestly any party's platform.
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
WOAH there!... despicable? Bullshit- you have not argued ANY facts at all-
You have argued nonsense about bills passed that some democrats voted aimed at helping the poor get into housing...... NONE of which resulted in economic collapse.
You are an class A dissembler...
THIS post you come off as FAR MORE PISSED at the republicans... espousing traditionally democratic agendas...in previous posts you are shitting on me for attacking rebulicans and praising democrats' record on the very agenda you NOW reveal you endorse.
Make up your fucking mind.
Pick a position... or are you simply schizophrenic?
Blah blah blah-- you don't know the first thing about the greatest generation. Show me some fucking evidence to support your claim.
Make an argument based in RESULTS not vote tallies on some obscure bill from 30 years ago that did not cause a meltdown.
And lemme tell ya.
LIBERALS, by and large, are still just as civic minded as they were.
And Liberals HAVE a party.
BACK IT... or back off.
Try a little chronology, honey- the crash of 29 was perpetrated by the same kind of ENDEMIC greed that cause this recent crash. Same fucks playing fast and loose with money to get rich.
The New Deal PRECEDED any "sacrifice" by the greatest generation.
Most of them were CHILDREN.
They grew up to EXPECT a government that would help the poor and downtrodden. Grew up to their father's stories of strikebreakers and unions.
And they Sacrificed because they had a sense of civic duty.
ALL citizens Deserve their government to treat them equally... to help spur opportunity for those on the lowest tier.
I don't know who you are talking about. But I do know you are full of shit.
People are people- They respond to leadership and rise to a challenge.
They ALWAYS have and they ALWAYS will.
Its not this generation's fault that their leaders never ask anything of them but to go shopping.
Its not their fault that no leader stands up and ASKS for sacrifice.
Maybe you should talk to the men and women who serve in this stupid ass war.
Who lay their asses on the line every day because their nations ASKED them to.
And, as to the greatest generation?
They are now the OLD fucks who watch Bill Orielly and believe everything he tells them. They are the ones who IMAGINE they did it all themsleves and forgot how much the government was there for them.
So - really, knock it the fuck off with your ridiculously unrealistic glorification of the "greatest Generation".
They were the SAME as you and me.
You, Flashy, are nothing but a pessimist who has no respect for your fellow man.
you talk out of both sides of your face to suit whatever whine you want to make, but STAND for nothing and for no one.
You fantasize about a "generation" you imagine were better, but who, TODAY form the core of people who are Opposed to everyhting you claim to believe in.
The folks RAISED under the new deal are, for the most part, the very folks who OPPOSE social programs.
They are so great, they forgot how they got that way.
You have revealed yourself to have NO consistent stance on Any issue.
You CLAIM to be an independent, but then attack me for actually VOTING as an independent.
You say you don't "LIKE" any party, but then list a democratic laundry list of positions.
I am really not impressed by the mental Flip-flopping and nay-saying that passes for "thinking" in your head...
When you can Stand for the party that WILL support YOUR agenda.. because they can actually get into office...
let me know.
When you can think strategically about how to achieve your stated aims, and then act to further those aims, let me know.
But until then... your complaints and denigrations of all sides are less than nothing....
the're aimless.
I have far more respect for FaceKing for taking a stand than I ever will of someone who does nothing but kvetch.
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
PS-
Voting ineffectually is stupid.
I don't care how much you hate democrats... their platform supports most of your issues.
RIGHT NOW, THIS time around, They CAN get into unobstructed power if enough "independents" vote for Democrats.
Given your stated aims... voting for ANY OTHER PARTY is a vote to NOT further your agenda.
Think it thru...
there WILL be either a Democrat or a Republican in office.
THINK about how it will affect Congress- how each potential result will Work , or Not Work to your benefit.
And if you imagine your "independent" candidate is any less a politician than the ones likely to win... that they will be any more immune to the temptations of power than the Democrats and Republicans...
Then you are truly kidding yourself...
Voting ineffectually is stupid.
I don't care how much you hate democrats... their platform supports most of your issues.
RIGHT NOW, THIS time around, They CAN get into unobstructed power if enough "independents" vote for Democrats.
Given your stated aims... voting for ANY OTHER PARTY is a vote to NOT further your agenda.
Think it thru...
there WILL be either a Democrat or a Republican in office.
THINK about how it will affect Congress- how each potential result will Work , or Not Work to your benefit.
And if you imagine your "independent" candidate is any less a politician than the ones likely to win... that they will be any more immune to the temptations of power than the Democrats and Republicans...
Then you are truly kidding yourself...
- pym,
Phil, Lighten up a little. I really enjoy to read your points of view and have great respect for your insights regarding the Political climate we all are currently {enjoying?}. I will say this, i am no expert on political matters, and sort of look up to those whose points of view i can digest. I usally feel that way when i read your posts, AND Flashy's. I really don't think that either of you 2 gentlemen are so far polar opposed that a common ground can't be seen betwixt yourselves. I think it would be a very respectfull thing if both of you guy's toned down your demeanors a bit. It is much nicer to read a post that is educational rather than a personal attack between 2 thoughtfull, and intelligent gentlemen. I don't think Flashy is half the bad guy your building him up to be. I know through his posting's on this site that he is a very thoughtfull person who cares very deeply about love of family, Nature conservancy, Liberal lifestyles, and social programs that care for those that NEED them. I get the same exact feeling about you too Phil, via your posts. That make's both of you guy's pretty much ace's in my book. So why the HATE?
wow. what have I missed? I haven't read all the posts.
I do think the most "liberal" president we've had in a long time is GW Bush. Absolutely liberal toward himself, conservative only toward those who disagreed with him.
I don't think the dems are more compassionate. I think they are just reality-based. The reality is that we are all in this together, and none of us does or achieves anything absolutely on our own. Golden rule stuff.
But it's not based on feelings and emotions, like many of the GOP "beliefs" are. It makes better economic sense to treat people decently. The most expensive thing in the world is to create enemies. You have to be on your guard against them, and you inspire them to harm you.
This is what is so stupid, in my opinion, about the right-wing "shock and awe" machismo of the dinosaurs in the US. Talk about a waste of time and money. They're as impressive as old drunks in a bar, trying to threaten you because 100 years ago they won a fight. Pretty pathetic.
I do think the most "liberal" president we've had in a long time is GW Bush. Absolutely liberal toward himself, conservative only toward those who disagreed with him.
I don't think the dems are more compassionate. I think they are just reality-based. The reality is that we are all in this together, and none of us does or achieves anything absolutely on our own. Golden rule stuff.
But it's not based on feelings and emotions, like many of the GOP "beliefs" are. It makes better economic sense to treat people decently. The most expensive thing in the world is to create enemies. You have to be on your guard against them, and you inspire them to harm you.
This is what is so stupid, in my opinion, about the right-wing "shock and awe" machismo of the dinosaurs in the US. Talk about a waste of time and money. They're as impressive as old drunks in a bar, trying to threaten you because 100 years ago they won a fight. Pretty pathetic.
B_Nick4444
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Posts
- 6,849
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 107
- Points
- 193
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The Obama candidacy represents a degradation of America
possible only by unthinking, knee-jerk liberal mentalities produced by an educational system that has abandoned the cultivation of citizens, to turn out consumers and corporate employees
for a hint of what I'm getting at, see:
The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn, by Diane Ravitch
might well add, the capability to think!
possible only by unthinking, knee-jerk liberal mentalities produced by an educational system that has abandoned the cultivation of citizens, to turn out consumers and corporate employees
for a hint of what I'm getting at, see:
The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn, by Diane Ravitch
might well add, the capability to think!
Last edited:
- b.c.,
These are serious times with quite serious issues at stake, potentially life changing issues. Sometimes, in the fray one cannot help but allow emotion to enter into the political discussion.
I can have a good give and take with anyone who shows at least some clearness of thought or logic to their point of views, even if completely opposite. We can agree, disagree, and agree to disagree and I'll respond in kind to intellectual and philosophical discourse.
However, I'll also respond in kind to rhetoric, bigotry, propaganda, and outright bullshit too, that is at least until I decide it has been sufficiently outed and/or I decide further response is beneath my effort.
Lucky presents some rather logical arguments for dissatisfaction with either party (with the political process in general I gather - though I sense from his writings greater dissatisfaction with Democratic ideology than with Republican).
I don't agree with all of it, but as I said several threads above, even though neither party may be perfect, even though neither may accomplish all that they promise (because of the realities of our system of government) one ultimately has to realize that there are only two choices this election - that is, to choose a candidate or choose NOT to make a choice.
People have the right not to choose too. And given all the above it very well may be infinitely preferable than making the wrong choice.
I can have a good give and take with anyone who shows at least some clearness of thought or logic to their point of views, even if completely opposite. We can agree, disagree, and agree to disagree and I'll respond in kind to intellectual and philosophical discourse.
However, I'll also respond in kind to rhetoric, bigotry, propaganda, and outright bullshit too, that is at least until I decide it has been sufficiently outed and/or I decide further response is beneath my effort.
Lucky presents some rather logical arguments for dissatisfaction with either party (with the political process in general I gather - though I sense from his writings greater dissatisfaction with Democratic ideology than with Republican).
I don't agree with all of it, but as I said several threads above, even though neither party may be perfect, even though neither may accomplish all that they promise (because of the realities of our system of government) one ultimately has to realize that there are only two choices this election - that is, to choose a candidate or choose NOT to make a choice.
People have the right not to choose too. And given all the above it very well may be infinitely preferable than making the wrong choice.
- b.c.,
You may be absolutely correct. Because I can't make heads or tails out of your sentences (using the tem loosely).
Are you saying our educational system has abandoned "cultivation" (whatever that means) thereby producing solely "unthinking liberals" with "knee jerk mentalities" for the purpose of turning out consumers and corporate employees???
btw: 1) The link doesn't work, if that's what it's supposed to be. 2) Seems we have a lot of unthinking knee-jerk conservative mentalities here too. How do you explain those? Private schools??
B_Nick4444
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Posts
- 6,849
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 107
- Points
- 193
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
not a link -- a title to a book
by cultivation of citizens, I mean, inter alia,
the teaching of critical thinking
the teaching and importation of the Western values that created our civilization
as contrasted to the indoctrination of political correctness, which requires, in part as well, the restriction of civil liberties, especially thought and speech
hence, the pattern thinking you see displayed among his supporters, and the attempts at stifling, such as the Obama Truth Squad (you will recall from that posting, the messages of support that issued)
but, then again, that's just my take on it
**THAT CONCLUDES MY POSTING ON THIS THREAD**
by cultivation of citizens, I mean, inter alia,
the teaching of critical thinking
the teaching and importation of the Western values that created our civilization
as contrasted to the indoctrination of political correctness, which requires, in part as well, the restriction of civil liberties, especially thought and speech
hence, the pattern thinking you see displayed among his supporters, and the attempts at stifling, such as the Obama Truth Squad (you will recall from that posting, the messages of support that issued)
but, then again, that's just my take on it
**THAT CONCLUDES MY POSTING ON THIS THREAD**
Last edited:
and you are nothing but a sheep, albeit one with a higher IQ, a bigger chip on his shoulder, a highly dubious soapbox, and not to mention a nasty demeanor when someone who does not follow his prescribed plans the way he wants.
You voted for the Reagan revolution and you also voted for Carter...you will forgive me if i don't follow your brilliant voting record of either voting for a right wing conservative or a left wing democrat.
sorry...when discussing kidding oneself, you might be experiencing the early onset of senility now in your early to mid-fifties or however old you are.
