NationStates Jolt Archive

www.WhyYouLost.com
Makes alot of good points. Its not a flame or "in your face =P" artical. Please Read

<Edit: No, I did not write this>

www.WhyYouLost.com
Makes alot of good points. Its not a flame or "in your face =P" artical. Please Read

<Edit: No, I did not write this>


Ermm ... the guy seems to think that Bush got 115,000,000 votes. 115 million people voted, yes, but 55 million of those people voted for Kerry.

His numbers are a bit off, ya know?

Also this concerning gay marriage:


And you still lose. And now you're trapped.

A temporary setback, aye, but not trapped. Just look up the numbers of lawsuits being filed against the gay marriage amendments in the 11 states. There are hundreds of them.

And finally this:

There were fellow citizens of yours that had concerns that you didn't listen to as you plowed through your plans and over all objectors.

Yes, that's right. We also completely ignored our fellow citizen's concerns and plowed through our plans and got the Civil Rights Act passed anyway. Why would we bother even trying to listen to someone who wants to make a certain group of Americans into second class citizens?

The guy seems to think all liberals are flower picking, love everybody, burst into tears over hitting a squirrel in our car kind of people. We're not.

Liberal != Hippie

Nice article, but a bit naive.

www.WhyYouLost.com
Makes alot of good points. Its not a flame or "in your face =P" artical. Please Read

<Edit: No, I did not write this>

Excellent.

The point is, of course, that in so utterly perverting their own principles, the Democrats (I won't say the left) has taken themselves out of contention as HELPERS for the betterment of America.

We NEED an opposition (loyal) party just as a knife needs a whetstone.

And if you (Democrats) don't step up to the job, a new "party" from within the "winning" group will, and that may not do any of us as much good as a party with an esteemed history would.

Please get real, and get back to your needed liberal (liberty-creating) principles..!

[QUOTE=Keruvalia #2]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonamar
www.WhyYouLost.com
Makes alot of good points. Its not a flame or "in your face =P" artical. Please Read

<Edit: No, I did not write this>




Ermm ... the guy seems to think that Bush got 115,000,000 votes. 115 million people voted, yes, but 55 million of those people voted for Kerry.

His numbers are a bit off, ya know?

Also this concerning gay marriage:


Quote:
And you still lose. And now you're trapped.



A temporary setback, aye, but not trapped. Just look up the numbers of lawsuits being filed against the gay marriage amendments in the 11 states. There are hundreds of them.

And finally this:


Quote:
There were fellow citizens of yours that had concerns that you didn't listen to as you plowed through your plans and over all objectors.



Yes, that's right. We also completely ignored our fellow citizen's concerns and plowed through our plans and got the Civil Rights Act passed anyway. Why would we bother even trying to listen to someone who wants to make a certain group of Americans into second class citizens?

The guy seems to think all liberals are flower picking, love everybody, burst into tears over hitting a squirrel in our car kind of people. We're not.

Liberal != Hippie

Nice article, but a bit naive.

Of course it's naive. It's an observation of a highly complex thing. To be at all descriptive, to be meaningful, it HAS to simplify that thing into a statement.

As a statement of intent, it says: "Just do what's right in your mind, but don't let hate blind you."

History will show us the effects of our choices.

Whether liberals are all hippies (which is silly) is irrelevant. Are you Americans..?

That is the question.

Of course it's naive. It's an observation of a highly complex thing. To be at all descriptive, to be meaningful, it HAS to simplify that thing into a statement.

As a statement of intent, it says: "Just do what's right in your mind, but don't let hate blind you."

History will show us the effects of our choices.

Whether liberals are all hippies (which is silly) is irrelevant. Are you Americans..?

That is the question.

Thanks , was trying to find a way to say the same thing. =) But you put it perfectly

Nice article, but a bit naive.

Agree. I liked his comment that bumber stickers (Friends don't let friends vote Republican) makes people register as republicans.

"But in the process the law that you intended for them will now likely be used against you. For a fantastic object lesson in this take the recent gay marriage initiatives. I have been arguing for years that the answer to this is to get the state out of the marriage business entirely. I have exhaustedly tried to convince supporters of state-sanctioned gay marriages that if you give the government the power to legitimize these unions then you also give them the power to restrict them. When Massachusetts started marrying gay couples I sounded like a party pooper for not joining in my friends' jubilations."

Interesting. So if the state is out of the marriage business then the only way to get married is Religion.

Gay marriage is what carried the shrub into the whitehouse. I have read more then one comment that is was the rally cry for the evangalistas.

I suspected the elections would be lost by the actions of Mass and San Francisco. They should have waited.....

Of course it's naive. It's an observation of a highly complex thing. To be at all descriptive, to be meaningful, it HAS to simplify that thing into a statement.

As a statement of intent, it says: "Just do what's right in your mind, but don't let hate blind you."

History will show us the effects of our choices.

Whether liberals are all hippies (which is silly) is irrelevant. Are you Americans..?

That is the question.


I am an American and I accept that other Americans have equal rights to me, but some Americans want to make sure certain other Americans don't have the same rights and I find that disdainful. The writer of the article wants us to take everyone's feelings into consideration ... ok ... lets:

1] John Banbry of Tahoma, WA believes women should be put in the kitchen and forced to stay there and cook and the only time she should be out of the kitchen is when giving their man oral sex.

2] Marcus Fellington of Tupelo, MS believes gay people should all be forced out of the US.

3] Jeremy White of Houston, TX believes the country went into decline when "negros" were given the vote.

I do not consider the feelings of these people or people who share their beliefs. I do not even consider them Americans and believe their right to vote should be revoked just so they can see what it's like to have a basic right taken away.

Agree. I liked his comment that bumber stickers (Friends don't let friends vote Republican) makes people register as republicans.

"But in the process the law that you intended for them will now likely be used against you. For a fantastic object lesson in this take the recent gay marriage initiatives. I have been arguing for years that the answer to this is to get the state out of the marriage business entirely. I have exhaustedly tried to convince supporters of state-sanctioned gay marriages that if you give the government the power to legitimize these unions then you also give them the power to restrict them. When Massachusetts started marrying gay couples I sounded like a party pooper for not joining in my friends' jubilations."

Interesting. So if the state is out of the marriage business then the only way to get married is Religion.

Gay marriage is what carried the shrub into the whitehouse. I have read more then one comment that is was the rally cry for the evangalistas.

I suspected the elections would be lost by the actions of Mass and San Francisco. They should have waited.....

This was ment as an example to help generalize the idea. Your nit picking it to something that is limited to this example.

[QUOTE=Keruvalia #7]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaiiaio
Of course it's naive. It's an observation of a highly complex thing. To be at all descriptive, to be meaningful, it HAS to simplify that thing into a statement.

As a statement of intent, it says: "Just do what's right in your mind, but don't let hate blind you."

History will show us the effects of our choices.

Whether liberals are all hippies (which is silly) is irrelevant. Are you Americans..?

That is the question.




I am an American and I accept that other Americans have equal rights to me, but some Americans want to make sure certain other Americans don't have the same rights and I find that disdainful. The writer of the article wants us to take everyone's feelings into consideration ... ok ... lets:

1] John Banbry of Tahoma, WA believes women should be put in the kitchen and forced to stay there and cook and the only time she should be out of the kitchen is when giving their man oral sex.

2] Marcus Fellington of Tupelo, MS believes gay people should all be forced out of the US.

3] Jeremy White of Houston, TX believes the country went into decline when "negros" were given the vote.

I do not consider the feelings of these people or people who share their beliefs. I do not even consider them Americans and believe their right to vote should be revoked just so they can see what it's like to have a basic right taken away.

1) When John Banbry gets anywhere near his way, give a call and me and the vast majority of the American population will pound him into the dirt (figuratively speaking of course).

2) Same for Marcus.

3) We can all just laugh at Jeremy right now, as we see fit.

Don't be so defensive. Be offensive..!

If you see an injustice, try to fix it..!

Just don't make enemies out of people who are not your enemies because you insist on seeing anyone slightly different than yourself as an enemy.

It doesn't do any of us any good. :)

Agree. I liked his comment that bumber stickers (Friends don't let friends vote Republican) makes people register as republicans.

"But in the process the law that you intended for them will now likely be used against you. For a fantastic object lesson in this take the recent gay marriage initiatives. I have been arguing for years that the answer to this is to get the state out of the marriage business entirely. I have exhaustedly tried to convince supporters of state-sanctioned gay marriages that if you give the government the power to legitimize these unions then you also give them the power to restrict them. When Massachusetts started marrying gay couples I sounded like a party pooper for not joining in my friends' jubilations."

Interesting. So if the state is out of the marriage business then the only way to get married is Religion.

Gay marriage is what carried the shrub into the whitehouse. I have read more then one comment that is was the rally cry for the evangalistas.

I suspected the elections would be lost by the actions of Mass and San Francisco. They should have waited.....

There is the LEGAL aspect of "what-we-now-call" marriage, and the RELIGIOUS aspect.

The state shouldn't be involved in the legal aspect, or the religious aspect. There is a distinction between LEGAL and GOVERNMENTAL.

I do not consider the feelings of these people or people who share their beliefs. I do not even consider them Americans and believe their right to vote should be revoked just so they can see what it's like to have a basic right taken away.


This is exatly the ideology that the artical is trying to get rid of.

Apparently, conservatives have just chosen to ignore the massive amounts of liberals (John Kerry included) who have stated that they would stand up for the rights of the rural, religious,white, male, heterosexuals just the same as we stand for everyone elses rights.

The reason we brush it off when you say that your rights are being infringed upon is because they aren't. If heterosexual individuals were not allowed to marry we would fight for their marriage rights. If muslims held official school prayers, we would fight against that as to not single out christians. If caucasian individuals or men faced a difficult uphill climb in building their careers, we would work to level the playing field. The fact is, none of these are true. White, religious, heterosexual males make the rules, so they do not need to be looked out for, they need to be checked every once in a while.

We are not trying to tear down marriage, or give your job to a black man, or deny your right to practice religion. We want to insure that all of us have the same ability as you to do so.

Unfortunately, we get portrayed as aloof, not caring about you, arrogant. The fact is that, we liberals are trying to keep your arrogance in check. We attempt (and fail) to make sure that you cannot impose your own beliefs and morals on to those who do not share them. We would fight for your beliefs, too, if you needed it. BUT YOU DON'T, SO DON'T CALL US ARROGANT WHEN WE DON'T.

Apparently, conservatives have just chosen to ignore the massive amounts of liberals (John Kerry included) who have stated that they would stand up for the rights of the rural, religious,white, male, heterosexuals just the same as we stand for everyone elses rights.

The reason we brush it off when you say that your rights are being infringed upon is because they aren't. If heterosexual individuals were not allowed to marry we would fight for their marriage rights. If muslims held official school prayers, we would fight against that as to not single out christians. If caucasian individuals or men faced a difficult uphill climb in building their careers, we would work to level the playing field. The fact is, none of these are true. White, religious, heterosexual males make the rules, so they do not need to be looked out for, they need to be checked every once in a while.

We are not trying to tear down marriage, or give your job to a black man, or deny your right to practice religion. We want to insure that all of us have the same ability as you to do so.

Unfortunately, we get portrayed as aloof, not caring about you, arrogant. The fact is that, we liberals are trying to keep your arrogance in check. We attempt (and fail) to make sure that you cannot impose your own beliefs and morals on to those who do not share them. We would fight for your beliefs, too, if you needed it. BUT YOU DON'T, SO DON'T CALL US ARROGANT WHEN WE DON'T.

Then those things should be the focus of the campain , Not republicans are the devil or Look how bad they messed up. It should be more on lets build up America. Democrats in general turned into what they used to be against, and it turned this election into a horrid mud slining fest.

The biggest reason the democrats lost is because their ticket was composed of two idiots. Had they brought up a candidate that actually had something to say and could explain things Bush would have been kicked back to the stone age. Instead they got a traitor and a trial layer to run. Great move. And before you start sputtering about how Kerry wasn't that bad a guy, why did he not even release his medical records detailing the wounds he received that he was awarded the purple hearts for? He could have released ONLY those records and not the rest, but he didn't even do that. Of course, there is an underlying problem with the Democrat party right now. It's fracturing into many different pieces and can't find enough common ground to survive in it's current incarnation. Arguably the Republican party is beginning to do the same thing but it's still a little more solid then the Democrat party and that's all it needs to be.

Apparently, conservatives have just chosen to ignore the massive amounts of liberals (John Kerry included) who have stated that they would stand up for the rights of the rural, religious,white, male, heterosexuals just the same as we stand for everyone elses rights.

The reason we brush it off when you say that your rights are being infringed upon is because they aren't. If heterosexual individuals were not allowed to marry we would fight for their marriage rights. If muslims held official school prayers, we would fight against that as to not single out christians. If caucasian individuals or men faced a difficult uphill climb in building their careers, we would work to level the playing field. The fact is, none of these are true. White, religious, heterosexual males make the rules, so they do not need to be looked out for, they need to be checked every once in a while.

We are not trying to tear down marriage, or give your job to a black man, or deny your right to practice religion. We want to insure that all of us have the same ability as you to do so.

Unfortunately, we get portrayed as aloof, not caring about you, arrogant. The fact is that, we liberals are trying to keep your arrogance in check. We attempt (and fail) to make sure that you cannot impose your own beliefs and morals on to those who do not share them. We would fight for your beliefs, too, if you needed it. BUT YOU DON'T, SO DON'T CALL US ARROGANT WHEN WE DON'T.
If you're anti-gun you ain't standing up for my rights.

Interesting. So if the state is out of the marriage business then the only way to get married is Religion.

Gay marriage is what carried the shrub into the whitehouse. I have read more then one comment that is was the rally cry for the evangalistas.

I suspected the elections would be lost by the actions of Mass and San Francisco. They should have waited.....

There should only be civil unions on the lawbooks. They would convey all the rights that marriage currently does between any two people above the age of 18 who are further removed than 3 steps of relation. End of problem. This way you effectively cut off most of the religious objections.

You are not infringing upon my rights, and for the near future you really dont have a choice about it. I kinda hate to break it to you, but as one of white, rural, male, hetrosexual (though athiestic) people you are trying to defend. I dont think I want or need you or John Kerry to protect me from anything. If you want to call it arrogance, thats fine, but you wont ever convince me that John Kerry has ANY clue what the values of someone in rural america are. I wouldnt pretend to understand what the values of a multi-millionaire politician are, and I darn sure wouldnt attempt to tell him that I know what he needs.

I also dont really care if you dont wish to fight for my beliefs, because, honestly, after all the venom that liberals have produced from the last 4 years, I am comfortably in the majority of voters now. I hardly think that I need to have the minority party looking out for me.

This article is attempting to open your eyes as to why the liberals in america lost this election, and will continue to lose even more in the future, if they dont change their direction. They can continue along this path, and its my opinion that soon there will be a new party gaining steam (libertarians, green, whatever) and eventually the two party system will not include democrats.

White, religious, heterosexual males make the rules, so they do not need to be looked out for, they need to be checked every once in a while.
...
We would fight for your beliefs, too, if you needed it. BUT YOU DON'T, SO DON'T CALL US ARROGANT WHEN WE DON'T.
This is exactly the wrong attitude. I agree fully with the article; liberals in this country need to stop isolating themselves ideologically from those who don't fit the right profile or hold all the same beliefs.

I'm a white, religious male, and a staunch liberal/libertarian. What your position here fails to recognize is that, to really stay true to the progressive message, we have to fight for everybody's rights. I have quite the antipathy for guns, myself, but as I'm rapidly realizing, I'm nothing short of a hypocrite if I don't defend people's ability to own them with the same vehemence that I defend their ability to speak their minds. WASPs may make the rules, but if we use that as an excuse to exclude them at every turn, we give them a reason to cry injustice by turning them into the oppressed. So yes, everybody's concerns need to be addressed. That doesn't mean bending over backwards to fringe groups who want to declare that the Earth is flat; it means opening a dialogue with people you don't agree with on everything, realizing their concerns are commonly just as valid as those of minority groups, finding some common ground, and working with that.

If you're anti-gun you ain't standing up for my rights.

I personally believe that the democratic party has been hypocritical on this issue, there is no justification for limiting firearm, and there is limited but sufficient justification for allowing them. But thanks for ignoring the meat of my post.


Then those things should be the focus of the campain , Not republicans are the devil or Look how bad they messed up. It should be more on lets build up America. Democrats in general turned into what they used to be against, and it turned this election into a horrid mud slining fest.

Bring up one time that an official democrat (don't bring up Michael Moore, because there are idiots like that on both sides) turned it into a mudslinging contest. Better yet find all the John McCain quotes condemning the democratic campaign and I bet you I can find double in which he condemns the republican campaign.

The biggest reason the democrats lost is because their ticket was composed of two idiots. Had they brought up a candidate that actually had something to say and could explain things Bush would have been kicked back to the stone age. Instead they got a traitor and a trial layer to run. Great move. And before you start sputtering about how Kerry wasn't that bad a guy, why did he not even release his medical records detailing the wounds he received that he was awarded the purple hearts for? He could have released ONLY those records and not the rest, but he didn't even do that. Of course, there is an underlying problem with the Democrat party right now. It's fracturing into many different pieces and can't find enough common ground to survive in it's current incarnation. Arguably the Republican party is beginning to do the same thing but it's still a little more solid then the Democrat party and that's all it needs to be.

This is classic, I get one republican stating that we ran a mudslinging campaign followed up by a republican who states the democrats lost because they nominated two idiots (they obviously weren't). He then judges the democratic candidate by saying he only received SUPERFICIAL WOUNDS while SERVING IN VIETNAM, when the republican candidate didn't even serve in TEXAS when he was IN THE TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD. It seems that if this is the view of the average republican then the Rove mudslinging plan worked much better than the the democratic one.

As for division inside a party, ask John McCain, Richard Luger, and the Log Cabin republicans just how unified the republican party is.

The author is right, these are not nice:
"Selfish bastard"
"Trigger-happy lunatic"
"Bigot"

But are they worse than
"Commie"
"Traitor"
"Pussy"
"tree-hugger"

Why do only Republicans have a licence to insult their opponents?

The reason we brush it off when you say that your rights are being infringed upon is because they aren't.
Perfect.

Then those things should be the focus of the campain , Not republicans are the devil or Look how bad they messed up. It should be more on lets build up America. Democrats in general turned into what they used to be against, and it turned this election into a horrid mud slining fest.
Wasn't the Kerry/Edwards capaign slogan, "A Stronger America"? How optimistic do you want it to be?

There should only be civil unions on the lawbooks. They would convey all the rights that marriage currently does between any two people above the age of 18 who are further removed than 3 steps of relation. End of problem. This way you effectively cut off most of the religious objections.
I agree. However, if the issue arises, both gay and straight marriage should be legalised. Then the government can pull out of marriage.

A member of your society is telling you that they want their children raised with their values, not those of some bureaucrat who has never met them.
How are liberals stopping you from raising your children as you want?

Besides, a liberal could make the same argument. A bureaucrat (Bush) wants to tell liberals that their children must be raised with his values rather than their liberal values of tolerance.

This is exactly the wrong attitude. I agree fully with the article; liberals in this country need to stop isolating themselves ideologically from those who don't fit the right profile or hold all the same beliefs.

I'm a white, religious male, and a staunch liberal/libertarian. What your position here fails to recognize is that, to really stay true to the progressive message, we have to fight for everybody's rights. I have quite the antipathy for guns, myself, but as I'm rapidly realizing, I'm nothing short of a hypocrite if I don't defend people's ability to own them with the same vehemence that I defend their ability to speak their minds. WASPs may make the rules, but if we use that as an excuse to exclude them at every turn, we give them a reason to cry injustice by turning them into the oppressed. So yes, everybody's concerns need to be addressed. That doesn't mean bending over backwards to fringe groups who want to declare that the Earth is flat; it means opening a dialogue with people you don't agree with on everything, realizing their concerns are commonly just as valid as those of minority groups, finding some common ground, and working with that.

Please, please, read my post. My point was that we fight for everyone's rights, you white, middle class males do not need anyone to fight for them, and there have been conservative posts of that nature, too. It is a self-conscious misconception that liberals are trying to infringe on peoples rights, with the exception of gun control. And how many democratic senators pushed very hard to continue the assault weapon ban. It was a virtual non-issue.

The author is right, these are not nice:
"Selfish bastard"
"Trigger-happy lunatic"
"Bigot"

But are they worse than
"Commie"
"Traitor"
"Pussy"
"tree-hugger"

Why do only Republicans have a licence to insult their opponents?


Be the bigger man, turn the other cheek , It will draw more respect than you think


Wasn't the Kerry/Edwards capaign slogan, "A Stronger America"? How optimistic do you want it to be?


Aye, that was there slogan, but most of Kerry's points where "Look how bad Bush messed up"

[QUOTE=Zonamar]Be the bigger man, turn the other cheek , It will draw more respect than you think[QUOTE]

Practice what you preach.

[QUOTE=Zonamar]Be the bigger man, turn the other cheek , It will draw more respect than you think[QUOTE]

Practice what you preach.

Please point out when i didnt

Please, please, read my post. My point was that we fight for everyone's rights, you white, middle class males do not need anyone to fight for them, and there have been conservative posts of that nature, too.
And my point is that if we don't fight for everybody's rights regardless, we're hypocrites and liars. If being a liberal now means that I can only fight for the rights of certain people, then I'll stop calling myself one. You start getting yourself into a trap, thinking that way. I mean, there are different levels of need, right? It's never been black and white. At what point do you say that a person is "oppresed enough" to fight for them? At what point do you tell a family that you will no longer consider their needs, since they aren't enough of an underdog for your tastes?

It is a self-conscious misconception that liberals are trying to infringe on peoples rights, with the exception of gun control. And how many democratic senators pushed very hard to continue the assault weapon ban. It was a virtual non-issue.
I will agree that, for the most part, liberals aren't trying to infringe on people's rights. However. The Neoconservative think-tanks that work at spreading memes and hammering out strategies are very good at their jobs. Liberals currently have enough disregard for the "not oppressed enough" to give those groups the ability to say we are trying to infringe on rights, and make it stick. Remove the disregard, and the image falls apart.

www.WhyYouLost.com
Makes alot of good points. Its not a flame or "in your face =P" artical. Please Read

<Edit: No, I did not write this>

Who says the liberals lost anything? It's the conservatives who've lost something, i.e. their collective minds, to be followed soon thereafter by their freedoms.

So good to feel so safe...

Kerry lost because the bible thumpers turned out in the swing states.

www.WhyYouLost.com
Makes alot of good points. Its not a flame or "in your face =P" artical. Please Read

<Edit: No, I did not write this>
I read most of it and I do believe that it is very condescending in a polite way?

I think the point that clearly jumps of the page is this one:

They are the people who bleed the same color you do, who breathe the same air you do, who love and hurt just as you do, and who ultimately want the same things you do.

Is that a true statement? Do Republicans truly want the same things as Democrats? :eek:

And my point is that if we don't fight for everybody's rights regardless, we're hypocrites and liars. If being a liberal now means that I can only fight for the rights of certain people, then I'll stop calling myself one. You start getting yourself into a trap, thinking that way. I mean, there are different levels of need, right? It's never been black and white. At what point do you say that a person is "oppresed enough" to fight for them? At what point do you tell a family that you will no longer consider their needs, since they aren't enough of an underdog for your tastes?


I will agree that, for the most part, liberals aren't trying to infringe on people's rights. However. The Neoconservative think-tanks that work at spreading memes and hammering out strategies are very good at their jobs. Liberals currently have enough disregard for the "not oppressed enough" to give those groups the ability to say we are trying to infringe on rights, and make it stick. Remove the disregard, and the image falls apart.


Get out of here!!! You're making way too much sense!!!

Kerry lost because the bible thumpers turned out in the swing states.
No, he won because he halved the gap in Hispanics, increasing the male gender gap while gaining 5% with females, gaining the majority of every age group above 30, increasing his majorities in every income group above $50,000, and taking the majority of the traditionally Democratic Catholic vote.

And my point is that if we don't fight for everybody's rights regardless, we're hypocrites and liars. If being a liberal now means that I can only fight for the rights of certain people, then I'll stop calling myself one. You start getting yourself into a trap, thinking that way. I mean, there are different levels of need, right? It's never been black and white. At what point do you say that a person is "oppresed enough" to fight for them? At what point do you tell a family that you will no longer consider their needs, since they aren't enough of an underdog for your tastes?

What I mean to say is that most true liberals fight for universal rights, we don't distinguish between gay rights, african-american rights, women's rights, or white, middle-class rights. The thing is that white, middle class males have their rights already, so the fact is they can't be fought for. I actually believe that abortion isn't a woman's right to choose, so much as a parent's right to choose. I am against the Patriot Act, as it affects all of our rights to privacy. I personally believe the democratic party is hypocritical on gun rights, but to classify that as a white male right is arrogant and self-serving.

You ask where I say that a person is "oppressed enough" to fight for them. I say when they are oppressed, period. If white, heterosexual, christian men are oppressed in any way, I will voice my opinion in their favor. But the fact is they are the ones doing the oppressing.

Apparently, conservatives have just chosen to ignore the massive amounts of liberals (John Kerry included) who have stated that they would stand up for the rights of the rural, religious,white, male, heterosexuals just the same as we stand for everyone elses rights.
Are you comparing liberals to radiation? If so, good analogy.

The reason we brush it off when you say that your rights are being infringed upon is because they aren't. If heterosexual individuals were not allowed to marry we would fight for their marriage rights. If muslims held official school prayers, we would fight against that as to not single out christians. If caucasian individuals or men faced a difficult uphill climb in building their careers, we would work to level the playing field. The fact is, none of these are true. White, religious, heterosexual males make the rules, so they do not need to be looked out for, they need to be checked every once in a while.
No, we sure as hell would not. CAPITALISM. It's the economic system where if you're not doing well, tough shit. I think you're thinking of SOCIALISM.

caucasian individuals or men Are you implying that men are separate from "individuals"?


We are not trying to tear down marriage, or give your job to a black man, or deny your right to practice religion. We want to insure that all of us have the same ability as you to do so.

Unfortunately, we get portrayed as aloof, not caring about you, arrogant. The fact is that, we liberals are trying to keep your arrogance in check. We attempt (and fail) to make sure that you cannot impose your own beliefs and morals on to those who do not share them. We would fight for your beliefs, too, if you needed it. BUT YOU DON'T, SO DON'T CALL US ARROGANT WHEN WE DON'T.
Well, actually, affirmitive action HAS resulted in minorities getting jobs/college acceptance over white men even when they were less qualified. Isn't that the entire point of it?

I'm not sure what this "arrogance" you are talking about is..please explain.

Fighting for our beliefs, eh? I thought the point of having two separate parties was that they HAD separate beliefs..you know as well as I do that liberals would never fight for the beliefs of Republicans "if [they] needed it," and vice versa.

No, he won because he halved the gap in Hispanics, increasing the male gender gap while gaining 5% with females, gaining the majority of every age group above 30, increasing his majorities in every income group above $50,000, and taking the majority of the traditionally Democratic Catholic vote.

Note: He gained in the Hispanic vote through his statements that he wants to allow illegal immigrants to stay legally. If he follows through with his statements I applaud him fully.
But also note that if democrats had turned that into an issue it would have been devastating to Bush in the south. But they stuck to their principles and agreed with Bush, and I salute them, too.

I'm so glad I read the article. I'm going to try to improve the situation, and I'm going to try some of his advice. I feel like its a clear thought in the madness. I didn't realize it until now, but the things he said are right. I wouldn't vote with an angry mob of (insert party here).

I've got some people I ought to discuss politics with, later.

P.S. I appreciated the exceptional graciousness with which he presented his point.

Are you comparing liberals to radiation? If so, good analogy.

Clever

No, we sure as hell would not. CAPITALISM. It's the economic system where if you're not doing well, tough shit. I think you're thinking of SOCIALISM.

So be it, I guess it is good that we will be here to stall the backlash when caucasians become the minority.

caucasian individuals or men Are you implying that men are separate from "individuals"?

I was acknowledging a difference between race and then between gender. I worded it poorly, however.


Well, actually, affirmitive action HAS resulted in minorities getting jobs/college acceptance over white men even when they were less qualified. Isn't that the entire point of it?

Quotas are wrong, I don't believe in them they are unconstitutional. That still doesn't mean that there aren't things that can be done to lessen the racial gap.

I'm not sure what this "arrogance" you are talking about is..please explain.

In your lack of understanding, you have forgotten that your beliefs are not universal. That America was founded to protect the rights and beliefs of all of her citizens, not just the majority. All of this talk about the majority has spoken and mandates is quite frankly the opposite of what the framers of our country had in mind.

Fighting for our beliefs, eh? I thought the point of having two separate parties was that they HAD separate beliefs..you know as well as I do that liberals would never fight for the beliefs of Republicans "if [they] needed it," and vice versa.

While I feel your opinions may be wrong, I feel it is your right to say what you want, live how you want, read what you want, own what you want, and vote how you want.

After being so cofident that he was going to win Mr. jfk(haha) should be kicking himself for looking like such a fool. :headbang: But I do give it up for the senator because he did go down with honor. So I must say he has earned some respect from me even if he is a crybaby, flipflopper liberal.

They are the people who bleed the same color you do, who breathe the same air you do, who love and hurt just as you do, and who ultimately want the same things you do.

Is that a true statement? Do Republicans truly want the same things as Democrats? :eek:

I think the author was trying to say we all want to improve our country...how to do so is where the disagreeing begins.

The author is right, these are not nice:
"Selfish bastard"
"Trigger-happy lunatic"
"Bigot"

But are they worse than
"Commie"
"Traitor"
"Pussy"
"tree-hugger"

Why do only Republicans have a licence to insult their opponents?

Be the bigger man, turn the other cheek , It will draw more respect than you think

After being so cofident that he was going to win Mr. jfk(haha) should be kicking himself for looking like such a fool. But I do give it up for the senator because he did go down with honor. So I must say he has earned some respect from me even if he is a crybaby, flipflopper liberal.

*Quietly turns the other cheek*

(Numbering added for convenience)
[1]Clever

[2]So be it, I guess it is good that we will be here to stall the backlash when caucasians become the minority.

[3]I was acknowledging a difference between race and then between gender. I worded it poorly, however.

[4]Quotas are wrong, I don't believe in them they are unconstitutional. That still doesn't mean that there aren't things that can be done to lessen the racial gap.

[5]In your lack of understanding, you have forgotten that your beliefs are not universal. That America was founded to protect the rights and beliefs of all of her citizens, not just the majority. All of this talk about the majority has spoken and mandates is quite frankly the opposite of what the framers of our country had in mind.

[6]While I feel your opinions may be wrong, I feel it is your right to say what you want, live how you want, read what you want, own what you want, and vote how you want.
[1]What can I say? ;)
[2]??? Assuming the Hispanic immigration rate continues, it is estimated that whites will no longer be the majority racial group by around 2050 (don't quote me on that, though). I fail to see how a)this means that the entire economy will have collapsed, and b)what effect this has on the fact that we are capitalist. If you are saying that because Hispanics are mostly immigrants, our economy will be poor, you, my friend, are a bit ignorant and a bit bigoted. Hell, our country's population is almost ALL immingrants. The only true original inhabitants of America are the American Indians, so even the founding fathers were technically immigrants. If you want to consider the British the natives, then we are STILL an immigrant nation; a majority people in America are not of British blood.
[3]Yeah, I'm an involuntary grammar-freak.
[4] :eek: SHOCKED! A LIBERAL ADMITTING AFFIRMITIVE ACTION IS WRONG! Lessen the racial gap? The racial gap is really an economic gap - if anything (I am kind of a libertarian, so I'm not even saying we should do this), we should give a life to the poor. Why should we needlessly help out wealthy blacks or leave out poor whites? If the majority of people who need economic assistance are of minority ethnicity/race, then the majority of people who receive help will BE minorities. No need to single them out as a racial group.
[5]I have not forgotten my beliefs are not universal. I certainly acknowledge that others might see the world differently, but that doesn't mean I can't argue my view. It is foolish to say that because we all have different beliefs we shouldn't attack each other and shouldn't do anything in fear of offending people or looking arrogant (which is exactly what the Democrats do, and exactly what I hated so much about Kerry, who is actually more conservative than liberal). I do not like the Republicans in particular; my views just happen to be closest to theirs and so I don't speak for them.
[6]Yes, but that is different than "fighting for what [conservatives] [believe] in." I'm sure liberals everywhere would be elated if the conservatives just dissapeared one day...there would be no fighting for what they (used) to beleive in.

Dont call other persons names and insults
for thier points of view of which they have a right to
on both sides.

I keep saying that is one reason Kerry lost and
that gave way to many people voting on moral values.

it seems that there is a lot of name calling and mud throwing on both sides. Both condidates used the same tactics. I read in an earlier part of this thread that the reason democrats lost was because they have a candidate that was really dumb and couldn't explain things....I am sensing some irony here, because if Kerry is really dumb, can Bush tie his own shoes?

Gay marriages. Well, this is actually quiet a simple issue. Marriage is a legal matter. It is not required to get the church's permission to get married. Churchs can choose to recognize marriages if they want. The Catholic Church only recognizes marriages that take place in the Catholic Church, so why aren't there laws against getting married in a Protestant Church? The point is, gay marriages should be a legal union, giving spousal benefits to both parties. The Church is completely free to not recognize these marriages, they can condemn them, but if the Church starts making public policy, then the Church becomes our governing body. Separation of Church and State works both ways, it is not just a restriction on government. If one can impose its will on the other, with our governmental structure, the other will also be able to impose its will.

Simple issue, next please

I didn't agree with him on everything but I think that the way of the libral wll go out of style soon.

(Numbering added for convenience)

[1]What can I say? ;)
[2]??? Assuming the Hispanic immigration rate continues, it is estimated that whites will no longer be the majority racial group by around 2050 (don't quote me on that, though). I fail to see how a)this means that the entire economy will have collapsed, and b)what effect this has on the fact that we are capitalist. If you are saying that because Hispanics are mostly immigrants, our economy will be poor, you, my friend, are a bit ignorant and a bit bigoted. Hell, our country's population is almost ALL immingrants. The only true original inhabitants of America are the American Indians, so even the founding fathers were technically immigrants. If you want to consider the British the natives, then we are STILL an immigrant nation; a majority people in America are not of British blood.
[3]Yeah, I'm an involuntary grammar-freak.
[4] :eek: SHOCKED! A LIBERAL ADMITTING AFFIRMITIVE ACTION IS WRONG! Lessen the racial gap? The racial gap is really an economic gap - if anything (I am kind of a libertarian, so I'm not even saying we should do this), we should give a life to the poor. Why should we needlessly help out wealthy blacks or leave out poor whites? If the majority of people who need economic assistance are of minority ethnicity/race, then the majority of people who receive help will BE minorities. No need to single them out as a racial group.
[5]I have not forgotten my beliefs are not universal. I certainly acknowledge that others might see the world differently, but that doesn't mean I can't argue my view. It is foolish to say that because we all have different beliefs we shouldn't attack each other and shouldn't do anything in fear of offending people or looking arrogant (which is exactly what the Democrats do, and exactly what I hated so much about Kerry, who is actually more conservative than liberal). I do not like the Republicans in particular; my views just happen to be closest to theirs and so I don't speak for them.
[6]Yes, but that is different than "fighting for what [conservatives] [believe] in." I'm sure liberals everywhere would be elated if the conservatives just dissapeared one day...there would be no fighting for what they (used) to beleive in.

2]I meant nothing about the economy. What I mean is that when caucasians are not the minority, and the majority begin to enforce their beliefs on you, you consider yourself lucky that the liberals will be fighting for you.
5]While you may not share that trait must of our Christian and Republican citizens do.
6]I would most certainly not like to see all of the conservatives disappear, change their minds, yes, but disappear no. Life is built on the differences.

Dont call other persons names and insults
for thier points of view of which they have a right to
on both sides.

I keep saying that is one reason Kerry lost and
that gave way to many people voting on moral values.

When did Kerry insult someone for their views. I know the republican campaign has very actively attacked Kerry for his views after he came back from Vietnam. I remember him being called a flip-flopper because he agreed that 87 million should be spent to arm the troops, but disagreed with Bush on how to pay for it.

If I remember right, Kerry's attacks stuck to a strictly policy level. He didn't have much trouble finding them there.

Some of his supporters may have attacked Bush and may have sounded arrogant, but if you want to say your party won based upon their views of democratic supporters and not due to the merit of either candidate, go ahead, it doesn't say much for republicans.

More people voted for the other guy.

Dont call other persons names and insults
for thier points of view of which they have a right to
on both sides.

I keep saying that is one reason Kerry lost and
that gave way to many people voting on moral values.
Well the article starts off by being improperly named. It is entitled:

Why You Lost

How does one lose by taking part in the democratic process? Why is the author basically calling Democrats "losers", in such an arrogant way? Nobody likes to be called a loser surely?

Then he starts in with the jaded "truths", such as:

And you lost huge: though the presidency was decided by a moderate percentage, the breadth of Republican victories across the nation was historic.

The Republican win was the closest for an incumbent since the election in 1916. When you crunch the real numbers versus population, it was an extremely close election. Only 19% of the entire US population voted for Bush, and 18% voted for Kerry. If 100,000 more voters in Ohio had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, the author of this article wouldn't have been able to write....Why You Lost.

When did Kerry insult someone for their views. I know the republican campaign has very actively attacked Kerry for his views after he came back from Vietnam. I remember him being called a flip-flopper because he agreed that 87 million should be spent to arm the troops, but disagreed with Bush on how to pay for it.

If I remember right, Kerry's attacks stuck to a strictly policy level. He didn't have much trouble finding them there.

Some of his supporters may have attacked Bush and may have sounded arrogant, but if you want to say your party won based upon their views of democratic supporters and not due to the merit of either candidate, go ahead, it doesn't say much for republicans.


NEW YORK, Nov. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- When President Bush's poll numbers surged in April after a press conference where his performance was derided by the press and the chattering classes, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry was baffled, writes Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in an exclusive report in Newsweek's special election issue. "He said with a sigh to one top staffer, 'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.'"

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041104/nyth186_1.html

The Republican win was the closest for an incumbent since the election in 1916. When you crunch the real numbers versus population, it was an extremely close election. Only 19% of the entire US population voted for Bush, and 18% voted for Kerry. If 100,000 more voters in Ohio had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, the author of this article wouldn't have been able to write....Why You Lost.
What you overlook is that 30 states voted for Bush. Only 20 went to Kerry. That is, 50% more states voted for Bush.

If you divide it further you see that states like Wisconsin and California were mostly Bush with only a few densly populated areas voting kerry.

The Democrats have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Heartland of America. The number of Democratic Senators from the South is a small fraction of only 20 yearas ago. They gave up that land to the Republicans and more ground will continue to be lost until they are able to confront their weaknesses and admit their flaws.

Luckily they are Democrats - powered by elitist snobs, so that will not happen for a very long time. :)

By then a third part will have long since displaced them. GO LIBERTARIANS!

Ironically, I believe that the last minute tape from Osama Bin Laden put Bush over the top. For some strange reason, Bush was seen as the "defender of America" by a majority of voters in most polls, from the get go.

I think Bin Laden got the result that he wanted, after all of Bush's promises to "hunt him down", he was still alive and well and taunting Bush. Bin Laden finally took credit for the attacks of 9/11 and I think that riveted voters back to the jarring images of those planes flying into the towers....that is the precise moment that Bush's popularity took off for the stratosphere.

By then a third part will have long since displaced them. GO LIBERTARIANS!

the libertarians are in no danger of replacing the democratic party. they elected what, 20 people this year? the greens got 64, and they had a huge fight over whether to be a real party or not.

What you overlook is that 30 states voted for Bush. Only 20 went to Kerry. That is, 50% more states voted for Bush.

If you divide it further you see that states like Wisconsin and California were mostly Bush with only a few densly populated areas voting kerry.

The Democrats have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Heartland of America. The number of Democratic Senators from the South is a small fraction of only 20 yearas ago. They gave up that land to the Republicans and more ground will continue to be lost until they are able to confront their weaknesses and admit their flaws.
Having stated that, I guess on the other side of the coin, Bush has lost the "hearts and minds" of the people living in the cities of America? Is one area of the country more important than the other? The population of New York alone is worth at least two or three of the smaller states that voted for Bush?

Luckily they are Democrats - powered by elitist snobs, so that will not happen for a very long time. :)
It is easy to see that you don't care about the politics of "inclusion" much that of your President?

By then a third part will have long since displaced them. GO LIBERTARIANS!
Personally speaking, Bush has 4 more years to screw up and drive the moderates away from the party. I think that is more likely to happen then for a third party to rise up and displace the Democrats.

www.WhyYouLost.com
Makes alot of good points. Its not a flame or "in your face =P" artical. Please Read

<Edit: No, I did not write this>

Becuase of hypocritical half-wits like Rush Limbaugh. And Nazi's like Jerry Falwell.

Whether liberals are all hippies (which is silly) is irrelevant. Are you Americans..?

That is the question.
The real question is are all americans right and left willing to step up to the plate and be Human Beings rather than the hate filled monsters the last four years have made us all, And can we finally recognize the fact that being Homo Sapiens Sapien in this world makes us world citizens wether we like it or not? :(

One flaw i see in the argument of the article is that it completely ignores the election shenanigans.... 10 times the number of registered voters going for bush in some districts.... Diebold and "intellectual property" unbiased PEW exit polls showing kerry winning by a landslide, but then the diebold district submits the same sketchy results to bush. and lets not even talk about the other voting machine companies or we could be here all night

He didnt win fair and square..... He just stole it smarter.

I'm out for the night. telegram me

As a Democrat who voted for Bush, I can explain why I chose him over Kerry.

#1) A clear and personal opinion of the issues.

#2) Kerry's Running mate was sueing the pants off of Doctors, most of the suits being uncalled for and only to raise medical costs.

#3) Kerry chanmged his stance on the subject every time he went to a new state.

#4) The Democratic Party became the Liberal Party, and while I belive some things that the liberals are siding with are commendable, others like the removal of certain things that are a part of our culture (removing prayer from school, while pushing for the study of other non-christian Religions in it's place.)

#5) Kerry has a plaque for him in Ho Chi Min City as a hero of the Communist party, for his betrayal of his own nation durring the senae hearings.

#6) Kerry kept telling us that he had a plan, and going on and on about having a plan. Now don't get me wrong here, but a true man of peace, Martin Luthor King Jr. had a dream, but he at least told us what it was, while Kerry a person who claims to be a hero will not even say what his plan is.

#7) Edwards, Kerry's running mate, won a case by doing what another famous Edwards does, he "crossed over" and summoned the soul of a dead fetus to win. Now I admire a crafty person, but this wasn't craftiness.


These are Seven reasons, there are more. I am a Democrat, I side with our military, I am pro-Farmer, I am for Civil Unions for Homosexuals as I feel that marriage is a Relgious thing and in the Domain of the Chruch not the state. I am not as my fellows put it "An Evangelical Homophobic Moron".

They failed by not connecting with the very people they insult, to respond to this kind of nose bloodying with a small tantrum and not with the dignity to stand back up wipe the blood off and try to learn why when he swung you didn't get out of the way fast enough. You need to try to bring those like me back into the fold, by adressing our veiws, you cannot just ignore them. If you do we will become Republicans as they are willing to enter the middle ground and tell it like it is.

Eh, the likleyhood of you guys actualy acting on this enlightenment is as efective as this: :headbang:

Thank You,
FLX

I agree with a statement said earlier stating that "the way of the liberal is going out of style..."

Although people tend to tell me that im neutral in my beliefs, I often find myself being more of liberal republican. It sounds like a big oxymoron but I do believe that. The reason for kerrys defeat is his inabillity to speak what he trulthfully thinks. He always bashed bushs' foriegn policy and the way he's running the war, yet the closest thing we got from kerry on how we would do it sound differnet in the text, but the action was all the same. I found that to be the case in a few issues....even in the ones bush had nothing to say.


Any thoughts on who will be running next election....both parties

Luckily they are Democrats - powered by elitist snobs, so that will not happen for a very long time.
How are Democrats elitists?

They failed by not connecting with the very people they insult
Can you say "OMG traitor northest liberals". The Democrats weren't the only ones insulting parts of the US population.

Interesting. So if the state is out of the marriage business then the only way to get married is Religion.

Yes, but A) not all religions oppose gay marriage, so taking the state out of marriage wouldn't necessarily mean that Christians could shut homosexuals out of marriage and B) replacing marriage with civil unions for both straight and gay couples ensures equal protection under the law, which is what's really at stake here.

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

Yay

Well the article starts off by being improperly named. It is entitled:

Why You Lost

How does one lose by taking part in the democratic process? Why is the author basically calling Democrats "losers", in such an arrogant way? Nobody likes to be called a loser surely?

Why the need to read so much into the title? The article is, in fact, about the reasons why the Democratic candidate for President and numerous other Democratic candidates in races across the country lost their elections. It's hard to see any arrogance here when I think most Democrats would agree that this election represents a loss for their party, and when some would say that it represents a loss for America.

Then he starts in with the jaded "truths", such as:

And you lost huge: though the presidency was decided by a moderate percentage, the breadth of Republican victories across the nation was historic.

The Republican win was the closest for an incumbent since the election in 1916. When you crunch the real numbers versus population, it was an extremely close election. Only 19% of the entire US population voted for Bush, and 18% voted for Kerry.

Was the Presidential election close? Yes. Should it have been? Absolutely not. The Democrats had every opportunity to win it. They were facing a weak incumbent who reneged on his promises of "compassionate conservatism" during an unpopular war and in a time of economic recession. Also, keep in mind that the writer isn't just talking about the race beween Bush and Kerry. Lest we forget, the Republicans also gained several seats in the legislature and knocked off the Senate minority leader, an historic accomplishment in its own right.

If 100,000 more voters in Ohio had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, the author of this article wouldn't have been able to write....Why You Lost.

I've done some research on the guy who wrote this. Here's a bit from his political blog the day before the election.

Oh, and just to make sure I say this before the election is final, whichever half does lose this election (and probably both halves just to stay consistent) will have a rant coming to them; just saying this now so I don't get accused of just jumping on the bandwagon of whomever winds up being the victor.

In Chesnavich's defense, he was going to write Why You Lost regardless of who lost.

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

Yay
I read your link and was dying from laughing so hard. That site sure uses a lot of venom but raises so many good points. I wonder how many others would have considered those comparisons? :eek:

[QUOTE=CrazyVikingRaiders #53]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaiiaio


Whether liberals are all hippies (which is silly) is irrelevant. Are you Americans..?

That is the question.


The real question is are all americans right and left willing to step up to the plate and be Human Beings rather than the hate filled monsters the last four years have made us all, And can we finally recognize the fact that being Homo Sapiens Sapien in this world makes us world citizens wether we like it or not?

But I don't think we are hate filled monsters.

Show me how your "world citizenship" means anything at all.

If you were to chug some beer in Saudi Arabia, you'd be arrested for "dealings with alcohol".

Every locale has it's own set of restrictions on "rights".

There is no "world entity" which being a citizen of means anything.

Have fun and enjoy your "thought experiment" that is "world citizenship".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653667
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508
http://www.aei.org/news/filter.,newsID.20856/news_detail.asp

How misinformation be discounted when a very significant portion of the country thought that Saddam had ties to 9/11, when even our own commission found that he did not?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911/

It's disappointing.

NEW YORK, Nov. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- When President Bush's poll numbers surged in April after a press conference where his performance was derided by the press and the chattering classes, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry was baffled, writes Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in an exclusive report in Newsweek's special election issue. "He said with a sigh to one top staffer, 'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.'"

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041104/nyth186_1.html

The more of this kind of behind the scenes stuff I read about Kerry, the more relieved I am that he lost. I mean, the man just does not come across as a good person. And that's not good for the country.

And what's the worst that's come out on Bush? A clip of him flipping the bird to some friends in jest... Whoopie.... I do it all the time.

And to anyone who says "OMG, liberals are teh n00b, they are teh steal my gun plx!", sign up with your local militia and THEN you can have one. That part of the Second Amendment is there for a reason.