NationStates Jolt Archive

Let me start by saying that I consider myself a moderate conservative. I don't tow the Republican party line. But I tend to vote Republican more often than not.
One thing I see is the total failure of the Democratic party. They don't seem to get main stream America. Why is this? They have swung to far left with some of there idea's. I mean why the heck would you name Howard Dean as the party chairman? That was stupid if you ask me. They also seem to shun moderate Democrats for not being to far left. This to me will spell disaster.
I have no interest in seeing the nation being dominated by one party. It is not a good idea. I actually wish we could have more than two viable parties. But that's a ways down the road I think.
What do my fellow American Democrats suggest can be done to strengthen the Democratic party? Or are we looking at the begining of the end?

Excuse me, but what exactly do you mean by "too far left"?

Too many civil liberties is a bad thing, is it?

Oh God I hope that doesn't happen!

Like you said, the best hope of the Democratic party lies in bringing moderates to power. People who are willing to bend and compromise, while at the same time sticking to the guns of their party.

Last thing we need is an extremist from either side running the country..oh, too late...

Excuse me, but what exactly do you mean by "too far left"?

Too many civil liberties is a bad thing, is it?

Not civil liberties. This country was founded on them. I mean social programs, taxes

Not civil liberties. This country was founded on them. I mean social programs, taxes

I know that people such as yourself dislike taxes. But we need taxes to maintain social programs, which are necessary for the less fortunate.

The system does need an overhaul, as the management is absolutely horrible. But still, we need taxes to support the needy, and really, what's so bad about that?

Not civil liberties. This country was founded on them. I mean social programs, taxes

Too much helping the downtrodden is a bad thing, eh?

The Democratic part will be gone in a few decades and be replaced with the moderate branch of the Republican Party, partly because America is headed in a Right Moderate Direction, partly because the Democrats have their heads in the sand.

I know that people such as yourself dislike taxes. But we need taxes to maintain social programs, which are necessary for the less fortunate.

The system does need an overhaul, as the management is absolutely horrible. But still, we need taxes to support the needy, and really, what's so bad about that?


I don't propose eliminating taxes at all. But the government shouldn't be creating money eating social programs. We could debate who we should take care of and who we shouldnt. I personally think that if a person is able to work then they should. If by no fault of ones own. Disability for example. There should be a government safety net of sorts. Now the level of care could be hotly debated. I don't think we should neglect our Disabled and or Elderly. But that is what SSI is for. Which needs a severe overhaul to make it stable.

The Democratic part will be gone in a few decades and be replaced with the moderate branch of the Republican Party, partly because America is headed in a Right Moderate Direction, partly because the Democrats have their heads in the sand.

Suffering from delusion is never a good thing, kids.

Too much helping the downtrodden is a bad thing, eh?

Yes, actually it is. If one was to make it to easy not to work. There are alot of people that would take advantage. Now I of course don't lump the Disabled or Elderly Americans in that group.

Suffering from delusion is never a good thing, kids.

I couldn't agree with you more which is exactly whats happening the the Democratic Party. I think while I prefer Republicans There are good democrats, and with out them the Political System won't be as fair.

Yes, actually it is. If one was to make it to easy not to work. There are alot of people that would take advantage. Now I of course don't lump the Disabled or Elderly Americans in that group.

Looks like somebody thinks that poor people bring it all on themselves...

How about this --- Go and visit a homeless shelter and some really bad neighborhoods, and then tell me they bring it all on themselves.

Excuse me, but what exactly do you mean by "too far left"?

Too many civil liberties is a bad thing, is it?

So, whom on thier side is supporting my rights to collect old military rifles?
Not to mention affirmitive action is just racism no matter how its looked at.

I couldn't agree with you more which is exactly whats happening the the Democratic Party. I think while I prefer Republicans There are good democrats, and with out them the Political System won't be as fair.

There are many Democrats with their heads in the sand, and we definately need some geinuine "tough guys" in Congress and the Senate; people who will stand up for themselves and not act like total wusses.

Looks like somebody thinks that poor people bring it all on themselves...

How about this --- Go and visit a homeless shelter and some really bad neighborhoods, and then tell me they bring it all on themselves.


Actually I have been to homeless shelters. I use to give money to a christian shelter in my home town. So I decided to go down there and see how it works. Been that maybe a dozen times. There is many Disabled and Mentally ill people in them. They should be taken care of by the government. I know alot about this subject and am alot older than most NS'ers. So I do have a lifetime of seeing this kind of thing.

The facts are that some homeless choose that lifestyle. It's a fact that I have come to learn.

I'm sorry, but this is silly.

After 8 years of Clinton, Bush had less votes nationwide but squeaked through the electoral college. Now he won re-election by a fair majority nationwide - although it was close in terms of the electoral college.

This is far from the doom of the Democratic party.

And, yes, there are all sorts of "trends" you can look at to say things are bad for Democrats, but a few years ago those arguments were bogus. There are lots of "trends" you can look at to prove this is a liberal, Democrat country with some voting abberations. Neither set of "trends" prove much of anything.

Republicans and conservatives did this same type of gloating during the Reagan years. Then Clinton came. It got awfully quite.

It will happen again.

So, whom on thier side is supporting my rights to collect old military rifles?
Not to mention affirmitive action is just racism no matter how its looked at.

I whole-heartedly agree with you, here. Now, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm extremely far-left, and I think that anybody should have the right to own a weapon.

And yes, Affirmative Action is ridiculous. It should depend completely on the student's performance.

Actually I have been to homeless shelters. I use to give money to a christian shelter in my home town. So I decided to go down there and see how it works. Been that maybe a dozen times. There is many Disabled and Mentally ill people in them. They should be taken care of by the government. I know alot about this subject and am alot older than most NS'ers. So I do have a lifetime of seeing this kind of thing.

The facts are that some homeless choose that lifestyle. It's a fact that I have come to learn.

Then if they choose it, it is their fault. But the way I see it is that we shouldn't let somebody live a horrible life just because they refuse to work.

Not to mention affirmitive action is just racism no matter how its looked at.

This is simple ignorance. If you want to create a separate thread, I'd be glad to explain.

My guess is that what you think of as "affirmative action" has nothing to do with reality.

Taxes are going to be REALLY fucking high because of all this war bullshit, spending trillions to go to war, who do you expect to pay for this? Bill Gates? Hell no that's coming out of your pockets, your children's pockets, their grandchildren's pockets and so forth. Taxes are neccessary and vital in order for the operating status of the country to be nominal. I don't know about you but I'd rather pay to feed, clothe, and shelter the homeless than to pay for M16 A2's, Abhrams Tanks, Stinger ATA Missiles, Bunker Busting Bombs, and other nonsense that ends life and does nothing to improve the overall "goodness" of the world. And since when has being anti-war been a bad thing? To think that in my opinion is one of the most disturbing and disgusting things I have ever heard. I SERIOUSLY don't know how anybody could be a hardcore republican. I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others, but war is DEFINATELY not something that should be waged often or without reguard for the fact that people are DYING! It's not a video game! It's not a form of entertainment! People are DYINGGG! But hey, that's just how I see it.

Then if they choose it, it is their fault. But the way I see it is that we shouldn't let somebody live a horrible life just because they refuse to work.


Are you going to give half of your income to someone you don't know so they don't have to work. Would you rather give only 20% of your income for basic government services. Give the other 30% to your own children and family and be able to take care of them well? Because that is what it would come down to. I prefer to take care of my own first. Not someone that is capable of working but would rather not.

Are you going to give half of your income to someone you don't know so they don't have to work. Would you rather give only 20% of your income for basic government services. Give the other 30% to your own children and family and be able to take care of them well? Because that is what it would come down to. I prefer to take care of my own first. Not someone that is capable of working but would rather not.

Yes, I'd give half of my income, because I'm compassionate, and I don't like the thought of letting people die just because they don't want to work as slaves in cubicles for a good part of their lives.

I'm sorry, but this is silly.

After 8 years of Clinton, Bush had less votes nationwide but squeaked through the electoral college. Now he won re-election by a fair majority nationwide - although it was close in terms of the electoral college.

This is far from the doom of the Democratic party.

And, yes, there are all sorts of "trends" you can look at to say things are bad for Democrats, but a few years ago those arguments were bogus. There are lots of "trends" you can look at to prove this is a liberal, Democrat country with some voting abberations. Neither set of "trends" prove much of anything.

Republicans and conservatives did this same type of gloating during the Reagan years. Then Clinton came. It got awfully quite.

It will happen again.

Well you have somewhat of a point. But from what I remember of the Reagan years wasn't as bad as it is today.

Are you going to give half of your income to someone you don't know so they don't have to work. Would you rather give only 20% of your income for basic government services. Give the other 30% to your own children and family and be able to take care of them well? Because that is what it would come down to. I prefer to take care of my own first. Not someone that is capable of working but would rather not.

Way to pull figures out of thin air! What are you talking about?

What evidence do you have that significant amounts of government support go to individuals that are "capable of working but would rather not"?

Yes, I'd give half of my income, because I'm compassionate, and I don't like the thought of letting people die just because they don't want to work as slaves in cubicles for a good part of their lives.


Then I would suggest that you give 30% of your income to a homeless shelter or favorite charity. But don't tell me that I need to do this. I have my priorities the way I want them. My family first, Me second. Everyone else far third. I work to hard for my money to waste on someone that doesn't want to work. I personally employ 11-15 people at any given time. I feel that my efforts to improve society are just right.

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]
One thing I see is the total failure of the Democratic party. They don't seem to get main stream America.

They got 49% of the vote, more than the Republicans did in the 1992 election when the Democrats swept the presidency and both houses of Congress by a greater number.

If the election were held today, Bush would not win.

Way to pull figures out of thin air! What are you talking about?

What evidence do you have that significant amounts of government support go to individuals that are "capable of working but would rather not"?


Read through the whole post first and then say this.

Figures are as follows. Average American family pays a adjusted 20% income tax

When I lived in the UK the average "Federal" adjusted tax was just above 50%. The UK is far more socialist then the US.

That is my basis. So before you go and flame think first.

Then I would suggest that you give 30% of your income to a homeless shelter or favorite charity. But don't tell me that I need to do this. I have my priorities the way I want them. My family first, Me second. Everyone else far third. I work to hard for my money to waste on someone that doesn't want to work. I personally employ 11-15 people at any given time. I feel that my efforts to improve society are just right.

Oh yeah, I'm really gonna give to a charity that might give 60% of my donation to the people who need it.

I really can't see how people like you can be so thoughtless and crude.

Read through the whole post first and then say this.

Figures are as follows. Average American family pays a adjusted 20% income tax

When I lived in the UK the average "Federal" adjusted tax was just above 50%. The UK is far more socialist then the US.

That is my basis. So before you go and flame think first.

Yeah, but the problem with their tax system is that it works AGAINST the less fortunate. There are far more people below the poverty line in the U.K. than in 1979.

Oh yeah, I'm really gonna give to a charity that might give 60% of my donation to the people who need it.

I really can't see how people like you can be so thoughtless and crude.


I am far from thoughtless and crude. It's easy to spend other peoples money isn't it. Homeless shelters don't spend 60% on the clients. Its in the 90%'s. Take your own advice about visiting and finding out about your nearest homeless shelter. Your statement proves alot about you.

Yeah, but the problem with their tax system is that it works AGAINST the less fortunate. There are far more people below the poverty line in the U.K. than in 1979.


Well not sure on that figure but, there tax system is screwed up. But there is people that want to make the US in the European model. Which is a huge HUGE mistake.

I disagree. Please allow me to explain what I disagree with, and why, Marrakech II.

One thing I see is the total failure of the Democratic party. They don't seem to get main stream America. Why is this? They have swung to far left with some of there idea's.I believe that this is purely from your perspective and based on opinion, not fact. "Main stream America" is not easily defined. Nearly 50% of the voters in the 2004 election voted Democrat. In addition, besides the southern states, the Republican party dominates comparatively low-population states; Democrats are still very strong in high-population areas. Keeping this in mind, it seems like a fallacy to say that the Democrats don't understand mainstream America when [technically] half of America voted for him; by your logic, Republicans don't get main stream America either. I guess both parties are stumped.

I mean why the heck would you name Howard Dean as the party chairman? That was stupid if you ask me.Have you looked into why it was that he was chosen? Dean has an "outsider" feeling to him. He's actually moderate on a number of issues, notably gun rights. He governed a primarily rural state. He utilized the internet as a fundraising tool more effectively than any other Democratic primary candidate. He is also very progressive, and the progressive grass-roots wing of the Democratic Party wants that [centrism isn't liked by all Democrats]. The Democrats hope that he can help retake the South and the rural states and that he'll help with fund-raising. Considering his politics, this seems reasonable to me.

They also seem to shun moderate Democrats for not being to far left. This to me will spell disaster.You must not have heard of Harry Reid.

What do my fellow American Democrats suggest can be done to strengthen the Democratic party? Or are we looking at the begining of the end.To me, the future of the Democratic party is in open-minded progressivism. Not this damnable centrism. Why is it that whenever the Democrats lose, they think they have to be more like Republicans? I think they may have finally learned their lesson. On another note, I don't think the Democrats will wither away; they have experienced huge losses recently, and are currently a complete minority party. However, the GOP occupied that tenuous position for decades. And they're running strong. Things will reverse some day, and people will be wondering if the GOP will collapse, and they'll probably be wrong.

In closing, the parties are too entrenched to change. Government and politics is a different creature than in years past.

Its not your money. Its the government's money. That's why it says "United States of America" on it and not "your name here."

You're a citizen: pay your dues and quit crying about it.

I am far from thoughtless and crude. It's easy to spend other peoples money isn't it. Homeless shelters don't spend 60% on the clients. Its in the 90%'s. Take your own advice about visiting and finding out about your nearest homeless shelter. Your statement proves alot about you.

90% is a lot better than 60%, but I was talking about charities. Still, even 90% isn't enough. I'd very much like to have 100% of my money go to the people, and not some fat bastard sitting behind a desk.

Then if you're so thoughtful, why would you reduce taxes to increase the quality of your plush life (people who employ 11+ people are hardly having a bad time of it), therefore ruining the already poor quality of those who are in need?

The only party in my country is the nightly SMOKE PARTY!

Take a hit and pass it on............................


<##############~~~~~~~~~~~


WEED is completely LEGAL and FREE in my country!

Read through the whole post first and then say this.

Figures are as follows. Average American family pays a adjusted 20% income tax

When I lived in the UK the average "Federal" adjusted tax was just above 50%. The UK is far more socialist then the US.

That is my basis. So before you go and flame think first.

Um, I read through both the entire post and the entire thread. I did not flame. I accurately described the fact that you created this hypothetical of 50% taxes versus 20% out of thin air. You gave no explanation for those numbers.

I quoted your entire post and will do so here:

Are you going to give half of your income to someone you don't know so they don't have to work. Would you rather give only 20% of your income for basic government services. Give the other 30% to your own children and family and be able to take care of them well? Because that is what it would come down to. I prefer to take care of my own first. Not someone that is capable of working but would rather not.

Assuming your figure is accurate, how much of the 50% UK tax goes to individuals who are "capable of working but would rather not"?

If your figures are based on comparing US & UK tax rates (ignoring the time discrepancy), I assume you are happy with the amount of social services currently offered out of that 20%.

Trammwerk,

At least your puting some thought into this discussion. We could argue the facts on Democrats and mainstream America. which is fine. You believe your way I believe mine.

Howard Dean to me showed to much lunacy during his runup toward the democratic nomination. His own party abandon him for Kerry. That was sad in itself. It is not a bad thing to show passion on issues as Dean does. But he didn't attract enough moderates to make a viable candidate.

As far as any party being Centrist. You have to appeal to the most people possible if you are taking part in major elections. That means that you have to be centrist. Not to far left or right. It will not win you major elections. It's a historical fact. Now there could be a few anomolies. But the fact is 9/10 times you have to have a centrist party platform.

This is simple ignorance. If you want to create a separate thread, I'd be glad to explain.

My guess is that what you think of as "affirmative action" has nothing to do with reality.

'Fraid you're guilty of the Ad Hominem Fallacy...attacking the man rather than the argument.

My personal opinion is that race should be completely irrelevant. On the college applications and the SATs, they shouldn't even mention race.

Hell, when I was filling those out I was sorely tempted to bubble the circle that said "Other" and write in "Human."

Howard Dean to me showed to much lunacy during his runup toward the democratic nomination. His own party abandon him for Kerry. That was sad in itself. It is not a bad thing to show passion on issues as Dean does. But he didn't attract enough moderates to make a viable candidate.

He lost that Primary (or whatever it was, I've forgotten), and that's why he had that bout of rage. It wasn't having the bout of rage that caused him to lose it. The conservative media twisted it and blew it out of proportion.

He lost that Primary (or whatever it was, I've forgotten), and that's why he had that bout of rage. It wasn't having the bout of rage that caused him to lose it. The conservative media twisted it and blew it out of proportion.

What conservative media?

The only conservative media that I know of is Fox News.

And in that case, wouldn't it be in the singular? (Conservative medium)

Um, I read through both the entire post and the entire thread. I did not flame. I accurately described the fact that you created this hypothetical of 50% taxes versus 20% out of thin air. You gave no explanation for those numbers.

I quoted your entire post and will do so here:



Assuming your figure is accurate, how much of the 50% UK tax goes to individuals who are "capable of working but would rather not"?

If your figures are based on comparing US & UK tax rates (ignoring the time discrepancy), I assume you are happy with the amount of social services currently offered out of that 20%.


I meant read through the whole posting. The discussion throughout. But anyway its really irrelevant now.

As far as me being happy with the amount of social services. Yes I am happy with the amount of money that is being spent. Now how it's being spent is a totally different subject. SSI can be improved dramatically. Better returns=more money for people on it. The Medicare and Medicade programs could be better run. Although a major look at how medical is charged for and carried out in the US is something that needs to be considered. Welfare programs such as food stamps and housing(section 8) need to be reviewed on a regular basis for who is getting them. That is the bulk of social services given in the US. Take care of Disabled, mentally ill and the Elderly. That is the basic services the "Federal Government" should provide. I think it can be done within that budget we have. Now I am not forgeting low income children. Those are run on a individual state by state programs. My state of washington has programs to ensure that they are taken care of for food and medical. That is funded through local sales taxes. Which I'm fine with.

It's true that many people are incapable or unwilling to work, but it is flat out wrong for the government to seize half of people's hard earned income, essentially at gunpoint, to give it to others who have not earned it. This violates our rights both as citizens and as humans. If an individual did this instead of the government (a la Robin Hood) I'm sure you would all want him thrown in jail.

What conservative media?

The only conservative media that I know of is Fox News.

And in that case, wouldn't it be in the singular? (Conservative medium)

Yeah, I guess so. Silly me.

I find Fox News unbearable to watch... The anchors are complete assholes. They interrupt people whenever they please, shoot down any opinions they don't agree with, and generally have pissy attitudes. Especially that Scarborough nut.

'Fraid you're guilty of the Ad Hominem Fallacy...attacking the man rather than the argument.

My personal opinion is that race should be completely irrelevant. On the college applications and the SATs, they shouldn't even mention race.

Hell, when I was filling those out I was sorely tempted to bubble the circle that said "Other" and write in "Human."

I'm afraid there was no argument to attack. Just a single sentence saying "affirmative action is racism." I did not mean to cast aspersions on the author and apologize if I did. But I stand by the assertion that the statement is based on ignorance.

And you've done essentially the same. Your opinion without argument.

I'm curious as to what exactly makes Chairman Dean so out of the mainstream.


Was it his desire to balance the budget?

Was it his position on state and local decision-making in new gun legislation?

Was it his ideas on healthcare; about doing something about the 40 million uninsured in America?

What is it? What part of this is so out there.

Can anyone actually namea position he took during the primaries that made him crazy?

Yeah, I guess so. Silly me.

I find Fox News unbearable to watch... The anchors are complete assholes. They interrupt people whenever they please, shoot down any opinions they don't agree with, and generally have pissy attitudes. Especially that Scarborough nut.

I love it when some anchors tell their guests, "I'll give you the last word," but then interrupt and say something anyway.

I love it when some anchors tell their guests, "I'll give you the last word," but then interrupt and say something anyway.

Like that dickhead Sean Hannity. And don't forget about that pervert Bill O'Reilly.

Like that dickhead Sean Hannity. And don't forget about that pervert Bill O'Reilly.


What happened to democratic tolerance?

"Originally Posted by Potaria
Yeah, I guess so. Silly me.

I find Fox News unbearable to watch... The anchors are complete assholes. They interrupt people whenever they please, shoot down any opinions they don't agree with, and generally have pissy attitudes. Especially that Scarborough nut."

Scarborough isn't on Fox. He's on MSNBC. Which shows exactly how much you know about something before attacking it.

Yeah, he is on MSNBC. Meh, I tend to confuse the two. He's still a nut.

What happened to democratic tolerance?

Did I ever say that I was a Democrat? I remember clearly stating that I wasn't, and that I was much farther Left.

I don't tolerate people who are intolerable and intolerant, and that's exactly what Scarborough, O'Reilly, and Hannity are.

Like that dickhead Sean Hannity. And don't forget about that pervert Bill O'Reilly.

There is no need to stoop to name-calling to make a point.

My personal opinion is that all news sources are in some way, shape, or form biased. You have to use logic and check multiple sources before coming to a conclusion.

Unfortunately, not many people on here do that.

Those that do have my respect.

There is no need to stoop to name-calling to make a point.

My personal opinion is that all news sources are in some way, shape, or form biased. You have to use logic and check multiple sources before coming to a conclusion.

Unfortunately, not many people on here do that.

Those that do have my respect.

I'm not "name-calling", I'm simply stating what those people are :D.

And I agree, all news sources are biased, even if it's just a tiny bit. I like to check different sources, and it's quite a sight to see how each differs from the other.

Did I ever say that I was a Democrat? I remember clearly stating that I wasn't, and that I was much farther Left.

I don't tolerate people who are intolerable and intolerant, and that's exactly what Scarborough, O'Reilly, and Hannity are.

democratic tolerance is a statement in general. It is not a specific statement about a political party.

Well I personally don't copy other people that I personally despise. It isn't good for ones self to lower to standards of certain people I dislike.
These people are giving there own opinions. As the same you do on this forum. I don't agree with some of what you say. But I agree that you should be able to say what you want. That is what makes a free society. Intolerance breeds intolerance. I would suggest to anyone not to fall in that trap.

democratic tolerance is a statement in general. It is not a specific statement about a political party.

Well I personally don't copy other people that I personally despise. It isn't good for ones self to lower to standards of certain people I dislike.
These people are giving there own opinions. As the same you do on this forum. I don't agree with some of what you say. But I agree that you should be able to say what you want. That is what makes a free society. Intolerance breeds intolerance. I would suggest to anyone not to fall in that trap.

Hey, we see eye-to-eye on something!

Hey, we see eye-to-eye on something!


There we go. At least we can come to the middle on something.

There we go. At least we can come to the middle on something.

I guess that's better than nothing...

I guess that's better than nothing...


You forget we both live in a great country. That is the second thing we have in common.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.03

Well, I guess that means that I what I have always said I am, an independant who leans towards the conservative side of politics, about the same as Gerhard Schroder, except from what I have seen he is a liberal, but then again all Europeans are going to seem liberal to Americans, even the most conservative Euopreans.

I doubt that the Democratic Party is going to go away anytime soon. Yes, they need to reform, but not as much as people like to think, they only need to do enough to get two million more votes, then suddenly they control congress and have won the presidency. I predict a democrat in the White House in four years, it has been a recurring pattern over the last half century, Republican to Democrat to Republican to Democrat almost uninterrupted, I think it has served our country well.

Here is my ideal government (not quite but it is the thought that counts.) Democratic Congress and Repuclican President. Democrats have the money smarts and Republicans know what to do with an Army, at least that is this simpleton's observation.

There is no need to stoop to name-calling to make a point.

My personal opinion is that all news sources are in some way, shape, or form biased. You have to use logic and check multiple sources before coming to a conclusion.

Unfortunately, not many people on here do that.

Those that do have my respect.

There is only one thing I have learned from my Statistics class, everyone is biased. EVERYONE! The only way a person can not be biased is if they are brain dead, and then we get into the argument of "are they really people?" and I just don't feel like getting into that.

There is only one thing I have learned from my Statistics class, everyone is biased. EVERYONE! The only way a person can not be biased is if they are brain dead, and then we get into the argument of "are they really people?" and I just don't feel like getting into that.


Well I believe your statistics class is correct. It is an obvious point if I must say.

Looks like somebody thinks that poor people bring it all on themselves...

How about this --- Go and visit a homeless shelter and some really bad neighborhoods, and then tell me they bring it all on themselves.

I very much doubt that anyone believes that most homeless people bring it onto themselves. And I know more than a few people here in Canada that are on Socail Assistance programs simply because they are too lazy to work. Note that they are capable of working, capable of finding jobs (ie jobs are available within their skill set), but they simply choose not to, since panhandling and government handouts are so easy to come buy.

I very much doubt that anyone believes that most homeless people bring it onto themselves. And I know more than a few people here in Canada that are on Socail Assistance programs simply because they are too lazy to work. Note that they are capable of working, capable of finding jobs (ie jobs are available within their skill set), but they simply choose not to, since panhandling and government handouts are so easy to come buy.


I said in a previous post that some homeless choose to be homeless as a way of life. Would you consider that into your arguement.

I said in a previous post that some homeless choose to be homeless as a way of life. Would you consider that into your arguement.

and some people use household detergents to get high. Should we ban all household detergents? There will always be some people that misuse things, that doesnt mean we eliminate those things, we just try to minimize the number of people who do that and then live with the fact that we can never eliminate it completely.

Anywho, getting back to the original point of the topic (I know, sacralige :eek: ), the Democratic Party has had problems ever since McGovern in '72. When they have won the Presidency since, it's because they either put up a moderate who was a decent public speaker (i.e. Clinton), or because the Republican candidate sucked (i.e. Carter v. Ford). The party in general seems to have its head in the clouds, trying to find that perfect world where everything can be fixed by the government, while the rest of us are down here in the imperfect world where the government often just makes things worse. Either they will turn back towards the moderate end of things and focus on civil liberties, or they will fall into the ash heap of dead political parties like the Whigs.

I'm sure someone pointed this out, but one marginal victory and a slight majority in the house does not the fall of a party make. It's cute to try and dance on the grave of the opposite side in the attempts to make them look more beaten than they really are, but the reality that this is just ebb and flow. And the ebb isn't nearly as big as people are making it out to be.

Anywho, getting back to the original point of the topic (I know, sacralige :eek: ), the Democratic Party has had problems ever since McGovern in '72. When they have won the Presidency since, it's because they either put up a moderate who was a decent public speaker (i.e. Clinton), or because the Republican candidate sucked (i.e. Carter v. Ford). The party in general seems to have its head in the clouds, trying to find that perfect world where everything can be fixed by the government, while the rest of us are down here in the imperfect world where the government often just makes things worse. Either they will turn back towards the moderate end of things and focus on civil liberties, or they will fall into the ash heap of dead political parties like the Whigs.

Come now.

If you say a Party has only won the Presidency where:
(a) it put up a "moderate" or
(b) the other major candidate "sucked"

You could be talking about the Republican Party since '72.
You could probably be talking about any party for at least some period in US history.

Let me start by saying that I consider myself a moderate conservative. I don't tow the Republican party line. But I tend to vote Republican more often than not.
One thing I see is the total failure of the Democratic party. They don't seem to get main stream America. Why is this? They have swung to far left with some of there idea's. I mean why the heck would you name Howard Dean as the party chairman? That was stupid if you ask me. They also seem to shun moderate Democrats for not being to far left. This to me will spell disaster.
I have no interest in seeing the nation being dominated by one party. It is not a good idea. I actually wish we could have more than two viable parties. But that's a ways down the road I think.
What do my fellow American Democrats suggest can be done to strengthen the Democratic party? Or are we looking at the begining of the end?
I just think it's funny that you're quoting Trotsky...

And the Dems too far LEFT? They're too far right...

And the Dems too far LEFT? They're too far right...

That's exactly what I'm thinking.

I am really not too afraid about the Democratic Party ending. Why? Look at history. After Wilson left office in 1920, the 20's and early 30's were dominated by the Republicans; until FDR all those presidents were Republican. The Democratic Party had splintered, and it took someone like FDR to reunite them. It may be in 2008, or 2028, but I'm sure that the Democrats will have a candidate in the White House again.

Anywho, getting back to the original point of the topic (I know, sacralige :eek: ), the Democratic Party has had problems ever since McGovern in '72. When they have won the Presidency since, it's because they either put up a moderate who was a decent public speaker (i.e. Clinton), or because the Republican candidate sucked (i.e. Carter v. Ford). The party in general seems to have its head in the clouds, trying to find that perfect world where everything can be fixed by the government, while the rest of us are down here in the imperfect world where the government often just makes things worse. Either they will turn back towards the moderate end of things and focus on civil liberties, or they will fall into the ash heap of dead political parties like the Whigs.


Well put, Moderate shift to the middle is a must in order to survive.

I am really not too afraid about the Democratic Party ending. Why? Look at history. After Wilson left office in 1920, the 20's and early 30's were dominated by the Republicans; until FDR all those presidents were Republican. The Democratic Party had splintered, and it took someone like FDR to reunite them. It may be in 2008, or 2028, but I'm sure that the Democrats will have a candidate in the White House again.


Well FDR was an extrodinary pres. Although he was president during an extrodinary time in history of the US. The issues of the time made him. He had the courage and fortitude to stand tall during these times. So would it take an extrodinary event to forge a new democratic leader? Somehow Bush I think fits this ideal. Not comparing him to FDR. Although FDR had alot of detractors at the time. I don't think Clinton would have handled this situation correctly if you ask me.

Yes, actually it is. If one was to make it to easy not to work. There are alot of people that would take advantage. Now I of course don't lump the Disabled or Elderly Americans in that group.
I agree with you and agree that there are many reasons not to vote Democrat, but still that alone could not be a reason to vote Republican (if I were American that is).

BTW, about their "leftward drift". They haven't moved to the left. America was more socialist 40 years ago than today. Howard Dean is not the leftist you think he is. He is a fiscal conservative and social liberal. As governor of Vermont he cut taxes twice.

I just think it's funny that you're quoting Trotsky...

And the Dems too far LEFT? They're too far right...


I'm not quoting Trotsky my friend.

But the way I see it is that we shouldn't let somebody live a horrible life just because they refuse to work.
Those with the ability to work but who refuse the opportunity should not expect society's support.

Yes, I'd give half of my income, because I'm compassionate, and I don't like the thought of letting people die just because they don't want to work as slaves in cubicles for a good part of their lives.
What do you mean by "slaves in cubicles"?

Oh yeah, I'm really gonna give to a charity that might give 60% of my donation to the people who need it.
Don't flame. If you give to a charity, more of what you give will get to the needy than if the government does it. Why? Because most social welfare budgets go towards paying social workers and others who work within the system, not to the actual needy people. Most charities have lower costs than the government. The advantage that welfare has is the scope of its assistance.

I'd very much like to have 100% of my money go to the people, and not some fat bastard sitting behind a desk.

I'm sure everyone would, but you'll get a lot closer to that 100% through charity than through the government.

He lost that Primary (or whatever it was, I've forgotten), and that's why he had that bout of rage. It wasn't having the bout of rage that caused him to lose it. The conservative media twisted it and blew it out of proportion.
Yes, you are right here. In fact it wasn't even a bout of rage, he just said "yeah!" without realising how loud his mic actually was.

What conservative media?

The only conservative media that I know of is Fox News.

And in that case, wouldn't it be in the singular? (Conservative medium)
Talk radio.

I'm not quoting Trotsky my friend.

"the ash heap of history" is a Trotsky quote, directed at the Mensheviks.

"I may add here as a historian that the expression "ash heap of history" was actually coined by Leo Trotsky. It's something he flung at the Mensheviks when they walked out in late 1917 from the Second Congress of Soviets, which proclaimed Soviet power as essentially Bolshevik leadership, and as they were marching out, he said, "Well, into the ash heap of history." It’s a good expression." From The Reagan Heritage Foundation *shudder* (http://65.126.3.86/reagan/html/reagan_panel_pipes.shtml)

Well, I guess that means that I what I have always said I am, an independant who leans towards the conservative side of politics, about the same as Gerhard Schroder, except from what I have seen he is a liberal
What makes you think that Scroder is liberal?

all Europeans are going to seem liberal to Americans, even the most conservative Euopreans.
Not true at all. Maybe Americans don't hear about it, but in various European countries we have some scarily conservative politicians.

What happened to democratic tolerance?
Slagging people is hardly intolerant.

Let me start by saying that I consider myself a moderate conservative. I don't tow the Republican party line. But I tend to vote Republican more often than not.
One thing I see is the total failure of the Democratic party. They don't seem to get main stream America. Why is this? They have swung to far left with some of there idea's. I mean why the heck would you name Howard Dean as the party chairman? That was stupid if you ask me. They also seem to shun moderate Democrats for not being to far left. This to me will spell disaster.
I have no interest in seeing the nation being dominated by one party. It is not a good idea. I actually wish we could have more than two viable parties. But that's a ways down the road I think.
What do my fellow American Democrats suggest can be done to strengthen the Democratic party? Or are we looking at the begining of the end?

Its not so much that the Democrats are far left its that this country is far right, sometimes I can't help but feel that we should let the neo-cons do whatever they want, this'll either work showing that we were wrong to resist their ideas or, and I feel more likely, it lead to the average person geting royally shafted and might finnaly get them to reilize that they are being exploited.

"the ash heap of history" is a Trotsky quote, directed at the Mensheviks.

"I may add here as a historian that the expression "ash heap of history" was actually coined by Leo Trotsky. It's something he flung at the Mensheviks when they walked out in late 1917 from the Second Congress of Soviets, which proclaimed Soviet power as essentially Bolshevik leadership, and as they were marching out, he said, "Well, into the ash heap of history." It’s a good expression." From The Reagan Heritage Foundation *shudder* (http://65.126.3.86/reagan/html/reagan_panel_pipes.shtml)


I said trash heap. Slightly different. Just because Trotsky said that doesnt mean I had him in my thoughts when I wrote that. I'm sure Trotsky also once said "I will take a ham sandwich on rye, hold the mustard". So if I ordered one of those would I still be quoting him?

Oh God I hope that doesn't happen!

Like you said, the best hope of the Democratic party lies in bringing moderates to power. People who are willing to bend and compromise, while at the same time sticking to the guns of their party.

Last thing we need is an extremist from either side running the country..oh, too late...

Thing is to often the neo-cons are able to label anyone who dosen't just bend over and take it, a radical liberal who wants to force everyone in to same-sex marriages and outlaw the bible, alll the while well turning this nation in to a duplicate of the CCCP.

Yes, actually it is. If one was to make it to easy not to work. There are alot of people that would take advantage. Now I of course don't lump the Disabled or Elderly Americans in that group.
Than why are you working instead of living of of social security? If anything the problem is that as a result of our culltural emphasis on hard work the many people eligible for help don't actually apply for it.

Thing is to often the neo-cons are able to label anyone who dosen't just bend over and take it, a radical liberal who wants to force everyone in to same-sex marriages and outlaw the bible, alll the while well turning this nation in to a duplicate of the CCCP.


You can't possibly think that all conservatives think that way. I'm conservative and think there should be civil unions for same sex. I'm also not a christian but a muslim. But I do identify with the Republican party far more than the Dem's at this point.

This is just my opionion, but i think the democratic party is moving to far to the left. In fact i got an e-mail from Democratic underground (don't know how i got since im a libertarian who sometimes votes republican). The email basically said that the democrats need to shed their conservative views and move more to the left if they want to win an election

I think its dangerous for the dems to move in the direction of Michael Moore and Howard Dean...people who are more concern with their own selfish desires then that of the nation.

Democrats need to move back toward the Clinton agenda

Than why are you working instead of living of of social security? If anything the problem is that as a result of our culltural emphasis on hard work the many people eligible for help don't actually apply for it.


The only way to start collecting social security is to "retire", be "disabled". Also social security is directly affected by how much you have paid into it over your lifetime.

I said trash heap. Slightly different. Just because Trotsky said that doesnt mean I had him in my thoughts when I wrote that. I'm sure Trotsky also once said "I will take a ham sandwich on rye, hold the mustard". So if I ordered one of those would I still be quoting him?

I was just making a comment... Geez, I wasn't implying that you dream about Mr Bronshtein...

And it's a phrase that reminds me of Trotsky, since he was my personality study in year 12. I think his using it may well have led to it becoming a part of the language too, so there ya go.

I was just making a comment... Geez, I wasn't implying that you dream about Mr Bronshtein...

And it's a phrase that reminds me of Trotsky, since he was my personality study in year 12. I think his using it may well have led to it becoming a part of the language too, so there ya go.


hehe ok

Are you going to give half of your income to someone you don't know so they don't have to work. Would you rather give only 20% of your income for basic government services. Give the other 30% to your own children and family and be able to take care of them well? Because that is what it would come down to. I prefer to take care of my own first. Not someone that is capable of working but would rather not.
Why cant they give money to everyone? I rescently read in another thread that the Swedish gov. gives children a monthly wage of $200 dollars just for being kids, personally stufff like that seems like a good thing, don't give just the poor money give some to everyone, that way people will have more money to spend and will be able to buy more things. Sort of like a reverse form of the trickle down method.

Why cant they give money to everyone? I rescently read in another thread that the Swedish gov. gives children a monthly wage of $200 dollars just for being kids, personally stufff like that seems like a good thing, don't give just the poor money give some to everyone, that way people will have more money to spend and will be able to buy more things. Sort of like a reverse form of the trickle down method.

You know I thought of this along time ago. Why can't we mirror some European societies. Well I believe the answer lies in the size of the US. It's shear size in my opinion would not allow for certain benefits programs to be run effectively. But here in the states we do get a tax break for children. Depending on your income it could be a good amount. I don't believe it works out to be $200 a month. But I would guess it's probably around $100+

What conservative media?

The only conservative media that I know of is Fox News.

And in that case, wouldn't it be in the singular? (Conservative medium)
The media, ecept for Fox, is not so much conservative or lberal as it is irresponibly sensationalistic.

The media, ecept for Fox, is not so much conservative or lberal as it is irresponibly sensationalistic.


Well that is a charge that can be fairly accurate of US media. Really most of the worlds media is guilty of this. Although there was blatant media bias towards the president in these last elections. Dan Rather wouldn't be stepping down if he wasn't guilty of making up negative stories about the president.

You can't possibly think that all conservatives think that way. I'm conservative and think there should be civil unions for same sex. I'm also not a christian but a muslim. But I do identify with the Republican party far more than the Dem's at this point.
No I know all don't think that way but the spin masters sure seem able to get enough people to think thats the case, that "moral values" are cited as the main reson for voting during a period of war and massive fiscal irresponsibility.

The only way to start collecting social security is to "retire", be "disabled". Also social security is directly affected by how much you have paid into it over your lifetime.
Yeah sorry about that meant to put welfair :rolleyes:

Yeah sorry about that meant to put welfair :rolleyes:


Ahh I see. Well there are some restrictions on welfare. I don't think they go far enough though. Why should immigrants come here and start collecting welfare? Doesn't make sense to me.

It sounds too good to be true! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

But if they die, that means that far too many factions in the Republican party will form. That means that, eventually, it will fragment into three or four parties. I can already guess what they will be. There will be one liberatarian one, one of moderate conservatives, one for the Neo-Cons, and one for the Christian right. There will probably be one of those staunch "America first" parties that the Republican party built so much off before Eisenhower, but they are starting to die off now.
BTW, the Democrats are, historically, not that far left. In fact, I'd say they are as far left now as Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockerfeller were. They almost made the Republicans a leftist party. Will they make a ressurgence?

You know I thought of this along time ago. Why can't we mirror some European societies. Well I believe the answer lies in the size of the US. It's shear size in my opinion would not allow for certain benefits programs to be run effectively. But here in the states we do get a tax break for children. Depending on your income it could be a good amount. I don't believe it works out to be $200 a month. But I would guess it's probably around $100+
Yeah it might not work, but we will never know if we never try.

Well that is a charge that can be fairly accurate of US media. Really most of the worlds media is guilty of this. Although there was blatant media bias towards the president in these last elections. Dan Rather wouldn't be stepping down if he wasn't guilty of making up negative stories about the president.
He didn't make up the story he just didn't look into verifying it hard enough.

Ahh I see. Well there are some restrictions on welfare. I don't think they go far enough though. Why should immigrants come here and start collecting welfare? Doesn't make sense to me.
Dosen't make sense to me either, personaly I wonder if a system more similer to the goverment employment setups of the New Deal might work beter. That way not only might they be kept from to bad of poverty they could also, hopefully, learn an occupation.

He didn't make up the story he just didn't look into verifying it hard enough.

Yes this is the official line. But I tend to think it was contrived from the begining. Dan Rather is not a stupid guy. I can't see how he could get duped on a story like that. But maybe he did. Doubt if we will ever know the full story.

I said trash heap. Slightly different. Just because Trotsky said that doesnt mean I had him in my thoughts when I wrote that. I'm sure Trotsky also once said "I will take a ham sandwich on rye, hold the mustard". So if I ordered one of those would I still be quoting him?
Considering that Trotsky was Jewish, I somehow doubt this.

(Well, of a jewish background. Nevermind. Nothing to see here)

One thing I see is the total failure of the Democratic party. They don't seem to get main stream America. Why is this? They have swung to far left with some of there idea's.

-I think America has move alot to the right... Over the last 15-20 years! The domocrats has not moved left, the population has moved right.

Harry "The Bastard" (English is not my native language)

I disagree. Please allow me to explain what I disagree with, and why, Marrakech II.

I believe that this is purely from your perspective and based on opinion, not fact. "Main stream America" is not easily defined. Nearly 50% of the voters in the 2004 election voted Democrat. In addition, besides the southern states, the Republican party dominates comparatively low-population states; Democrats are still very strong in high-population areas. Keeping this in mind, it seems like a fallacy to say that the Democrats don't understand mainstream America when [technically] half of America voted for him; by your logic, Republicans don't get main stream America either. I guess both parties are stumped.

Have you looked into why it was that he was chosen? Dean has an "outsider" feeling to him. He's actually moderate on a number of issues, notably gun rights. He governed a primarily rural state. He utilized the internet as a fundraising tool more effectively than any other Democratic primary candidate. He is also very progressive, and the progressive grass-roots wing of the Democratic Party wants that [centrism isn't liked by all Democrats]. The Democrats hope that he can help retake the South and the rural states and that he'll help with fund-raising. Considering his politics, this seems reasonable to me.

You must not have heard of Harry Reid.

To me, the future of the Democratic party is in open-minded progressivism. Not this damnable centrism. Why is it that whenever the Democrats lose, they think they have to be more like Republicans? I think they may have finally learned their lesson. On another note, I don't think the Democrats will wither away; they have experienced huge losses recently, and are currently a complete minority party. However, the GOP occupied that tenuous position for decades. And they're running strong. Things will reverse some day, and people will be wondering if the GOP will collapse, and they'll probably be wrong.

In closing, the parties are too entrenched to change. Government and politics is a different creature than in years past.


Overall i agree, i only wish to add.

THe democrats suck as a party (I am a democrat) because we make a horrible opposition party. Not since the New Deal have we been able to slam the opposite party effectivly. The republicans are just better skilled at the fighting of politics. Now when it comes to governing, i think the democrats generally have the better run of things...OR Pre 1900 Republicans, back when THEY were the liberals and Democrats were the Conservatives....Lincoln would be a Democrat today.

THe "problem" with the party is not that they are out of touch, its just that they ACTUALLY listen to the other side too often. Republicans, genearlly can focus groups of people on a few select issues, Pro-life, Church-Interests, Taxes, and punch those issues home time after time, and they can ignore issues they dont generally like, Bush proved that in the Debates before the last election. Democrats dont feel that luxury, the only issue they have ignored is religion, mostly because they are uncomfortable (understandably so) with the topic as no matter what your going to piss someone off, if not everybody. I honestly believe, that if you found a Democrat who was willing to Go, Toe-to-toe on EVERY issue with a republican, and had a healthy religious spirituality to him, youd see a canidate that would scare the GOP to the core. Dean got put where he is because he was willing to fight, most Democrats were cowed after 9/11....in which congress just sorta rolled over and decided it didnt want to be important anymore. Wellstone was the last great Progressive U.S. Senator, and hes dead now. Until he has someone willing to follow in his shoes, things will continue as they have in recent years.

Yes this is the official line. But I tend to think it was contrived from the begining. Dan Rather is not a stupid guy. I can't see how he could get duped on a story like that. But maybe he did. Doubt if we will ever know the full story.
Making up a story and trying to pass it of as true with out first finding a fallback or a scapegoat, would in my opinion be stupider than just being layzy and not cheacking a story out.

Yeah this is very true.

Let me start by saying that I consider myself a moderate conservative. I don't tow the Republican party line. But I tend to vote Republican more often than not.
One thing I see is the total failure of the Democratic party. They don't seem to get main stream America. Why is this? They have swung to far left with some of there idea's. I mean why the heck would you name Howard Dean as the party chairman? That was stupid if you ask me. They also seem to shun moderate Democrats for not being to far left. This to me will spell disaster.
I have no interest in seeing the nation being dominated by one party. It is not a good idea. I actually wish we could have more than two viable parties. But that's a ways down the road I think.
What do my fellow American Democrats suggest can be done to strengthen the Democratic party? Or are we looking at the begining of the end?
I tend to think a little bit differently on what is the main problem the Democrats face. I don't agree with Republican critics that cite "middle American values" as the cause of their problems. I don't think it really addresses the root of the problem.

The biggest problem they face is their lack of platform focus and consistency.
The party has been hijacked by every special interest group it represents, and some of these groups don't exactly line up with one another.
SIG should be addressed by a party, not actually be the party.

The second biggest problem they face is the tragic image that the word "liberal" implies. Naive trust for big government. Wasted billions on ineffectual programs. Idealistic, impractical proposals to the problems facing a massive, complex society. Tax-and-spend beureaucrats.

Unless drastic changes are made soon, the Democrats have most likely already screwed the pooch.

Yes your correct the word liberal does conjure up some very big negatives for me. Maybe that is stereotypical and perhaps planted there by right-wing talk radio. But that is an identity problem the dems need to overcome. It is up to them to convince me they can do a better job.

Yes your correct the word liberal does conjure up some very big negatives for me. Maybe that is stereotypical and perhaps planted there by right-wing talk radio. But that is an identity problem the dems need to overcome. It is up to them to convince me they can do a better job.Help vote them in and give them a chance. ;)

I like the points made by Starks and Eichen. Starks suggests that the issues Republicans use as their party platform are more universal and easier to sell to the general public, whereas the issues Democrats use as their party platform tend to be more complicated and not always in the best interest of the general public.

Eichen points out that the Democrats have a severe public image problem. The fact is that they're different from the 70s and 80s. To be frank, the Democrats are moving towards a sort of libertarianism, in response to the authoritarian-style government the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party uses. But they're stuck being VIEWED as something they aren't. And while you can try to drill into a single person's head what your party is really all about, it's a bit harder to make the public - a notoriously stupid thing - understand.

I would note that I'm a registered Independent. Not a Democrat. I dislike party politics. Funny how all of George Washington's advice has been disregarded. Bastards.

It will be interesting to see where things go, but I fear the Democrats will think they need a Karl Rove. Worse, maybe they do.

Suffering from delusion is never a good thing, kids.

all the anylists must be suffereing from those same delusions.. because they have already prediticted the Democrats big step to the right after the last election... Something we already have being to see visions of as the Democratic leadership was extermely unpleased by Deans apointment to DNC leader (poor Nancy Peloci got her tides in a twist)

Help vote them in and give them a chance. ;)

I like the points made by Starks and Eichen. Starks suggests that the issues Republicans use as their party platform are more universal and easier to sell to the general public, whereas the issues Democrats use as their party platform tend to be more complicated and not always in the best interest of the general public.

Eichen points out that the Democrats have a severe public image problem. The fact is that they're different from the 70s and 80s. To be frank, the Democrats are moving towards a sort of libertarianism, in response to the authoritarian-style government the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party uses. But they're stuck being VIEWED as something they aren't. And while you can try to drill into a single person's head what your party is really all about, it's a bit harder to make the public - a notoriously stupid thing - understand.

I would note that I'm a registered Independent. Not a Democrat. I dislike party politics. Funny how all of George Washington's advice has been disregarded. Bastards.

It will be interesting to see where things go, but I fear the Democrats will think they need a Karl Rove. Worse, maybe they do.


Im just interested to know if you as well supported Washingtons foregin policy advice.. essentially isolationist ¬_¬

I know that people such as yourself dislike taxes. But we need taxes to maintain social programs, which are necessary for the less fortunate.

The system does need an overhaul, as the management is absolutely horrible. But still, we need taxes to support the needy, and really, what's so bad about that?

Umm...when did it fall on the wealthy to support the poor? And when did it become the job of the federal government to redistribute America's wealth? Seems like the Dems are pushing a very socialist agenda.

Dont get me wrong...I'm by no means rich. Actually, I've been hard-pressed for cash most of my life. But I don't think those who make more should be taxed more to fund the government's "social programs."

Federal gov't should mainly be restricted to NATIONAL matters, giving state and local gov'ts control over their regions.

Let's downsize these gov't programs, decrease spending, lower taxes, let people make more money (and spend it),...oh, but wait, then the Dems wont have any money to spend while they're in Capitol Hill.

And for the guy who thought GW Bush was an extreme conservative...OMG.

Only if they keep trying to be Republican-lite.

Umm...when did it fall on the wealthy to support the poor? And when did it become the job of the federal government to redistribute America's wealth? Seems like the Dems are pushing a very socialist agenda.

You calling me a Democrat?

Dont get me wrong...I'm by no means rich. Actually, I've been hard-pressed for cash most of my life. But I don't think those who make more should be taxed more to fund the government's "social programs."

That's only natural, seeing as how you utterly lack compassion.

Federal gov't should mainly be restricted to NATIONAL matters, giving state and local gov'ts control over their regions.

Yes, that would be wonderful. America becomes pseudo-Europe! Brilliant.

Let's downsize these gov't programs, decrease spending, lower taxes, let people make more money (and spend it),...oh, but wait, then the Dems wont have any money to spend while they're in Capitol Hill.

Alrighty then, let's just leave the less fortunate in the dust and create a society where only the rich lead good lives. Oh wait, that's what we live in already.

And for the guy who thought GW Bush was an extreme conservative...OMG.

He's not an extreme conservative... He's just an idiot.

Well you have somewhat of a point. But from what I remember of the Reagan years wasn't as bad as it is today.
That's because there is alot of amplification due to the anger of the Democrats. From what I understand (not old enough to know), the Democrats were alot more mellow back then compared to now, and anger generally tends to make the bullet hit harder if you know what I mean. It in no case means the end of the party (If the country went one party there are enough people here willing to leave that that one'd probably be begging the other to come back), it just makes them seem more vulnerable. And in any case, at this point electing moderate leaders does nothing good for the Democrats because it makes them look like pussies and the bullet hits even harder. The more radical the leader, despite initial opposal, is less likely to respond in a seemingly weak way to problems and as such the overall image of the party improves, slowly, until it gets back whatever credibility it lost. That's just the way the cycle goes.

You calling me a Democrat?

That's only natural, seeing as how you utterly lack compassion.

Yes, that would be wonderful. America becomes pseudo-Europe! Brilliant.

Alrighty then, let's just leave the less fortunate in the dust and create a society where only the rich lead good lives. Oh wait, that's what we live in already.

He's not an extreme conservative... He's just an idiot.

Yay Potaria! For posting my thoughts when I'm too lazy to do it. :D

Yay Potaria! For posting my thoughts when I'm too lazy to do it. :D

Just doing my... Wait a minute, I don't have a job...

Oh yeah, I remember now. Silly me.

You calling me a Democrat?

No, I'm calling you a dumbass. If you're a democrat, well, then that just proves my point.

That's only natural, seeing as how you utterly lack compassion.

First of all, you dont know me...so dont jump to conclusions nitwit.
Secondly, ITS NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVT TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH !!!

Alrighty then, let's just leave the less fortunate in the dust and create a society where only the rich lead good lives. Oh wait, that's what we live in already.

How about the less fortunate getting off their butts and putting some effort into improving their position in life. Then again, why whould they when programs like welfare and workers comp provide everything they will ever need !

He's not an extreme conservative... He's just an idiot.

Ummm...takes one to know one?

No, I'm calling you a dumbass. If you're a democrat, well, then that just proves my point.

Ah, so I'm a dumbass for wanting to help others?

First of all, you dont know me...so dont jump to conclusions nitwit.
Secondly, ITS NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVT TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH !!!

Another insult? My, aren't we touchy. It is the job of the government, because they print the money. It doesn't matter that you "earn" it. They still hold the rights to it. It's their money, not yours. Deal with it.

How about the less fortunate getting off their butts and putting some effort into improving their position in life. Then again, why whould they when programs like welfare and workers comp provide everything they will ever need !

You think it's always their fault? What about kids who grow up in ghettos and wards, not even with enough money to go to school? What exactly are they gonna do to improve their positions in life?

Ummm...takes one to know one?

I find it funny that you can't come up with a reasonabe counter-argument. Passive/aggressive insults do wonders for showing your level of intelligence.

Oh, and since I'm a nice person... I didn't report your blatant flaming. Have a very nice night/morning.

I love the idea of the government redistributing wealth. It's not like the greedy are going to do it themselves. Someone might as well help them. The reason the government is there is to look out for the welfare of people in general. Not just rich people, not just the greedy and not just corporations. I have no problem with them helping people act as though they have compassion. The whole arguement of the Neo-cons seems to boil down to "It's mine, mine, mine! And you can't make me share!" Wanna make a bet.

He's not an extreme conservative... He's just an idiot.

thats funny... this is an oppinion which is largely on its way out from Democrats view in America. Ive always recognized Bush for what he is.. someone who dosn't look forward 1 year, or 5 years or 10 years.. but 100 years. Before bush.. no one even though democracy in the middle east was possible let alone going into Iraq. Today there are 3 triving democracies with 2 more well on their way (Egypt, Lebenon) and LIBIA of all places making strides in that direction.

That idiot also won 2 impossible elections and unlike any other president who has served a second term shows no sign of slowing down.

Ah, so I'm a dumbass for wanting to help others?

No, I actually think it's wonderful if you actually do. But IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVT TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH.

Another insult? My, aren't we touchy. It is the job of the government, because they print the money. It doesn't matter that you "earn" it. They still hold the rights to it. It's their money, not yours. Deal with it.

No. I earn the money, then I hold the rights to it. It becomes mine. Deal with it.

You think it's always their fault? What about kids who grow up in ghettos and wards, not even with enough money to go to school? What exactly are they gonna do to improve their positions in life?

First of all, I do think that people like this do need some help (key word here is "help"). But they have to be willing to put in their part, which is a trend I don't really see happening in most of the inner cities.

I find it funny that you can't come up with a reasonabe counter-argument. Passive/aggressive insults do wonders for showing your level of intelligence.

Well, you really didn't have an arguement in the first place, so there was really nothing for me to refute. Calling someone an "idiot" does wonders for showing YOUR level of intelligence.

Oh, and since I'm a nice person... I didn't report your blatant flaming. Have a very nice night/morning.

Debatable. Well, you blatantly flamed first. I'll reciprocate your "generosity", and refrain from reporting you as well. Night. :fluffle:

I love the idea of the government redistributing wealth. It's not like the greedy are going to do it themselves. Someone might as well help them. The reason the government is there is to look out for the welfare of people in general. Not just rich people, not just the greedy and not just corporations. I have no problem with them helping people act as though they have compassion. The whole arguement of the Neo-cons seems to boil down to "It's mine, mine, mine! And you can't make me share!" Wanna make a bet.

compassion isn't always democracy... i stlil dont see how the government supports the rich.. and the corporations or the greedy... or why we should be restributing wealth in any manner... Beaurocracies are notoriously more corrupt then private corporations.. and even if a private coroproation is more corrupt.. it can be held more accountable.. while beaurcracies have a nasty habbit of distributing blame so that noone is ever held accoutable.

By the way.. incase you didn't know, capitalism isn't about sharing its about buying at a fair price >.>

Im just interested to know if you as well supported Washingtons foregin policy advice.. essentially isolationist ¬_¬
Yes, I do.

and actually.. in capitalism as in america, when you EARN money.. its yours.. the government just garantees its value and endorses it

Yes, I do.

Even if it cost the Europe World war 2 ? or the UNs failor like the league of nations ?

thats funny... this is an oppinion which is largely on its way out from Democrats view in America. Ive always recognized Bush for what he is.. someone who dosn't look forward 1 year, or 5 years or 10 years.. but 100 years. Before bush.. no one even though democracy in the middle east was possible let alone going into Iraq. Today there are 3 triving democracies with 2 more well on their way (Egypt, Lebenon) and LIBIA of all places making strides in that direction.

That idiot also won 2 impossible elections and unlike any other president who has served a second term shows no sign of slowing down.
So in 100 years the entire world will be completely peaceful because we chose to wage war? Yeah, right. The magical thing about democracy is that if you choose to, you may elect a dictator rather than a president.

Hardly impossible. I don't know about 2000, hard to judge, but in 2004 it really depended on what issue was most important to you. If you were afraid of another terrorist attack, you probably voted Bush, while if you were afraid of the rediculous taxes it would take to pay for this additional security that we probably didn't need, you voted Kerry.

In reality, that's all the election came down to, how vulnearble you thought we were. Now conservatives in congress use it as an excuse of support, but in reality alot of people voted based on that factor, no matter how much they were for or against either party's ideology, and of course they voted more on the person than on the party. People weren't looking at the Democratic party and saying "hmmm, I hate gay people," they were looking at kerry and saying "hmmm, I hate his foreign policy."

I could go on but its 4:30 am.

thats funny... this is an oppinion which is largely on its way out from Democrats view in America. Ive always recognized Bush for what he is.. someone who dosn't look forward 1 year, or 5 years or 10 years.. but 100 years. Before bush.. no one even though democracy in the middle east was possible let alone going into Iraq. Today there are 3 triving democracies with 2 more well on their way (Egypt, Lebenon) and LIBIA of all places making strides in that direction.

That idiot also won 2 impossible elections and unlike any other president who has served a second term shows no sign of slowing down.Okay, let's get this straight. Bush wasn't thinking about democracy when he attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. He was thinking about WMDs and the possibility that they will get into the hands of terrorists. The immediate threat of terrorists acquiring weapons that could kill millions of Americans and could be easily smuggled across the border was his prime concern. He was also concerned with locating al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and, possibly, Iraq. This Democracy thing is something cooked up in the wake of an obvious lack of weapons TO sell to terrorists. It's not some kind of master plan, Invidentia. It's a rationalization.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Even if it cost the Europe World war 2 ? or the UNs failor like the league of nations ?The United States was attacked by Japan, an Axis power in league with Austria and Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor. This drew America into World War II. We helped to defeat the Nazis and save the world from fascism on principles of self-defense. And from all accounts, the U.N. is generally a failure today.

The only substantial argument against American isolationism is the Cold War.

And from all accounts, the U.N. is generally a failure today.

Amen to that brother ! :D

compassion isn't always democracy... i stlil dont see how the government supports the rich.. and the corporations or the greedy... or why we should be restributing wealth in any manner... Beaurocracies are notoriously more corrupt then private corporations.. and even if a private coroproation is more corrupt.. it can be held more accountable.. while beaurcracies have a nasty habbit of distributing blame so that noone is ever held accoutable.

By the way.. incase you didn't know, capitalism isn't about sharing its about buying at a fair price >.>

Don't care. I think capitalism is overrated. I do see why we should redistribute wealth. And I don't think a beauracracy is necessarily any more corrupt than a corporation. I believe people have some responsibility to their fellow man. That's just me.

The United States was attacked by Japan, an Axis power in league with Austria and Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor. This drew America into World War II. We helped to defeat the Nazis and save the world from fascism on principles of self-defense. And from all accounts, the U.N. is generally a failure today.

The only substantial argument against American isolationism is the Cold War.

.. Technically.. we went to go fight in europe before ever addressing japan (which can be viewed in many lights considering Hitler had great respect for the United States as it did for Britian) .. secondly we can then look at the Marshall plan.. It was Trumans Marshall plan which ushered in Americas new Foregin policy of activily engaging in world events (like joining the UN)

Don't care. I think capitalism is overrated. I do see why we should redistribute wealth. And I don't think a beauracracy is necessarily any more corrupt than a corporation. I believe people have some responsibility to their fellow man. That's just me.

Seems like you're forcing your moral code on everyone else. Generosity should come from a willing heart, not forced by law. BTW...have you redistributed any of YOUR wealth to the less-fortunate?

Don't care. I think capitalism is overrated. I do see why we should redistribute wealth. And I don't think a beauracracy is necessarily any more corrupt than a corporation. I believe people have some responsibility to their fellow man. That's just me.

and im not saying people have any less responsiblity to their fellow man.. but clear facts show.. beauracracies have far less accountabilty then corporations.. and corporations are far less corrupt as they are accountable to investors who look over every number. Meanwhile beauracricies are outside the realm of direct elections and almost always have no focual points in which responsibilty can be drawn to.

The only substantial argument against American isolationism is the Cold War.
Heres my thing with that-

What we are dealing with right now, the threat that is present, and the attack that was made, is a dividend of the cold war. The enemy now, Saddam, bin Laden, they where the 'enemy of my enemy' and therefore 'our friend.' This is a creature of our own design that came from that war-they where the justified means to the end.

But of all of the 'threat' of communism and the cold war, the Russians never managed to attack us-but the 'enemy of our enemy,' those justified means did.

The lesson, as I see it, is that the means matter as much, if not more, than the ends. Certainly there will be good that will come out of what is being done. But at what cost, what is the trade off? Will the means really weigh out?

So I have a problem with the 'we won the cold war will win this' because this is a result of the 'win.' I don't know how many more victories we can take before we re-assess how we play the game.

Heres my thing with that-

What we are dealing with right now, the threat that is present, and the attack that was made, is a dividend of the cold war. The enemy now, Saddam, bin Laden, they where the 'enemy of my enemy' and therefore 'our friend.' This is a creature of our own design that came from that war-they where the justified means to the end.

But of all of the 'threat' of communism and the cold war, the Russians never managed to attack us-but the 'enemy of our enemy,' those justified means did.

The lesson, as I see it, is that the means matter as much, if not more, than the ends. Certainly there will be good that will come out of what is being done. But at what cost, what is the trade off? Will the means really weigh out?

So I have a problem with the 'we won the cold war will win this' because this is a result of the 'win.' I don't know how many more victories we can take before we re-assess how we play the game.Boy, this thread is getting hi-jacked. But I find it an interesting topic, so...

I wasn't using the Cold War as an example of an American victory in foreign policy. I would agree that the Cold War has managed to create nearly every problem America faces on the international stage. However, the threat of expanding Soviet power - military and political - threatened the United States itself, as well as pretty much any nation that shared a border with a Soviet puppet or Russia itself. If the United States had not held against the USSR in it's bid for Europe, a totalitarian regime run by an insane pseudo-communist Russia might have been Europe's future, and perhaps the future of countries beyond the Continent. Essentially, what I'm saying is that it seems as though American might was needed abroad in order to prevent a larger threat in the future.

.. Technically.. we went to go fight in europe before ever addressing japan (which can be viewed in many lights considering Hitler had great respect for the United States as it did for Britian) .. secondly we can then look at the Marshall plan.. It was Trumans Marshall plan which ushered in Americas new Foregin policy of activily engaging in world events (like joining the UN)We didn't declare war until Japan attacked us. We didn't attack an Axis power until Japan attacked us. We focused on Japan and the Pacific theater; the European theater came second to the United States.

As for the Marshall plan, that was part of the Cold War. However, forgive me, but I fail to see how it is relevant to this sub-discussion on nature of America's entry into WWII. Though I could agree that it did seem to signal the death of isolationism in American politics.

Seems like you're forcing your moral code on everyone else. Generosity should come from a willing heart, not forced by law. BTW...have you redistributed any of YOUR wealth to the less-fortunate?
I'm also forcing my moral code against child molestors, so? Sometimes it needs to be. And as a matter of fact I help support a number of non-profit groups, in spite of my low income. As well as money I donate time and clothing. As a matter of fact, low income people donate far larger portions of their income than those well off.

People sometimes won't do the right thing. That right thing might be taking care of their children, taking care of their pets, taking care of the enviroment or their fellow man. By your standards, if the well off don't care if the poor starve, then tough luck.

One thing I see is the total failure of the Democratic party. They don't seem to get main stream America. Why is this? They have swung to far left with some of there idea's. I mean why the heck would you name Howard Dean as the party chairman? That was stupid if you ask me. They also seem to shun moderate Democrats for not being to far left. This to me will spell disaster.

Too far left ? Nowhere near. From a Northern-European perspective the democrats are a centrist party - and yes, you can draw your own conclusions on how right-wing republicans are viewed. If the US wishes to reduce the gap between itself and the EU it needs to form a real left-wing party (e.g. labour), just like Europe as a whole seems to be rightshifting. There is plenty of room for philosophies between democrats and communists, despite the rhetorics suggesting the contrary.

The note that the definitions of the terms "left" and "right" (philosophical or economical) seem to differ greatly between countries should be made though - so maybe we are talking about different things.

Too far left ? Nowhere near. From a Northern-European perspective the democrats are a centrist party - and yes, you can draw your own conclusions on how right-wing republicans are viewed. If the US wishes to reduce the gap between itself and the EU it needs to form a real left-wing party (e.g. labour), just like Europe as a whole seems to be rightshifting. There is plenty of room for philosophies between democrats and communists, despite the rhetorics suggesting the contrary.

The note that the definitions of the terms "left" and "right" (philosophical or economical) seem to differ greatly between countries should be made though - so maybe we are talking about different things.


One thing I have never suggested is the US reducing the gap between our political parties vs the European versions. I don't care to replicate some European political parties. Now when I am speaking of the parties(Democrats) and (Republicans) I am specifically reffering to the American version. I don't want the far (anything) coming to power in this country in a large force. It wouldn't be a good thing

I'm also forcing my moral code against child molestors, so? Sometimes it needs to be.

So would you keep silent if I forced my moral code on homosexuals? I think not. You have a double standard. Gov't can't enforce religion, but it sure can enforce morality, especially when it comes to money.

And as a matter of fact I help support a number of non-profit groups, in spite of my low income. As well as money I donate time and clothing. As a matter of fact, low income people donate far larger portions of their income than those well off.

Well I'm glad that you do. I also have spent time and money for the poor and homeless. But I would like to know the source of your information regarding that last statement.

People sometimes won't do the right thing. That right thing might be taking care of their children, taking care of their pets, taking care of the enviroment or their fellow man. By your standards, if the well off don't care if the poor starve, then tough luck.

The right thing? Morality issue again. I happen to believe that homosexiuality is not "the right thing", but it's not the place of the gov't to enforce my moral beliefs on others.

And my MY standards, EVERYONE should be taking care of the less fortunate, especially orphans, widows, and the homeless. But AGAIN, I don't foce my morals on others. So please dont presume to know MY standards.

So would you keep silent if I forced my moral code on homosexuals? I think not. You have a double standard. Gov't can't enforce religion, but it sure can enforce morality, especially when it comes to money.

And my MY standards, EVERYONE should be taking care of the less fortunate, especially orphans, widows, and the homeless. But AGAIN, I don't foce my morals on others. So please dont presume to know MY standards.Might I suggest you read Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer? It addresses your assertions and more and suggests that it is the moral duty of every human being to aid others when it can, and that the government can and should be responsible for channeling this duty. Really, it's a very good philosophical essay.

Link. (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm)

Might I suggest you read Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer? It addresses your assertions and more and suggests that it is the moral duty of every human being to aid others when it can, and that the government can and should be responsible for channeling this duty. Really, it's a very good philosophical essay.

Link. (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm)

Thx for the link..I'll try to read it when I get the time.
I totally agree with you about helping others in need. I just think some of the people on here are delusional when it comes to the many gov't social programs, many of which merely apply a bandaid to a problem without fixing it (not to mention wasting taxpayer money). :headbang:

Anyways, I like hearing other's points of view, and am looking forward to reading that piece by Singer.

You Americans are so strange... how exactly does a party with 49% of the vote (as opposed to the 51% of the rival party) count as "out of touch with mainstream America" and "on the brink of collapse"??

You also seem to have a very strange notion of "far left". By world standards, the Democratic Party is right-wing. "Moderate Democrats" would count as hardcore conservatives just about everywhere outside America.

The Democrats are already so "moderate" that they've become Republicans lite. And, as President Truman once said, "in a contest between a Republican and a Republican, the winner will always be a Republican". What America needs is to get decent social programs like the rest of the civilized world. A universal healthcare system would be a good start. The USA is the only country outside of the third world that doesn't have one.

You Americans are so strange... how exactly does a party with 49% of the vote (as opposed to the 51% of the rival party) count as "out of touch with mainstream America" and "on the brink of collapse"??

You also seem to have a very strange notion of "far left". By world standards, the Democratic Party is right-wing. "Moderate Democrats" would count as hardcore conservatives just about everywhere outside America.

The Democrats are already so "moderate" that they've become Republicans lite. And, as President Truman once said, "in a contest between a Republican and a Republican, the winner will always be a Republican". What America needs is to get decent social programs like the rest of the civilized world. A universal healthcare system would be a good start. The USA is the only country outside of the third world that doesn't have one.
Hey, the third world can be nice. As Bobby Darin said, "There are so many exotic and far-away places to see." :)

A universal health care system would be a HORRIBLE start. You guys don't realize that managed care enables gov't beaurocracies to make health care decisions that should be made by doctors ! Consequently, the standard of care goes way down.

I think what makes America great is that we don't have as many social(ist) programs as europe does (no offense to europeans , I've been dying to visit! :D ).

Hmm, if the democratic party self destructs the libertarian party might get enough backing to make a difference. This might actually be a good thing.

Hmm, if the democratic party self destructs the libertarian party might get enough backing to make a difference. This might actually be a good thing.
Exactly! :fluffle:

Exactly! :fluffle:
Of course, the thing to fear from a rise of the liberatarians is that they are not immune to left wing/right wing divisions. Some are closer to Democrats, and some are closer to Republicans. We may see the reincarnation of the Democrats in some liberatarians, or worse.

A universal health care system would be a HORRIBLE start. You guys don't realize that managed care enables gov't beaurocracies to make health care decisions that should be made by doctors ! Consequently, the standard of care goes way down.
The standard of care in Sweden and other Nordic countries (for example) is higher than in the USA, and most other European countries have pretty much the same standard as the USA - but they pay only a fraction of the price paid in America. Do you realize how obscenely expensive American health care is? It's so expensive that the US government actually spends MORE of its budget on health care than any country in Europe - and yet it can't even provide universal coverage to its citizens. Do you know why? Because doctors form a market oligopoly that can set prices as high as it likes. Furthermore, any capitalist health care industry suffers from a case of market failure known as "unequal knowledge". Simply put, the patient does not have the knowledge to judge whether a doctor's services are good or bad until it's too late. When the buyer doesn't have the required knowledge to judge the quality of the product offered by the seller, the market does not work.

Of course, the thing to fear from a rise of the liberatarians is that they are not immune to left wing/right wing divisions. Some are closer to Democrats, and some are closer to Republicans. We may see the reincarnation of the Democrats in some liberatarians, or worse.
Perhaps, if we were referring to "small l", philisophical libertarians.
But we were referring to the Libertarian Party, which is, in many ways, more pro-business than the Republican Party.
I have yet to meet a single LP member who reminds me of a Democrat, even vaguely. Unless we're only speaking on social issues.
That would just make them a pussy Libertarian, because we're more hardcore on social issues as well. :p

Do you know why? Because doctors form a market oligopoly that can set prices as high as it likes. Furthermore, any capitalist health care industry suffers from a case of market failure known as "unequal knowledge". Simply put, the patient does not have the knowledge to judge whether a doctor's services are good or bad until it's too late. When the buyer doesn't have the required knowledge to judge the quality of the product offered by the seller, the market does not work.
Actually, one of the biggest reasons for high prices is because of malpractice insuarnce and because getting any money from various health insurance agencies and HMO's is like pulling teeth.

Actually, one of the biggest reasons for high prices is because of malpractice insuarnce and because getting any money from various health insurance agencies and HMO's is like pulling teeth.

Erm, we have so many malpractice issues because of what Constantinopolis said. If we didn't have so many problems with our medical system, we wouldn't have so many malpractice cases.

Perhaps, if we were referring to "small l", philisophical libertarians.
But we were referring to the Libertarian Party, which is, in many ways, more pro-business than the Republican Party.
I have yet to meet a single LP member who reminds me of a Democrat, even vaguely. Unless we're only speaking on social issues.
That would just make them a pussy Libertarian, because we're more hardcore on social issues as well. :p
Well don't forget, the Liberatarian Party doesn't have big membership, even though many share your views. Once a rise to political power happens, that's when the fun stuff starts. Look at the evolution of the Republican party since its birth.

Well don't forget, the Liberatarian Party doesn't have big membership, even though many share your views. Once a rise to political power happens, that's when the fun stuff starts. Look at the evolution of the Republican party since its birth.
Who knows? I can sleep better at night knowing there was a small corrupt government, as opposed to the currently massive, corrupt leviathon.

No, I actually think it's wonderful if you actually do. But IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVT TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH.

Yes, it is the job of the Government to redistribute wealth, since most wealthy people would let the less fortunate starve to death.

No. I earn the money, then I hold the rights to it. It becomes mine. Deal with it.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. If the government didn't print it, you wouldn't have it. You should be thanking them for giving your the opportunity.

First of all, I do think that people like this do need some help (key word here is "help"). But they have to be willing to put in their part, which is a trend I don't really see happening in most of the inner cities.

Not willing, huh? Could it be that they're just really in need of some help, and have no way of doing it themselves? How many six-figure businessmen do you see approaching the homeless and actually helping them out?

Well, you really didn't have an arguement in the first place, so there was really nothing for me to refute. Calling someone an "idiot" does wonders for showing YOUR level of intelligence.

So wait a minute, somebody who scored 97 on their I.Q. test isn't an idiot? Excuse me, but G.W. Bush is an idiot. It's difficult for him to form a lot of words, and he just can't form some of them. His speeches are equally embarrassing and hilarious to watch because of it.

Debatable. Well, you blatantly flamed first. I'll reciprocate your "generosity", and refrain from reporting you as well. Night. :fluffle:

Okay, tell me where I "flamed" you, kind sir. I know you're just pulling this out of your ass because you've been cornered, but still, I'd really like to see some effort on your part.

Yes, it is the job of the Government to redistribute wealth, since most wealthy people would let the less fortunate starve to death.



Yeah, keep telling yourself that. If the government didn't print it, you wouldn't have it. You should be thanking them for giving your the opportunity.



Not willing, huh? Could it be that they're just really in need of some help, and have no way of doing it themselves? How many six-figure businessmen do you see approaching the homeless and actually helping them out?



So wait a minute, somebody who scored 97 on their I.Q. test isn't an idiot? Excuse me, but G.W. Bush is an idiot. It's difficult for him to form a lot of words, and he just can't form some of them. His speeches are equally embarrassing and hilarious to watch because of it.



Okay, tell me where I "flamed" you, kind sir. I know you're just pulling this out of your ass because you've been cornered, but still, I'd really like to see some effort on your part.
"Yeah, keep telling yourself that." :p

I have yet to meet a single LP member who reminds me of a Democrat, even vaguely. Unless we're only speaking on social issues.
That would just make them a pussy Libertarian, because we're more hardcore on social issues as well. :p
Democrats are social authoritarians.

Democrats are social authoritarians.
Swimmingpool, how've you been, laddie? :D
You know, a lot of the time now, when I see a n00bs post, I wish they had their PC test score in their sig, just so I'd know where they're coming from.
It really helps to sift through the spin.

Swimmingpool, how've you been, laddie? :D
You know, a lot of the time now, when I see a n00bs post, I wish they had their PC test score in their sig, just so I'd know where they're coming from.
It really helps to sift through the spin.
I made it cool to put the PC score in your sig.

Democrats are social authoritarians.


For the most part yes.

Democrats are social authoritarians.

I'd love to see you back that up.

Among other things, I am a staunch Democrat and I have a lower social authoritarian score than you do:

Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10

Yes, it is the job of the Government to redistribute wealth, since most wealthy people would let the less fortunate starve to death.

Didn't realize there were so many people in America "starving to death." And I really dont think people with less money are more compassionate than people with money. You're obviously biased against people with money. Maybe you aren't able to make it in life, I don't know. Maybe you should try harder. My point is that it shouldn't be the job of the gov't to redistribute wealth, but the Dems have made it the govt's job...much easier to spend someone else's money.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. If the government didn't print it, you wouldn't have it. You should be thanking them for giving your the opportunity.

If the gov't didn't print it, there would obviously be another form of currency. Your statements are just another example of your push for gov't control and influence.....you sure you aren't socialist?

Not willing, huh? Could it be that they're just really in need of some help, and have no way of doing it themselves? How many six-figure businessmen do you see approaching the homeless and actually helping them out?

It seems like you have a problem following an arguement. Did I not say that there are those that need help? (Look again.) My point was that we shouldn't make it easy for them to become reliant on any type of welfare system. Hard work, and some help when needed to get people on their feet, instead of supporting them all their lives.

And how many five-figure businessmen do you see approching the homeless and actually helping them out? Back your statement up with facts before you stereotype a whole group of people.

So wait a minute, somebody who scored 97 on their I.Q. test isn't an idiot? Excuse me, but G.W. Bush is an idiot. It's difficult for him to form a lot of words, and he just can't form some of them. His speeches are equally embarrassing and hilarious to watch because of it.

I wasn't aware that an IQ score of 97 qualified someone as an idiot. There are probably tons of people with higher scores, who are more qualified for that distinction...so I would be careful if I were you. ;) Usually those who think Bush is embarrasing and hilarious are those already biased politically. Just like I think most Dems are a bunch of morons. ;)

Okay, tell me where I "flamed" you, kind sir. I know you're just pulling this out of your ass because you've been cornered, but still, I'd really like to see some effort on your part.

Not cornered at all...I really don't think you have any ability to corner anyone in an arguement, much less me. You said that I had no compassion, without knowing anything about me, and when my post wasn't even directed to you. You drew first blood, now I'm stuck responding to your idiotic and pointless comments. :headbang:

In closing, "kind sir", you make yourself out to be someone of significant intelligence, but you sound like just another kid who's rehashing what they've learned in their humanities class their freshman year of college.

Still waiting for some "effort on your part" on producing a substantial arguement. Good luck.

Didn't realize there were so many people in America "starving to death." And I really dont think people with less money are more compassionate than people with money. You're obviously biased against people with money. Maybe you aren't able to make it in life, I don't know. Maybe you should try harder. My point is that it shouldn't be the job of the gov't to redistribute wealth, but the Dems have made it the govt's job...much easier to spend someone else's money.

It seems like you have a problem following an arguement. Did I not say that there are those that need help? (Look again.) My point was that we shouldn't make it easy for them to become reliant on any type of welfare system. Hard work, and some help when needed to get people on their feet, instead of supporting them all their lives.Boy, this is off-topic! But I'm interested in the debate, so I'll continue to contribute my own thoughts and feelings on the subject.

Must social welfare be limited only to those in your own country? Yes, there are people starving, living in poverty and not receiving a complete education in the United States. However, there are people all over the world in dire need of humanitarian aid. I would argue that they also deserve our aid - that we are morally obligated to give all that we're capable of giving to them without suffering an equal amount of distress. Africa, Asia, South America, the South Pacific... All of these areas have severe problems that America and it's vast wealth could help solve. Yet we don't. The argument that these people are or will become "lazy" and that they just need help "getting on their feet" is bogus in this instance.

Finally, I will close this post by challenging you, Bicipital Groove, to explain why it is not the government's job to redistribute money in a full and coherent statement. Thanks.

I have to laugh because in Canada, the exact opposite is happening and the Progressive Conservatives are the ones that are in trouble of falling apart, while the Liberals continue to strengthen their position. :D

Boy, this is off-topic! But I'm interested in the debate, so I'll continue to contribute my own thoughts and feelings on the subject.

Must social welfare be limited only to those in your own country? Yes, there are people starving, living in poverty and not receiving a complete education in the United States. However, there are people all over the world in dire need of humanitarian aid. I would argue that they also deserve our aid - that we are morally obligated to give all that we're capable of giving to them without suffering an equal amount of distress. Africa, Asia, South America, the South Pacific... All of these areas have severe problems that America and it's vast wealth could help solve. Yet we don't. The argument that these people are or will become "lazy" and that they just need help "getting on their feet" is bogus in this instance.

Finally, I will close this post by challenging you, Bicipital Groove, to explain why it is not the government's job to redistribute money in a full and coherent statement. Thanks.

People all over the world in need of humanitarian aid are not the ones I'm referring to. I never said it wasn't the govt's job to help those in need. I thoroughly support this idea. Basically I belive in a flat tax. The rich end up paying more money anyway....but the percentage is still the same for everyone. MY point was that many of the government's social programs are a waste of money because they are ineffective. But the Dems/liberals want to increase and expand these programs, spending money that's not theirs on things that are probably best left to state and local govt's.

And when did it fall on the US to be the savior of the world. We ALREADY donate MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to other countries in humanitarian efforts. Example: Bush's request for milllions of dollars to help people in africa with AIDS. Our citizens also INDIVIDUALLY put forth their own money to numerous humanitarian organisations that benefit people in other countries. Example: the recent tsunami disaster.

You mention humanitarian crisis in countries such as Africa, Asia, South America, the South Pacific. And yes, America's "vast wealth" could help. But we already do ALOT. What about their OWN countries doing most of the work. The problem is their OWN corrupt governments not providing for their people.

The people I was referring to when speaking of "getting them on their feet" were people in inner cities, for example, who don't have many options available to them. This was a topic raised by Potaria, so I gave an opinion on the matter. I've also dealth with homeless people who were previously doing well in life, and REFUSED to do anything to help themselves, becasue they got lazy. And that's the truth. Now obviously not all homeless people are like this, but that was just an example of people relying on the system.

So I hope that was coherent enough for you Trammwerk. I hope in the future you don't misconstrue my statements, but instead take more time to actually read what I'm saying. ;)

Furthermore, any capitalist health care industry suffers from a case of market failure known as "unequal knowledge". Simply put, the patient does not have the knowledge to judge whether a doctor's services are good or bad until it's too late. .

I agree with you here. Being in the health field, I've seen alot of unnecessary procedures done (ex: surgeries) that could have been avoided.

Actually, one of the biggest reasons for high prices is because of malpractice insuarnce and because getting any money from various health insurance agencies and HMO's is like pulling teeth.

You're right on here. True, there are some bad doctors out there. But the litigious nature of Americans these days (and the courts that enable them) hav produced extremely high malpractice rates for doctors.

And now we have HMO's (more beaurocracies) taking more control away from doctors. HMO's now determine what not only what procedures should be done, but how little the doctors will be compensated for performing these procedures. I've personally seen this push the quality of patient care way down. But I digress. ;)

People all over the world in need of humanitarian aid are not the ones I'm referring to. I never said it wasn't the govt's job to help those in need. I thoroughly support this idea. Basically I belive in a flat tax. The rich end up paying more money anyway....but the percentage is still the same for everyone. MY point was that many of the government's social programs are a waste of money because they are ineffective. But the Dems/liberals want to increase and expand these programs, spending money that's not theirs on things that are probably best left to state and local govt's.If the social programs don't work, and it isn't the government's job to redistribute wealth, then how can the government function as a humanitarian agent? I sense a conflict in your message.

And when did it fall on the US to be the savior of the world. We ALREADY donate MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to other countries in humanitarian efforts. Our citizens also INDIVIDUALLY put forth their own money to numerous humanitarian organisations that benefit people in other countries.The funds provided by our government and private citizens for humanitarian relief are paltry when compared to the total wealth in our nation.

You mention humanitarian crisis in countries such as Africa, Asia, South America, the South Pacific. And yes, America's "vast wealth" could help. But we already do ALOT. What about their OWN countries doing most of the work. The problem is their OWN corrupt governments not providing for their people.I fail to see what this has to do with the United States Government having or not having the duty to use it's citizenry's affluence to the benefit of the world.

The people I was referring to when speaking of "getting them on their feet" were people in inner cities, for example, who don't have many options available to them. This was a topic raised by Potaria, so I gave an opinion on the matter. I've also dealth with homeless people who were previously doing well in life, and REFUSED to do anything to help themselves, becasue they got lazy. And that's the truth. Now obviously not all homeless people are like this, but that was just an example of people relying on the system.I'm sorry. It seemed to me as though that's not all you were implying.Umm...when did it fall on the wealthy to support the poor?Federal gov't should mainly be restricted to NATIONAL matters, giving state and local gov'ts control over their regions.How about the less fortunate getting off their butts and putting some effort into improving their position in life.

So I hope that was coherent enough for you Trammwerk. I hope in the future you don't misconstrue my statements, but instead take more time to actually read what I'm saying.I have read what you posted. You missed the spirit of what I suggested.

On another note, you continue to say that it isn't a government's job to redistribute wealth. Please back that up; that is to say, don't simply write it in capital letters.

One thing I have never suggested is the US reducing the gap between our political parties vs the European versions. I don't care to replicate some European political parties. Now when I am speaking of the parties(Democrats) and (Republicans) I am specifically reffering to the American version. I don't want the far (anything) coming to power in this country in a large force. It wouldn't be a good thing

But using "we might understand eachother better" as an argument may save the democrats ;) Or not.

What would be ideal for the US is an increase of the number of real parties (ones that actually wield power). A minimum of three, or better even 5 - though the election system makes it hard to create a many-party government.

A suggestion for 3 parties:

Party A: "The personal rights party". Main idea: the rights of the individual are almost sacred. In favour of free market, pro-choice, euthanasia, gay marriage, complete freedom of speech etc - to name a few issues. Against restrictions on profit, high taxation and so on.

Party B: "The social party". Main idea: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In favour of environmental restrictions, capped wealth, a state subsidized health and welfare system, high taxes, pro-choice, euthanasia, gay marriage, and freedom of speech with restrictions against grieving population groups.

Party C: "The Believers". Following the teachings of a supreme being. Give life an intrinsic value in addition to that provided by the person so pro-life and against euthanasia, and the rest depends on which religions are present.

More parties would allow more diverse philosophies of course. And there are a lot more.

Let me start by saying that I consider myself a moderate conservative. I don't tow the Republican party line. But I tend to vote Republican more often than not.
One thing I see is the total failure of the Democratic party. They don't seem to get main stream America. Why is this? They have swung to far left with some of there idea's. I mean why the heck would you name Howard Dean as the party chairman? That was stupid if you ask me. They also seem to shun moderate Democrats for not being to far left. This to me will spell disaster.
I have no interest in seeing the nation being dominated by one party. It is not a good idea. I actually wish we could have more than two viable parties. But that's a ways down the road I think.
What do my fellow American Democrats suggest can be done to strengthen the Democratic party? Or are we looking at the begining of the end?There is really no left-wing in American politics anymore. Most Democrats by now aren't into anti-business politics, and the closest most of them come to being leftist is suggesting that maybe it's not such a bad idea to ask corporations to obey the law like everyone else. They're still saying that it might be nice to have a healthcare system, but they've been saying that since dinosaurs walked the Earth. Furthermore, they've even been fairly quiet on welfare lately. I actually think that this is the core of the problem. The Democrats need to go back to being the party of the people, the party that supports the worker bees and makes sure their kids are given a fair shot at things. The Democrats are just compromising too much for the sake of getting through their "big issues," such as the whole thing with gay marriage. You know, I'm very much a rainbow warrior, but what I'm seeing is the Democrats trying to hasten the inevitable on the gay marriage thing. They're giving the issue too much attention and forgetting the things that actually inspire people to follow them. The ones who are more or less aware that they're driving off many of the working class think that they should turn around and go in the other direction with it. That's not what they need to do, ladies. They need to start saying "I will fight for you" again. They need to go back to grassroots, go back to being the party of the people. Now look, I'm a centrist liberal myself, meaning that I'm a very liberal centrist and positively detest conservatives and have little tolerance for moderates. I am by no means a leftist myself. I'm just saying that going further left and allowing their liberalism to fade into the background might be a smart political strategy.

I'd love to see you back that up.

Among other things, I am a staunch Democrat and I have a lower social authoritarian score than you do:

Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10
I don't mean all their supporters. I means the Democrats who are actually in Washington making the laws.

You are obviously a libertarian socialist, and I suspect that the only reason you are a Democrat supporter is because they're the only feasible alternative to the Republican nightmare.

As for specific policies
> Affirmitive action
> gun control
> half-assed 'support' for gay rights
> there are probably many more

I don't mean all their supporters. I means the Democrats who are actually in Washington making the laws.

You are obviously a libertarian socialist, and I suspect that the only reason you are a Democrat supporter is because they're the only feasible alternative to the Republican nightmare.

As for specific policies
> Affirmitive action
> gun control
> half-assed 'support' for gay rights
> there are probably many more


Wow, you just named three policies that Karl Rove managed to use to screw the Democrats at the polls.

A suggestion for 3 parties:

Party A: "The personal rights party". Main idea: the rights of the individual are almost sacred. In favour of free market, pro-choice, euthanasia, gay marriage, complete freedom of speech etc - to name a few issues. Against restrictions on profit, high taxation and so on.

Party B: "The social party". Main idea: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In favour of environmental restrictions, capped wealth, a state subsidized health and welfare system, high taxes, pro-choice, euthanasia, gay marriage, and freedom of speech with restrictions against grieving population groups.

Party C: "The Believers". Following the teachings of a supreme being. Give life an intrinsic value in addition to that provided by the person so pro-life and against euthanasia, and the rest depends on which religions are present.

More parties would allow more diverse philosophies of course. And there are a lot more.
Party A: The Libertarian Party

Party B: The Socialist Party

Party C: The Constitution Party

you already have these parties.

Not civil liberties. This country was founded on them. I mean social programs, taxes


i dont get the right wing in the states. Reganomics does not work if people dont have basic capital to invest in themselves. Its a real big difference between the right in canada and the states. In canada the right realizes that people need a ability to grow up healthy and get a good education in order to better themselves. The right in the states seems to think that a person can better themselves without these basic rights to health and education. Infact they dont even consider them rights.

Once a person is educated and grows up healthy then they should be able to take care of themselves and not rely on welfare. You then have no excuses and can fail or suceed on the basis of your abilities. If you dont have a decent education nor health how can one make it in a market economy?
It just dont make sense...

I don't mean all their supporters. I means the Democrats who are actually in Washington making the laws.

You are obviously a libertarian socialist, and I suspect that the only reason you are a Democrat supporter is because they're the only feasible alternative to the Republican nightmare.

As for specific policies
> Affirmitive action
> gun control
> half-assed 'support' for gay rights
> there are probably many more

I suspect you do not know as much about American politics as you assume.

I've been a Democrat my entire life (which includes 17 years of voting). I have, and will, vote for Republicans.

Unfortunately, the political compass has many flaws. (I know I was the one that brought it up.) I am not a socialist. I have considered it in the past, but I believe in capitalism - but I am not blind to its limitations. I am "libertarian" only in the sense I believe in individual liberties. I am not a Libertarian. What I am is an American liberal.

So, you came up with 3 policies of Democrats as proof of authoritarianism. Affirmative action seeks equal opportunity. It is only authoritarian in the simplistic model that categorizes everything as either authoritarian or libertarian.

Gun control I'll accept as "authoritarian," although it is one of the many examples of why extreme libertarianism is not virtue. All criminal laws are "authoritarian."

"Half-assed support for gay rights"??? Not to mention that this is a poor characterization of the views of Democrats, this makes no sense. Are you saying that less than ideal support for civil rights is authoritarian? Imperfect libertarianism is authoritarianism? (And many idiots hold any enforcement of civil rights as authoritarian. I hope you are not one.)

Stop trying to oversimplify everthing with useless labels. Politics is complicated. Policies that deal with the real world must be nuanced.

"Trash Heap of History"? Jesus, you all win a couple elections and out comes the big talk.

Alright, things suck pretty bad now for the Dems. It is quite feasible that we'll see an all-asshole Supreme Court within a decade. Okay. But you're still going to have a lot of liberal-to-moderate people in the country. And as the tide of government turns increasingly conservative, you're going to see more and more backlash. This is to say the folks who previously would have identified themselves as right-leaning moderates might find themselves increasingly alienated from the GOP and in the market for alternatives.

It's like when Giuliani was elected in NYC. Everybody was gung ho for a law-and-order leader. He came in, brought the crime rate down, everybody was happy. Then the NYPD starts ticketing jaywalkers and litterbugs, Diallo happens, and everybody screams gestapo. Cyclical, right?

We'll hit a point where people will get fed up with the one-sided extremism. I dunno when, maybe we'll have another Enron-type deal, maybe we'll privatize the SSA and people will be pissed about retiring into poverty, maybe we'll invade Iran. Who knows? Hopefully it'll come sooner rather than later.

Well, Trammwerk, you keep missing my point, and keep miscontruing what I say. I feel that I've made my point, and if that's not good enough for you, then I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree." I don't really have the time to keep going back and forth, and the thread is getting hijacked anyway. Take care.

"Half-assed support for gay rights"??? Not to mention that this is a poor characterization of the views of Democrats, this makes no sense. Are you saying that less than ideal support for civil rights is authoritarian? Imperfect libertarianism is authoritarianism? (And many idiots hold any enforcement of civil rights as authoritarian. I hope you are not one.)
I remember in 2004, John Kerry, despite being held up as an idol of arch-liberalism, did not even support full marriage rights for homosexuals. This is not the biggest issue out there, but it is symbolic.

A big civil freedoms issue in my book that counts against Democrats is their enthusiastic support for the "war" on drugs. They appear to fully support locking up people who are not really criminals at all.

Still, they're better than the pseudo-fascist, Guantanamo-Bay Republicans.

A big civil freedoms issue in my book that counts against Democrats is their enthusiastic support for the "war" on drugs. They appear to fully support locking up people who are not really criminals at all.


Rosie O'Donnell fully supports locking up every gun owner in America without a trial. Locking up millions of people who are not really criminals at all.

Both sides are so close on the authoritarian thing that it's scary. Ever wonder why the Patriot Act passed so easily? And that John Ashcroft asked for and got most of what he wanted on the second pass, and most of them didn't even bother to read it?

Rosie O'Donnell fully supports locking up every gun owner in America without a trial. Locking up millions of people who are not really criminals at all.

Both sides are so close on the authoritarian thing that it's scary. Ever wonder why the Patriot Act passed so easily? And that John Ashcroft asked for and got most of what he wanted on the second pass, and most of them didn't even bother to read it?

Stop bitching about the patriot act. Our freedoms were eroded decades ago (god bless Reagan but the war on drugs is close to the biggest crime the US govt has inflicted upon its citizenry). And lets not forget RICO laws. And I dont even like drugs or being around people who do them(except alcohol)

We lost our rights long ago. And complacent judges have let this happen from the commerce clause abuses to all the rest of the crap that lets the Federal govt infringe upon our lives.

The patriot act is just a drop in the bucket, it doesnt even hold a candle to what the DEA and BATF do as a matter of course.

We lost our rights long before terrorism was a major issue. Why bitch now?

Stop bitching about the patriot act. Are freedoms were eroded decades ago)god bless Reagan but the war on drugs is close to biggest crime a US govt has inflicted upon its citizenry). And lets not forget RICO laws.

We lost our rights long ago. And complacent judges have let this happen from the commerce clause abuses to all the rest of the crap that lets the Federal govt infringe upon our lives.

The patriot act is just a drop in the bucket, it doesnt even hold a candle to what the DEA and BATF do as a matter of course.

We lost our rights long before terrorism was a major issue. Why bitch now?

Sorry if it sounded like bitching. Just pointing out to someone that the authoritarianism isn't new, or confined to one party.

Sorry if it sounded like bitching. Just pointing out to someone that the authoritarianism isn't new, or confined to one party.
Very true about authoritarianism. Its the nature of govt. No individual is evil or a dictator per se, but govt by nature slowly creeps. No one ever got elected by saying things were fine as they are. They way to win office is to find new "evils" to legislate agains and new programs to fund

I think our founding fathers would weep if they saw what has become of our government. Moreso about the chunk of our population that thinks govt is their friend and whose goal it is to succor their lives.

Whatever happened to the grand experiment that America was supposed to be?

Whatever happened to the grand experiment that America was supposed to be?

No matter how good a party might be, eventually you run out of drink, the music starts repeating itself, and the ugly women look good enough to take home.

No matter how good a party might be, eventually you run out of drink, the music starts repeating itself, and the ugly women look good enough to take home.
Not necessarily. You can always buy more drinks, the music repeats(which is good), and why would there be ugly women at a party?

and why would there be ugly women at a party?

Dude, you have never seen my secretary. At least she claims to be female on her resume. Damn efficient though, guess thats why I hired her.

Not necessarily. You can always buy more drinks, the music repeats(which is good), and why would there be ugly women at a party?

No woman is ugly at 3 AM at a party.

Party A: The Libertarian Party

Party B: The Socialist Party

Party C: The Constitution Party

you already have these parties.

Three parties that are without hope of success and are mostly silly -- precisely because they take a one-sided view of things.

Moderation, pragmatism, and a willingness to compromise are not inherently bad things. Nor is the ability to recognize and maximize multiple objectives.

I remember in 2004, John Kerry, despite being held up as an idol of arch-liberalism, did not even support full marriage rights for homosexuals. This is not the biggest issue out there, but it is symbolic.

A big civil freedoms issue in my book that counts against Democrats is their enthusiastic support for the "war" on drugs. They appear to fully support locking up people who are not really criminals at all.

Still, they're better than the pseudo-fascist, Guantanamo-Bay Republicans.

John Kerry was "held up as an idol of arch-liberalism" by Republicans. Liberals find much to like in John Kerry, but he was hardly the ultimate liberal.

And again, less than complete support for gay civil rights is hardly authoritarianism.

I agree there is much about the war on drugs that is dismaying. It is primarily a Republican initiative, however. Democrats have been much more in favor of rehabilitation, etc. And, without wishing to debate the issue, it is far from black and white. Legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana is one thing -- harder drugs are another.

Your simplistic view of American politics is just that -- overly simplistic. Democrats are social authoritarians and Republicans are psuedo-facists. Nice.

Does any country have a major party that you agree with?

While he was hardly what I would characterize as a true "liberal", Kerry was, from the gun control point of view, rather classic.

Saying one thing (I'm a hunter and I like hunters) and voting another (fairly steady, concrete record against guns and gun owners).

I think American politics would be better off without parties.
Just people running on platforms of what the people want, and they owe no allegiance to a group of suited comb-overs.

Does any country have a major party that you agree with?
The US Libertarian Party looks good, as do the Socialists in Spain (don't be misled by their name) and various European Green parties (one of which I am a member of).

Very true about authoritarianism. Its the nature of govt. No individual is evil or a dictator per se, but govt by nature slowly creeps. No one ever got elected by saying things were fine as they are. They way to win office is to find new "evils" to legislate agains and new programs to fund

I think our founding fathers would weep if they saw what has become of our government. Moreso about the chunk of our population that thinks govt is their friend and whose goal it is to succor their lives.

Whatever happened to the grand experiment that America was supposed to be?
This sounds like libertarian speak (or should I say sp33k?). I thought you were a Bush supporter?

While he was hardly what I would characterize as a true "liberal", Kerry was, from the gun control point of view, rather classic. Saying one thing (I'm a hunter and I like hunters) and voting another (fairly steady, concrete record against guns and gun owners).

You accidently quoted me for a statement that I believe is yours.

Anyway, a single issue is not a good way to judge someone's politics. Particularly not the issue of gun control at the federal level.

I think the Dems going down would be a good thing. A new party would rise from the ashes, something we have not had happen in a long time in the states and good things would happen as a result of fresh methods and ideas being presented.
A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing.
That said, I don't think the Dems will fail as a party, just lick their wounds and eventually recover and gain power again. It is a cyclical.

Originally posted by Swimmingpool
The US Libertarian Party looks good, as do the Socialists in Spain (don't be misled by their name) and various European Green parties (one of which I am a member of).

The US Libertarian Party does not look good, it got less than 1% of the vote, that don't look good to me.

The US Libertarian Party looks good, as do the Socialists in Spain (don't be misled by their name) and various European Green parties (one of which I am a member of).

I said major party. The US Libertarian Party hardly qualifies. The others do. And before you tout the US Libertarian Party you may wish to look into some of their sillier policies. (I know that sentence will likely draw fire. So be it.)

I admit my ignorance about the Socialists in Spain and about all of the various European Green parties, it seems to me that a great of Green party positions are not 100% libertarian, however.

This sounds like libertarian speak (or should I say sp33k?). I thought you were a Bush supporter?


I support Bush out of lack of options. I voted for the guy whose name I cant prononce(Bdarnick) or some such. Dont agree with the lbertarian platform fully but more than I do any other party. Voted across the board Republican otherwise(NY so Bush vote didnt count anyway)

I am libertarian. Very much so. Though I like the idea of a basic safety net. And I think govt probably does a better job with police and fire service than private comps can...this is a big maybe though.

As far as social safety nets go, a very limitted one by govt(basic starvation prevention) and the rest by private charity would work for me I think.

Definately no progressive taxation, gives politicians way too much power. When govt can pick and choose loopholes and rates, its is openening your throat to lobying interests. If a politician feels the country needs to increase taxes, let him justify it to the whole electorate instead of playing one deographic group aginst the next(as is the current game in Washington).

Politicians are politicians. For the most part, right or wrong to them means what will get them elected/reelected. Why do you want to give them the power to pit one group of citizens against the next? It isnt the people who will gain from this scenario.

As far as Bush goes, while I am mostly in favour of isolationism(politically), I think reform in the Middle East was sorely needed and Iraq was the perfect stepping stone. I think it is a thing that was needed. The status quo was not working in that region. If we can reform Africa next that would be great(but they dont pose such a threat to modern society as the middle east does).


We will see, I have a running bet with my business partner about Iraq(I am the optomistic one) I think I should have also bet about the middle east(at much longer odds of course..its only fair)

As far as Bush in terms of history. Well, the other things that he has done are whatever. But his vision in attempting to change the Middle East will either win him accolades or derision, depending on how things eventually work out(10-30 yrs). I think it will be the former. I also think that he deserve praise for addressing an isse that could not have any possible political benefit during his need for political benefit. Its a rare politician that does a thing regardless of political consequence.

Think about, given the victory in Afganistan and his popularity after 9/11, what possible political upside was there for him to engage in this war? If he would have done nothing after Afganistan he would have breezed through the elections with historic percentages. Was there any real opposition to him other than the war in Iraq? Do you not think he knew this before he engaged? If he was a Clinton type politician he would have left it alone and coasted to an easy victory in 2004. He Jepordized his second term and for that alone I need to give him my respect. Not many other politicians would have done that.

I said major party. The US Libertarian Party hardly qualifies. The others do. And before you tout the US Libertarian Party you may wish to look into some of their sillier policies. (I know that sentence will likely draw fire. So be it.)

I admit my ignorance about the Socialists in Spain and about all of the various European Green parties, it seems to me that a great of Green party positions are not 100% libertarian, however.


The libertarian party won't become viable because they are all over the place. Just as you stated. If they could galvanize a platform that is somewhat moderate. Then they might have a chance. A slim one at that. It will take one of the major parties to split to find a new viable party. Democrats just may be heading that direction.

I admit my ignorance about the Socialists in Spain and about all of the various European Green parties, it seems to me that a great of Green party positions are not 100% libertarian, however.
Socialists in Spain are currently the majority party there. The Greens are a smaller partner in Germany's coalition government. The Finnish Green party has been in government there.

I don't agree with all green party policies, but despite being generally pro-capitalist, I'm heavily socialist on environmental protection. That is the main reason I support Greens.

Socialists in Spain are currently the majority party there. The Greens are a smaller partner in Germany's coalition government. The Finnish Green party has been in government there.

I don't agree with all green party policies, but despite being generally pro-capitalist, I'm heavily socialist on environmental protection. That is the main reason I support Greens.

Its the greens that have prevented new refinery capacity in the US. That along with relatively clean and safe(but more expensive) nuclear capacity. If the frogs(French) are able to go 60% percent nuclear, so can we.

Imagine the drop in fossil fuel emmisions. and I bet we could do it in 10-15 years if the drive was there.

Its the greens that have prevented new refinery capacity in the US.
I didn't say I liked the American Greens.

I didn't say I liked the American Greens.

Does that mean I can kidnap them and use them as sex slaves. Some of them look kinda cute.

Does that mean I can kidnap them and use them as sex slaves. Some of them look kinda cute.
That's actually illegal. Unless you work in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. ;)

That's actually illegal. Unless you work in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. ;)
Thats illegal there too..well except for the butt rape part but prisons are prisons the world over.

I work in what was a third world country, but its kinda hard to classify because 2 of the top ten richest people in the world are from here and they managed to do it without being politicians.

Actually, this is not entirely true, the No3 guy is Indian but he didnt make his fortune here, and I am not sure if the next guy is in the top 10 or not. But hey, Its a big step.

We LIKE greens here btw. Because the definition of pollution here is very differant than the definition of pollution in the USA.

The greens in 1st world countries ought to be bitch slapped on a daily basis, cause they have no fucking clue of what it feels like to be surrounded in a cloud of black smoke every fucking day. Thank god I have a car instead of a two wheeler.

You want to see emmision reduction??? I will show you, and I will do it with a color chart

That's actually illegal. Unless you work in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. ;)

But they are eco activists, its not like people will believe them anyway. At least, given their claims about the environemt. based on this would you believe them if they screamed rape? they scream it now about the environment.

The greens in 1st world countries ought to be bitch slapped on a daily basis, cause they have no fucking clue of what it feels like to be surrounded in a cloud of black smoke every fucking day. Thank god I have a car instead of a two wheeler.

You want to see emmision reduction??? I will show you, and I will do it with a color chart
I thought you lived in the USA.

Well, yes the greens don't live in clouds of black smoke, but at least they are trying to get rid of the smoke that remains.

I thought you lived in the USA.

Well, yes the greens don't live in clouds of black smoke, but at least they are trying to get rid of the smoke that remains.

well maybe they out to consider that a few more refineries wouldnt be so bad. On the other hand its not something that you or I can control.

Taxes are going to be REALLY fucking high because of all this war bullshit, spending trillions to go to war, who do you expect to pay for this? Bill Gates? Hell no that's coming out of your pockets, your children's pockets, their grandchildren's pockets and so forth. Taxes are neccessary and vital in order for the operating status of the country to be nominal. I don't know about you but I'd rather pay to feed, clothe, and shelter the homeless than to pay for M16 A2's, Abhrams Tanks, Stinger ATA Missiles, Bunker Busting Bombs, and other nonsense that ends life and does nothing to improve the overall "goodness" of the world. And since when has being anti-war been a bad thing? To think that in my opinion is one of the most disturbing and disgusting things I have ever heard. I SERIOUSLY don't know how anybody could be a hardcore republican. I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others, but war is DEFINATELY not something that should be waged often or without reguard for the fact that people are DYING! It's not a video game! It's not a form of entertainment! People are DYINGGG! But hey, that's just how I see it.

Noone is a completely conservative and noone is completely liberal. and if you are than you are either hitler or stalin. this is ho i see things: the US should focus much of its attention to the war in Iraq. I know it was wrong in the first place, but instead of making it a vietnam like quagmire, it should get the public's support so descision making can be easier and establish a stable government ASAP and get out, leaving a small US military base there for Iraqi gaurd training and/or defence. after the war, the US should cut back slightly on military spending, but not so much so it cant be able to counter attack a hostile nation like Iran or N. Korea. After were out of Iraq, focus more on homeland security, the economy, and domestic issues. We really need to bring the worth of the US dollar back up. Having the Euro worth more then the US. Dollar is an embarrassment. :(

And that is my centrist view on what the next few years should be like.

As far as social safety nets go, a very limitted one by govt(basic starvation prevention) and the rest by private charity would work for me I think.

Definately no progressive taxation, gives politicians way too much power. When govt can pick and choose loopholes and rates, its is openening your throat to lobying interests. If a politician feels the country needs to increase taxes, let him justify it to the whole electorate instead of playing one deographic group aginst the next(as is the current game in Washington).

Politicians are politicians. For the most part, right or wrong to them means what will get them elected/reelected. Why do you want to give them the power to pit one group of citizens against the next? It isnt the people who will gain from this scenario.

Well said.


As far as Bush goes, while I am mostly in favour of isolationism(politically), I think reform in the Middle East was sorely needed and Iraq was the perfect stepping stone. I think it is a thing that was needed. The status quo was not working in that region. If we can reform Africa next that would be great(but they dont pose such a threat to modern society as the middle east does).

As far as Bush in terms of history. Well, the other things that he has done are whatever. But his vision in attempting to change the Middle East will either win him accolades or derision, depending on how things eventually work out(10-30 yrs). I think it will be the former. I also think that he deserve praise for addressing an isse that could not have any possible political benefit during his need for political benefit. Its a rare politician that does a thing regardless of political consequence.

Think about, given the victory in Afganistan and his popularity after 9/11, what possible political upside was there for him to engage in this war? If he would have done nothing after Afganistan he would have breezed through the elections with historic percentages. Was there any real opposition to him other than the war in Iraq? Do you not think he knew this before he engaged? If he was a Clinton type politician he would have left it alone and coasted to an easy victory in 2004. He Jepordized his second term and for that alone I need to give him my respect. Not many other politicians would have done that.

I love your combination of optimism and pragmatism. We need more people like you on these boards (and maybe in office?) :D