Lol, 30 year old docs magically match up to word .doc with default settings? I just can't believe that no matter how much kool aid I drink.
Real docs look like this....Ignore actual content of memo if you like.....http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/3-nov-70-bush-praise.pdf
They don't match to word docs like this http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/c ... gh-res.gif
Good analysis of docs http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/newcomer/index.htm
Likely source of docs according to WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Sep15.html[/url]
OT-OK, let's play Who Wants to Drum Up a Controversy!
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
Teal,
Yeah. It's pretty much a nitpicking thing. But it does bring up points that are somewhat valid. Although personally, I'm leaning towards that it was made in Word (2:1 odds).
As for CBS, I'm not sure why they're sticking to their guns. Things are starting to fall apart for them. I really don't think that CBS did this on purpose to hurt Bush.....they weren't careful enough and (if they are fake, which is likely), they'll probably pay for it.
Yeah. It's pretty much a nitpicking thing. But it does bring up points that are somewhat valid. Although personally, I'm leaning towards that it was made in Word (2:1 odds).
As for CBS, I'm not sure why they're sticking to their guns. Things are starting to fall apart for them. I really don't think that CBS did this on purpose to hurt Bush.....they weren't careful enough and (if they are fake, which is likely), they'll probably pay for it.
The thing is, it's not like 60 Minutes just pulled these off the fax and went with the story. They did consult document "experts" (though it seems pretty easy to be one of those LOL) and, more importantly, talked to Killian's colleagues, who seemed to think the memos were in line with Killian's feelings at the time. Even his secretary, in the article Teal pointed out, said she feels the content of the memos was accurate even if they were fake. Killian's widow, while saying she doubted their authenticity, said her husband didn't really discuss his work with her. Of course, you have to take these recollections on both sides with a grain of salt.
I am starting to think these are probably fake and that someone pulled a fast one on CBS. But before anyone shouts liberal bias, this is just a case of the press chasing a hot story during a short window of opportunity. Yes, the target is Bush, but we saw a lot of the same type of behavior during the Clinton administration. I would blame the forger first and foremost.
One other bit from the Post story: we've been hearing repeatedly from the White House that all of Bush's records have been released. Yet, it seems every time a question comes up, more records surface.
"In a related development, White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted that more documents regarding Bush's National Guard service may soon be released. Asked whether officials in the White House have seen unreleased documents, McClellan called that 'a very real possibility.' Other officials with knowledge of the situation said more documents had indeed been uncovered and would be released in the coming days."
I have to admit, regardless of how this turns out, I'm totally intrigued by this whole story.
I am starting to think these are probably fake and that someone pulled a fast one on CBS. But before anyone shouts liberal bias, this is just a case of the press chasing a hot story during a short window of opportunity. Yes, the target is Bush, but we saw a lot of the same type of behavior during the Clinton administration. I would blame the forger first and foremost.
One other bit from the Post story: we've been hearing repeatedly from the White House that all of Bush's records have been released. Yet, it seems every time a question comes up, more records surface.
"In a related development, White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted that more documents regarding Bush's National Guard service may soon be released. Asked whether officials in the White House have seen unreleased documents, McClellan called that 'a very real possibility.' Other officials with knowledge of the situation said more documents had indeed been uncovered and would be released in the coming days."
I have to admit, regardless of how this turns out, I'm totally intrigued by this whole story.
Bickering aside, it's pretty safe to say Bush's bounce is over, and his lead over Kerry is gone.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0, ... %5Ffeature
Wall Street Journal/Harris poll today shows Kerry ahead by 1 pt. This poll does not usually favor Democrats either.
And Investor's Business Daily shows basically a tie, but Kerry is ahead among registered voters:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/040913/feature_1.html
Kerry has a chance to take control of this race once again.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0, ... %5Ffeature
Wall Street Journal/Harris poll today shows Kerry ahead by 1 pt. This poll does not usually favor Democrats either.
And Investor's Business Daily shows basically a tie, but Kerry is ahead among registered voters:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/040913/feature_1.html
Kerry has a chance to take control of this race once again.
"Kerry has a chance to take control of this race once again."
Except, Parker, I don't think he will and I don't think he ever did. Maybe the debates will change things, but in general Kerry and the Dems are letting the Republicans dictate the discourse. They have been on the defensive most of the time, instead of pressing on the issues that made Bush's popularity falter in the first place, Iraq and the economy. Kerry seems to only do better when external issues make Bush look bad, not because Kerry's running some dazzling campaign. In a lot of ways, Bush reminds me of Reagan in that he manages to avoid being damaged by issues that would severly hurt most politicians.
Except, Parker, I don't think he will and I don't think he ever did. Maybe the debates will change things, but in general Kerry and the Dems are letting the Republicans dictate the discourse. They have been on the defensive most of the time, instead of pressing on the issues that made Bush's popularity falter in the first place, Iraq and the economy. Kerry seems to only do better when external issues make Bush look bad, not because Kerry's running some dazzling campaign. In a lot of ways, Bush reminds me of Reagan in that he manages to avoid being damaged by issues that would severly hurt most politicians.
Well, Kerry did have a decent lead over Bush for quite a while. But leads in this race have not been products of good campaigning by either party to this point.
Honestly, I think both campaigns have been quite crappy and done a poor job defining their messages. But that's not uncommon when there are still a few months to go. It will come down to whether people want another 4 years of Bush, how the incumbent will be viewed is more important than what voters think of Kerry, despite what Republicans want to think. That's always the case in reelection bids. Kerry needs to convince enough voters he is a viable alternative to Bush, which is easier to do in the final weeks than it will be for Bush to overcome 4 years of service that voters are not satisfied with. But Kerry doesn't exactly have to implement a fantastic campaign strategy to win if the Republicans don't counter with anything fantastic themselves, though it will likely be a close election in this case.
I'm not sure why you think Bush's campaign has been that much better than Kerry's, most pundits I've heard on tv are equally as critical of both. The only thing that has made a noticeable difference in the polls was the swift boat tv ads, which supposedly had nothing to do with Bush's campaign itself. Republicans had been attacking Kerry's Vietnam service before this, but it had little effect. In any case, the swift boat bounce is over, whether or not the media attention on Bush's service has anything to do with it.
I honestly don't see Bush clearly winning debates with Kerry. Bush may not be as bad a debater as some think, but Kerry is one of the best debaters I've ever seen. Don't underestimate the importance of fundamental debating skills, though Kerry will have to avoid sounding too academic. But you don't spend years learning how to debate just to be made to look like a fool.
Honestly, I think both campaigns have been quite crappy and done a poor job defining their messages. But that's not uncommon when there are still a few months to go. It will come down to whether people want another 4 years of Bush, how the incumbent will be viewed is more important than what voters think of Kerry, despite what Republicans want to think. That's always the case in reelection bids. Kerry needs to convince enough voters he is a viable alternative to Bush, which is easier to do in the final weeks than it will be for Bush to overcome 4 years of service that voters are not satisfied with. But Kerry doesn't exactly have to implement a fantastic campaign strategy to win if the Republicans don't counter with anything fantastic themselves, though it will likely be a close election in this case.
I'm not sure why you think Bush's campaign has been that much better than Kerry's, most pundits I've heard on tv are equally as critical of both. The only thing that has made a noticeable difference in the polls was the swift boat tv ads, which supposedly had nothing to do with Bush's campaign itself. Republicans had been attacking Kerry's Vietnam service before this, but it had little effect. In any case, the swift boat bounce is over, whether or not the media attention on Bush's service has anything to do with it.
I honestly don't see Bush clearly winning debates with Kerry. Bush may not be as bad a debater as some think, but Kerry is one of the best debaters I've ever seen. Don't underestimate the importance of fundamental debating skills, though Kerry will have to avoid sounding too academic. But you don't spend years learning how to debate just to be made to look like a fool.
"I really don't think that CBS did this on purpose to hurt Bush.....they weren't careful enough and (if they are fake, which is likely), they'll probably pay for it."
Jared:
Maybe they didn't . I'm leary of CBS as a nonpartisan entity, but I'll not make a judgement call on that. I'll leave it to the conspiracy nuts. I actually think that CBS is counting on it just blowing over if they hold on long enough...but it won't this time, I don't think.
"Well, Kerry did have a decent lead over Bush for quite a while."
Parker:
This is what you call new kid on the block syndrome. I don't have the hard data to back this up, but I'm going to go on the record with a gut feeling I've had from the moment Kerry won the primaries: Kerry won't get close. I don't think it'll be a landslide, but I think Bush wins handily, and have felt that he would all along. I've never gotten panicky about this "horse race" stuff, as I think that the media will be in full "shock and awe" mode come late night Nov 2nd. Kerry is imploding. Truth be known, I hate to see the Democratic Party self destructing like they are. Pat Caddell and Zell Miller have it right-their party has been hijacked by the nuttiest of the bunch, and it's sad to see. I vote for the man. I AM conservative, but I'm not Repub, Demo, Libertarian, or anything like that. I won't ever vote straight ticket. The Dems better figure out a way to get a balance between left and right, or they'll find themselves in the minority for quite a while...
Jared:
Maybe they didn't . I'm leary of CBS as a nonpartisan entity, but I'll not make a judgement call on that. I'll leave it to the conspiracy nuts. I actually think that CBS is counting on it just blowing over if they hold on long enough...but it won't this time, I don't think.
"Well, Kerry did have a decent lead over Bush for quite a while."
Parker:
This is what you call new kid on the block syndrome. I don't have the hard data to back this up, but I'm going to go on the record with a gut feeling I've had from the moment Kerry won the primaries: Kerry won't get close. I don't think it'll be a landslide, but I think Bush wins handily, and have felt that he would all along. I've never gotten panicky about this "horse race" stuff, as I think that the media will be in full "shock and awe" mode come late night Nov 2nd. Kerry is imploding. Truth be known, I hate to see the Democratic Party self destructing like they are. Pat Caddell and Zell Miller have it right-their party has been hijacked by the nuttiest of the bunch, and it's sad to see. I vote for the man. I AM conservative, but I'm not Repub, Demo, Libertarian, or anything like that. I won't ever vote straight ticket. The Dems better figure out a way to get a balance between left and right, or they'll find themselves in the minority for quite a while...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
-
Slumberland
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:00 am
You can think what you want, but I've yet to hear one pollster, whether they favor Republicans or Democrats, who think this election is going to be a landslide. Even the most steadfast Republican leaders admit it will be a fairly close election even if they promise Bush will win. There are simply too many polarized on each party who will not change their mind no matter what happens, and not enough undecideds in between. So your dream of a landslide does not seem very logical at all with the data we have. In past elections, yes, but not this time.
Last edited by Parker on Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I couldn't agree more, Slumber. However, you left out an unhealthy environment. But, at least removing those restrictive environmental regulations has stimulated the economy.Slumberland wrote:I'm not sure how you can trumpet Zell Miller as some paragon of sanity.
If Bush wins, voters will get what they deserve... a country with skyrocketing poverty, soaring deficits, endless war, and compromised civil liberties.
Enjoy your gut feeling!
http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/
Teal,tealboy03 wrote: Truth be known, I hate to see the Democratic Party self destructing like they are. Pat Caddell and Zell Miller have it right-their party has been hijacked by the nuttiest of the bunch, and it's sad to see.
Why do you think that the Democratic party has been hijacked by the "nuttiest of the bunch"? And this isn't meant as a challenge...it's more trying to understand why people on "the other side" think this.
"So your dream of a landslide does not seem very logical at all with the data we have."
Parker:
I didn't say it'd be a landslide. You might want to reread. I know- the data, the data, all hail the data. All I can say is we'll see...and really, that's all anyone can say, data or no data...
"I'm not sure how you can trumpet Zell Miller as some paragon of sanity."
AHHHH, so now Zell's insane... That's too funny. Since when does being pissed off at the direction the derelicts are taking your party qualify as "insane"? He supports the president...oh wait!!!! Now I get it! You support Bush, you're insane, or a bigot, or a bible thumping redneck, or a militia nut, or void of common sense, or any combination of the bunch. If you're a democrat that supports Bush-welllll...you must have fallen off the turnip truck.
The idea that that somehow supporters of Bush are intellectually inferior, or that the president is a dunce, or that liberals have cornered the market on so-called "enlightenment" is so passe, so old, so incredibly stupid, that...you know? Never mind- go ahead and think what you want. Your loss...Bush by 10 or 12 on November 2nd. I'm going to go talk about games. To hell with this "pulling teeth on a chicken" routine with political threads in here. There's no need to waste our time with this. It's just one big treadmill set on high- run til you give out, only to realize that you have made zero progress...waste. I'm out.
Parker:
I didn't say it'd be a landslide. You might want to reread. I know- the data, the data, all hail the data. All I can say is we'll see...and really, that's all anyone can say, data or no data...
"I'm not sure how you can trumpet Zell Miller as some paragon of sanity."
AHHHH, so now Zell's insane...
That's too funny. Since when does being pissed off at the direction the derelicts are taking your party qualify as "insane"? He supports the president...oh wait!!!! Now I get it! You support Bush, you're insane, or a bigot, or a bible thumping redneck, or a militia nut, or void of common sense, or any combination of the bunch. If you're a democrat that supports Bush-welllll...you must have fallen off the turnip truck.The idea that that somehow supporters of Bush are intellectually inferior, or that the president is a dunce, or that liberals have cornered the market on so-called "enlightenment" is so passe, so old, so incredibly stupid, that...you know? Never mind- go ahead and think what you want. Your loss...Bush by 10 or 12 on November 2nd. I'm going to go talk about games. To hell with this "pulling teeth on a chicken" routine with political threads in here. There's no need to waste our time with this. It's just one big treadmill set on high- run til you give out, only to realize that you have made zero progress...waste. I'm out.
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
-
Slumberland
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:00 am
Zell's attacks were way off base. Do you really think Kerry would send our troops into battle with spitballs? Do you really think he would call Paris before defending our country? Empty rhetoric.tealboy03 wrote: AHHHH, so now Zell's insane...
Why didn't you respond to the second part of my post? Tell me that's not where Bush is leading us.
Regarding Zell's sanity, I don't know many people who go around challenging people to duels these days. Then again, I've wished I could run Chris Matthews through the heart with a rapier on several occasions. So we'll call it a push 
I'm not saying Zell's crazy, he's just obviously not a Democrat anymore. He should just STFU and switch to the Republican side. Ah, but if he did that, no one would pay attention to him, because he'd just be another Republican. Gotta hand it to the Repubs, though, that was an effective strategy to use him at the convention.
I think Teal's got a good point about the association of Bush supporter=idiot. I know a lot of smart people that support Bush. There are a lot of smart people in the Bush administration. If you believe in certain things (lower taxes, more religious influence over public policy, making abortion illegal, to give three examples), you should vote for Bush.
But I don't like the flipside of this: that if you don't support Bush, you must not support America. I'll be honest, that has been the most disturbing thing IMO about the political climate post 9/11. I'm not voting against Bush because I think he's evil or a draft dodger or a dunce. None of that has anything to do with it. I just think his policies are wrong and, if continued for four more years, will have serious long-term consequences. I wish the media would talk more about policy, instead about a bunch of crap that happened three decades ago that has nothing to do with the vision of the candidates.
I'm not saying Zell's crazy, he's just obviously not a Democrat anymore. He should just STFU and switch to the Republican side. Ah, but if he did that, no one would pay attention to him, because he'd just be another Republican. Gotta hand it to the Repubs, though, that was an effective strategy to use him at the convention.
I think Teal's got a good point about the association of Bush supporter=idiot. I know a lot of smart people that support Bush. There are a lot of smart people in the Bush administration. If you believe in certain things (lower taxes, more religious influence over public policy, making abortion illegal, to give three examples), you should vote for Bush.
But I don't like the flipside of this: that if you don't support Bush, you must not support America. I'll be honest, that has been the most disturbing thing IMO about the political climate post 9/11. I'm not voting against Bush because I think he's evil or a draft dodger or a dunce. None of that has anything to do with it. I just think his policies are wrong and, if continued for four more years, will have serious long-term consequences. I wish the media would talk more about policy, instead about a bunch of crap that happened three decades ago that has nothing to do with the vision of the candidates.
"Why do you think that the Democratic party has been hijacked by the "nuttiest of the bunch"? And this isn't meant as a challenge...it's more trying to understand why people on "the other side" think this."
Jared: Out of respect for the objectivity of your question, and for your commitment to research and to be fair, I'll renig and answer this for you as best I can. Understand, I don't represent any "side", just myself. I am, and will always be, a proud and unashamed conservative. I am NOT a republican, as I have voted for several democrats over the years for various offices, from local to federal elections. That being said, if I were a democrat tried and true, I'd have voted for Leiberman in the primary, and I would probably write in a candidate come November 2nd, because it is my belief that John Kerry is the worst one of the lot from the primaries. Howard Dean is a kook, but at least you know where he stood. Joe Leiberman? He's become the whipping boy of the gaming community, but it's really nothing more than a characature. I don't like many of Leiberman's domestic ideas, but I like the man. He's solid.
But anyway, to answer your question. Why do I think the party has been taken over by the kooks? The short answer? My grandfather. My grandfather is a lifelong yellow dog democrat. You pinch him, he doesn't holler...he brays. Get my point?
That being said, my grandfather is not represented in the slightest by the likes of Kerry, Shrum, Carville, Begala, McAuliffe, Edwards, Kennedy, Hillary, Shumer, etc. ad nauseum. He's a Roosevelt man. I think he liked Carter (they're both farmers), but he doesn't think he was a good president. ( so I know he's sane!) 
Grandpa's democrats were people like Zell Miller (who is a fine, fine man, which is what pisses me off about these juvenile insanity jabs), Joe Leiberman, Bud Cramer(our represenative in the House, and one of the Dems I consistently vote for). Their kind, however, are written off as the finge kooks, ironic in the sense that they represent what has always been honorable about their party historically. The fact that I am in diametrical opposition to the beliefs of the far left, being a conservative and all, is also, naturally, a big factor.
Jared, I have a degree in Sociology, so I've spent alot of time with really liberal people. And they are surprised when I tell them that, in spirit, I actually agree with the passions of the truly passionate liberal (not the political spotlight seekers, mind you), but their ideas and passions will never truly work in a political climate. Let me explain why...
While studying sociology, I had to hear over and over again about Karl Marx. I grew up with the thought that the only thing Marx did was help start communism, so I disliked him out of hand. But I've actually read some of Marx's work, and in theory, he's right on the money. It's a fantastic idea to lift up the least fortunate among us, to balance their existence with the most fortunate, and to work together in tandem toward continuing that trend to future generations. Great stuff. The problem lies in the implementation of the idea. Marx thought it'd be a good idea to place it in the hands of government to make it happen. What he got was communism. That doesn't work, and here's why: in order to truly see the idea of social equality work, you must be able to count on people's hearts to be in tune with it. If they aren't, and you force the issue...communism. You cannot force people to "be nice". That's an attitude of the heart, and the heart isn't subject to law. The answer lies in the church. Marx's experience with the state church left him with a bad taste in his mouth, as well it should. So he couldn't have known , without independent study(like Martin Luther did), that the church was the answer. No, no,no...not the buildings. The people whose hearts have been truly changed and forever linked to the heart of God. These people, on a daily basis, exercise the tenets of Marx's "socialism" gladly, because to be merciful and sacrificial is to be connected with the nature of God. ( I know this is long, and your'e likely saying "what the!?!", but hear me out, and you'll find your answer.)
So, in the end, Socialism has no place in the realm of government, because the attitudes that MUST be present in order for socialism to work can not be changed by force. It requires a heart change, which only the Almighty can do.
OK (whew) I say that to say this: Socialism and liberalism are one and the same. The ideals, the passions, the good intentions...inexorably linked. Liberals want to force people who have a lot of money to "pay their fair share". A wealthy person's fair share should be the same percentage as everyone else's. The wealthiest pay over 90% of the taxes as it is. They should also get the same tax break, percentage wise, that the rest of us pay. To force them to give away more of their money simply because they have more is communistic. It's a good idea, to be sure, if people who are wealthy WANT to give more, and they should have that opportunity if they choose. But it's immoral to force it. Liberals want healthcare to be universal, and everyone from the poorest to the richest can be covered. Again, that sounds awful good, and just sounds awful when someone says " I don't want that!" But it requires a depth of sacrifice on those of us who CAN afford healthcare so as to make it not worth it. Not only am I paying for my families healthcare, I'm paying for God knows who else. I shouldn't have to do that, if I don't want to. To force me to is to be communistic. By choice alone, it's a good thing. Liberals want government to do many things that I believe government has no business being involved in. Pro choice folks should be the only ones who have their taxes earmarked to fund abortion clinics. If you want to do something like that, that's your right. But expecting me to pay for it is not your right. Liberals want more and more involvement. I want less and less.
I'm a conservative because I believe in free market economy. You make a mint? Congrats. It's yours. No one else has a right to it. You wanna give it away? That's up to you. I'm a conservative because I was taught that you've got to make your own way- no one's gonna do it for you. "There's no such thing as a free lunch". I made my way, you make your own. I shouldn't have to fund someone else's laziness, shiftlessness, or refusal to do whatever it takes to get out of their situation. I delivered pizzas for a living, you can too. It's not beneath you. I'm a conservative because I believe everyone should have the same opportunities, and those whose skin is a different color or whose gender is different from mine should have EXACTLY the same chance at those opportunities,
. no more, no less. I'm a conservative because I should be able to drive what I want to drive, go where I want to go, be what I want to be, and do (within basic legal limits) what I want to do, without government interference.
Basically, I'm a conservative because I believe liberalism and government do not gel any more than a state sponsored church would. These are my beliefs, and why I think that the kooks have taken over the asylum in the democratic party. And with that, I'm done. Oh, one last thing...Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, Libertarian or independent, if you don't VOTE...don't COMPLAIN. Shut the hell up...see you all in the game threads...
Sincerely,
The Right Wing Nut Job
Jared: Out of respect for the objectivity of your question, and for your commitment to research and to be fair, I'll renig and answer this for you as best I can. Understand, I don't represent any "side", just myself. I am, and will always be, a proud and unashamed conservative. I am NOT a republican, as I have voted for several democrats over the years for various offices, from local to federal elections. That being said, if I were a democrat tried and true, I'd have voted for Leiberman in the primary, and I would probably write in a candidate come November 2nd, because it is my belief that John Kerry is the worst one of the lot from the primaries. Howard Dean is a kook, but at least you know where he stood. Joe Leiberman? He's become the whipping boy of the gaming community, but it's really nothing more than a characature. I don't like many of Leiberman's domestic ideas, but I like the man. He's solid.
But anyway, to answer your question. Why do I think the party has been taken over by the kooks? The short answer? My grandfather. My grandfather is a lifelong yellow dog democrat. You pinch him, he doesn't holler...he brays. Get my point?
That being said, my grandfather is not represented in the slightest by the likes of Kerry, Shrum, Carville, Begala, McAuliffe, Edwards, Kennedy, Hillary, Shumer, etc. ad nauseum. He's a Roosevelt man. I think he liked Carter (they're both farmers), but he doesn't think he was a good president. ( so I know he's sane!) Grandpa's democrats were people like Zell Miller (who is a fine, fine man, which is what pisses me off about these juvenile insanity jabs), Joe Leiberman, Bud Cramer(our represenative in the House, and one of the Dems I consistently vote for). Their kind, however, are written off as the finge kooks, ironic in the sense that they represent what has always been honorable about their party historically. The fact that I am in diametrical opposition to the beliefs of the far left, being a conservative and all, is also, naturally, a big factor.Jared, I have a degree in Sociology, so I've spent alot of time with really liberal people. And they are surprised when I tell them that, in spirit, I actually agree with the passions of the truly passionate liberal (not the political spotlight seekers, mind you), but their ideas and passions will never truly work in a political climate. Let me explain why...
While studying sociology, I had to hear over and over again about Karl Marx. I grew up with the thought that the only thing Marx did was help start communism, so I disliked him out of hand. But I've actually read some of Marx's work, and in theory, he's right on the money. It's a fantastic idea to lift up the least fortunate among us, to balance their existence with the most fortunate, and to work together in tandem toward continuing that trend to future generations. Great stuff. The problem lies in the implementation of the idea. Marx thought it'd be a good idea to place it in the hands of government to make it happen. What he got was communism. That doesn't work, and here's why: in order to truly see the idea of social equality work, you must be able to count on people's hearts to be in tune with it. If they aren't, and you force the issue...communism. You cannot force people to "be nice". That's an attitude of the heart, and the heart isn't subject to law. The answer lies in the church. Marx's experience with the state church left him with a bad taste in his mouth, as well it should. So he couldn't have known , without independent study(like Martin Luther did), that the church was the answer. No, no,no...not the buildings. The people whose hearts have been truly changed and forever linked to the heart of God. These people, on a daily basis, exercise the tenets of Marx's "socialism" gladly, because to be merciful and sacrificial is to be connected with the nature of God. ( I know this is long, and your'e likely saying "what the!?!", but hear me out, and you'll find your answer.)
So, in the end, Socialism has no place in the realm of government, because the attitudes that MUST be present in order for socialism to work can not be changed by force. It requires a heart change, which only the Almighty can do.
OK (whew) I say that to say this: Socialism and liberalism are one and the same. The ideals, the passions, the good intentions...inexorably linked. Liberals want to force people who have a lot of money to "pay their fair share". A wealthy person's fair share should be the same percentage as everyone else's. The wealthiest pay over 90% of the taxes as it is. They should also get the same tax break, percentage wise, that the rest of us pay. To force them to give away more of their money simply because they have more is communistic. It's a good idea, to be sure, if people who are wealthy WANT to give more, and they should have that opportunity if they choose. But it's immoral to force it. Liberals want healthcare to be universal, and everyone from the poorest to the richest can be covered. Again, that sounds awful good, and just sounds awful when someone says " I don't want that!" But it requires a depth of sacrifice on those of us who CAN afford healthcare so as to make it not worth it. Not only am I paying for my families healthcare, I'm paying for God knows who else. I shouldn't have to do that, if I don't want to. To force me to is to be communistic. By choice alone, it's a good thing. Liberals want government to do many things that I believe government has no business being involved in. Pro choice folks should be the only ones who have their taxes earmarked to fund abortion clinics. If you want to do something like that, that's your right. But expecting me to pay for it is not your right. Liberals want more and more involvement. I want less and less.
I'm a conservative because I believe in free market economy. You make a mint? Congrats. It's yours. No one else has a right to it. You wanna give it away? That's up to you. I'm a conservative because I was taught that you've got to make your own way- no one's gonna do it for you. "There's no such thing as a free lunch". I made my way, you make your own. I shouldn't have to fund someone else's laziness, shiftlessness, or refusal to do whatever it takes to get out of their situation. I delivered pizzas for a living, you can too. It's not beneath you. I'm a conservative because I believe everyone should have the same opportunities, and those whose skin is a different color or whose gender is different from mine should have EXACTLY the same chance at those opportunities,
. no more, no less. I'm a conservative because I should be able to drive what I want to drive, go where I want to go, be what I want to be, and do (within basic legal limits) what I want to do, without government interference.
Basically, I'm a conservative because I believe liberalism and government do not gel any more than a state sponsored church would. These are my beliefs, and why I think that the kooks have taken over the asylum in the democratic party. And with that, I'm done. Oh, one last thing...Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, Libertarian or independent, if you don't VOTE...don't COMPLAIN. Shut the hell up...see you all in the game threads...
Sincerely,
The Right Wing Nut Job
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
I also know many intelligent Bush supporters. However, I think they are so blinded by devotion to certain party ideals which allow them to gloss over the President’s record or rationalize his actions.
Unfortunately, here in the south, a lot of the politics are also based upon race. The white people in the suburbs don't want one cent of their tax dollars going to blacks in the city. Hence, they're Republican. Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights act in 1964 and there has been a slow exodus of whites from the democratic party ever since.
Brando said he’s not voting against Bush because he thinks he’s a dunce. Well, I differ there. I think Bush is the most dim-witted and unprepared for office President of the modern era. His lack of intellectual curiosity contributes to his poor policy decisions. See the Paul O'Neill book for this one. Governing with your gut when you have no clue about economics or foreign cultures, for example, is a recipe for disaster.
Unfortunately, here in the south, a lot of the politics are also based upon race. The white people in the suburbs don't want one cent of their tax dollars going to blacks in the city. Hence, they're Republican. Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights act in 1964 and there has been a slow exodus of whites from the democratic party ever since.
Brando said he’s not voting against Bush because he thinks he’s a dunce. Well, I differ there. I think Bush is the most dim-witted and unprepared for office President of the modern era. His lack of intellectual curiosity contributes to his poor policy decisions. See the Paul O'Neill book for this one. Governing with your gut when you have no clue about economics or foreign cultures, for example, is a recipe for disaster.
Don't get me wrong, Andy, I don't think Bush is brilliant. Compared to other presidents of the post WWII era, I think he's below average intelligence. And he is proudly anti-intellectual. But he's a shrewd guy and thinking of him as an idiot misunderestimates him 
However, ever since he became the Republican candidate in 2000, I felt his whole approach was wrong for the modern presidency. I agree in that I think his management style is too hands off, too simplified, and fails to adjust on the fly quickly enough. Iraq is a perfect example of this.
Teal, you can't leave, you started this thread Seriously, I agree with you about socialism being unrealistic. People are inherently greedy and selfish, and socialism relies on people not being that way. However, I see a difference from socialism and social welfare. I think the state can provide certain blanket services for members of society that would otherwise fall through the cracks. Repealing all this stuff would be like turning back the clock to the pre-progressive era, where the poor were horribly exploited and abused by corporations and the upper classes. I also find it interesting that Republicans want to bring Christianity back into government, yet don't want the government to have anything to do with caring for the poor or sick.
However, ever since he became the Republican candidate in 2000, I felt his whole approach was wrong for the modern presidency. I agree in that I think his management style is too hands off, too simplified, and fails to adjust on the fly quickly enough. Iraq is a perfect example of this.
Teal, you can't leave, you started this thread
Seriously, I agree with you about socialism being unrealistic. People are inherently greedy and selfish, and socialism relies on people not being that way. However, I see a difference from socialism and social welfare. I think the state can provide certain blanket services for members of society that would otherwise fall through the cracks. Repealing all this stuff would be like turning back the clock to the pre-progressive era, where the poor were horribly exploited and abused by corporations and the upper classes. I also find it interesting that Republicans want to bring Christianity back into government, yet don't want the government to have anything to do with caring for the poor or sick.
"Teal, you can't leave, you started this thread"
Brando:
Yeah, I did. And God as my witness, it's my last one in here. I don't mind honest, intelligent debate, even passionate debate, as long as it's based on some shred of truth. But dumbass/smartass/character assassination (Miller's a nut, not really a Dem, Bush is a moron, he can't say "blah, blah") isn't going to get any of us anywhere. The argument that Miller's crazy or not really a Democrat-how's that drivel any different from the nonsense that the NAACP type say about affluent, conservative blacks? They're not really black, they're uncle Toms, they've betrayed their race...all just a bunch of bullcrap, with a base nowhere near reality.
Truth be known, I'm sick and tired of this whole friggin year. I want November to hurry up and get here and then go away. I support who I support, and, no offense, but to hell with whether anyone likes it or not. I owe no one an explanation, and neither do you. Screw it. We're all tossing boomerangs in these political threads, anyway, aren't we? No matter how much we want it to be caught by the other guy, it still just comes back to us.
I'm a lifelong believer in Christ. I'm devoted to that til the day I die. Nothing can change that. I've been a pastor of some sort for 12 or so years, and will continue to pursue that calling as long as it's laid out for me. Just try and turn me.
I'm a lifelong political conservative. I'm devoted to that til the day I die. Nothing can change that. No matter what anyone else thinks, I'll do what I do and think what I think politically based on that belief. That being said, I will vote for George W Bush this year again, not because he's Republican, because that is meaningless. I will vote for the man because in my heart he is the far superior choice, and the right man for the job at this time.
You all will do the same thing, based on your own compasses. I respect that. To belittle your true convictions, the ones that lie beneath the rhetoric, would in turn belittle my own. If I've done that, my apologies. Passions run high in these forums, and the defense mechanism can sometimes not be suppressed. All of you know this.
We are all fighting a war in here armed with spitballs, and it's a useless pursuit. I've never seen one person address these political threads (and yes, I know I started this one) who has done a 180 and come over to the other side, whichever side that is. So why, I guess I'm asking, are we doing it? I don't know anymore, which is why not only am I not posting in these things anymore, I'm not reading them. I know where my buttons are, and I'm not going to put myself intentionally into a situation where I know they will be pressed anymore.
This has been, without a doubt, the most ridiculous campaign year I've ever seen. The debates will be so welcome, I can't even tell you. Everything will, hopefully, be shown for what it really is, and the baby kissing, "tell you whatever you want to hear" baloney will be put to rest. Issues will be nice to hear, for a change.
OK, I have one more response to give to you, Brando. Here's the quote:
"I also find it interesting that Republicans want to bring Christianity back into government, yet don't want the government to have anything to do with caring for the poor or sick."
Not as a social program funded and required by the government, no. See, Brando, I don't believe the government has any business in this arena. What I'm about to say will sound like pie in the sky, and I know that. But, even though it's not happening now, I'm one that wants to lead the charge for it to happen, because it is supposed to. And I'm not alone. There may be things I say that don't resonate with you, and that's understandable, but hear me out, think about it, and it may make sense to you.
Jesus spent 33 1/2 years on the planet. We believe, as Christians, that Jesus was God in the flesh. God had decided that in order to rescue us miscreants, he'd have to come down here and see what it's like from our viewpoint, so he could relate. And so he became human for a time. That's Jesus. He stayed out of the limelight for 30 years, only making an appearance worthy of mention when he turned twelve, the age of adulthood in that culture, when he astounded the teachers of the law with his knowledge and insight. He then melted back into the fabric of society, learning a trade and "growing in wisdom and stature". In short, before He could teach us, he had to learn a little more about us. Then, at age 30, Jesus began his ministry. He traveled from place to place, telling stories to whomever would listen, stories that had a deeper meaning than their everyday sound would imply. But that's not all He did. He cared for people-the sick, the lonely, the sinners, the oppressed. He was politically astute, but not politically engaged. He had more important things to do. He routinely touched the untouchable, worked on the Sabbath, and generally turned the system upside down. He was a religious rogue, and the religious establishment hated him. His followers grew in number, but were still cowardly, bumbling fools, which is exactly what God was looking for. God intended, and still intends, to use the simple to confound the wise. As Jesus' time on earth drew to an end, and his main reason for coming to the earth drew ever nearer, Jesus called his disciples together for passover. Jesus then did a strange thing. The leader, the teacher, the Christ, took off his cloak, wrapped a cloth around his waist, and began washing the disciples' feet. In the midst of this incredible act of self sacrifice and humility, Jesus dropped the mother of all commands. "Follow my example." At one time, Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment. Jesus' response provides the segue back in to modern day: "Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. And the second is like it- Love your neighbor as yourself. All of the Law and the Prophecies hinge on these two."
Modern day Christians have neglected to love thier neighbor as themselves. There's no pretty way around it. We've dropped the ball on at least one half of what God has said is the most important thing to Him. I'm one of a growing number of Christians who see this, and want to change it. We have been given a directive, a non negotiable directly from the Father that we have ignored for too long. Now the question-why are you telling me all of this, Teal? Here's why.
The fact that the government has these social programs means that Christians have failed. The government would not need them if we were doing what we have been tasked to do. We aren't, and the government has had to fill the void. One of the reasons that I support President Bush is that I believe that he sees what I see in this regard. Thus, the Faith Based Initiative. The president knows that caring for the less fortunate is the job of every Christian, not the job of government, because we have the heart change necessary to do it without being forced to. I have a passion to see the church return to her roots, being an entity that people would run TO for help, instead of running away. Don't get me wrong, I know why people run away, and I don't blame them. We aren't a very appealing bunch these days. But that's not the way it's supposed to be. In the world that works like it should, the church has been the tip of the sword for the push for social change. Now we hide behind stained glass windows in our little country clubs, where only people like us are allowed to participate. We've got to do what Jesus told us to do, and follow his lead. We are responsible for taking care of the throw aways, the orphans, the widows. We've been given that mandate from the highest authority in existence. When we've begun to take up again the mantle that was assigned to us, the government will no longer be able to use the less fortunate as a political pawn, because they will no longer be in possession of it as an issue. We will. We've failed, that's true, but so has the government, and it's not a republican or democrat failure. The system was never theirs to begin with. It was ours. The government will never be able to fix it. Never. But we can. Because we're supposed to.
Brando, I don't know if this is what you intended, but I'm actually grateful for the statement you made that caused me to get my head out of politics for a moment. This is my passion. I have no intention of disengaging from the political process, but it's not the most important thing to me. Thanks for jarring my memory...
Brando:
Yeah, I did. And God as my witness, it's my last one in here. I don't mind honest, intelligent debate, even passionate debate, as long as it's based on some shred of truth. But dumbass/smartass/character assassination (Miller's a nut, not really a Dem, Bush is a moron, he can't say "blah, blah") isn't going to get any of us anywhere. The argument that Miller's crazy or not really a Democrat-how's that drivel any different from the nonsense that the NAACP type say about affluent, conservative blacks? They're not really black, they're uncle Toms, they've betrayed their race...all just a bunch of bullcrap, with a base nowhere near reality.
Truth be known, I'm sick and tired of this whole friggin year. I want November to hurry up and get here and then go away. I support who I support, and, no offense, but to hell with whether anyone likes it or not. I owe no one an explanation, and neither do you. Screw it. We're all tossing boomerangs in these political threads, anyway, aren't we? No matter how much we want it to be caught by the other guy, it still just comes back to us.
I'm a lifelong believer in Christ. I'm devoted to that til the day I die. Nothing can change that. I've been a pastor of some sort for 12 or so years, and will continue to pursue that calling as long as it's laid out for me. Just try and turn me.
I'm a lifelong political conservative. I'm devoted to that til the day I die. Nothing can change that. No matter what anyone else thinks, I'll do what I do and think what I think politically based on that belief. That being said, I will vote for George W Bush this year again, not because he's Republican, because that is meaningless. I will vote for the man because in my heart he is the far superior choice, and the right man for the job at this time.
You all will do the same thing, based on your own compasses. I respect that. To belittle your true convictions, the ones that lie beneath the rhetoric, would in turn belittle my own. If I've done that, my apologies. Passions run high in these forums, and the defense mechanism can sometimes not be suppressed. All of you know this.
We are all fighting a war in here armed with spitballs, and it's a useless pursuit. I've never seen one person address these political threads (and yes, I know I started this one) who has done a 180 and come over to the other side, whichever side that is. So why, I guess I'm asking, are we doing it? I don't know anymore, which is why not only am I not posting in these things anymore, I'm not reading them. I know where my buttons are, and I'm not going to put myself intentionally into a situation where I know they will be pressed anymore.
This has been, without a doubt, the most ridiculous campaign year I've ever seen. The debates will be so welcome, I can't even tell you. Everything will, hopefully, be shown for what it really is, and the baby kissing, "tell you whatever you want to hear" baloney will be put to rest. Issues will be nice to hear, for a change.
OK, I have one more response to give to you, Brando. Here's the quote:
"I also find it interesting that Republicans want to bring Christianity back into government, yet don't want the government to have anything to do with caring for the poor or sick."
Not as a social program funded and required by the government, no. See, Brando, I don't believe the government has any business in this arena. What I'm about to say will sound like pie in the sky, and I know that. But, even though it's not happening now, I'm one that wants to lead the charge for it to happen, because it is supposed to. And I'm not alone. There may be things I say that don't resonate with you, and that's understandable, but hear me out, think about it, and it may make sense to you.
Jesus spent 33 1/2 years on the planet. We believe, as Christians, that Jesus was God in the flesh. God had decided that in order to rescue us miscreants, he'd have to come down here and see what it's like from our viewpoint, so he could relate. And so he became human for a time. That's Jesus. He stayed out of the limelight for 30 years, only making an appearance worthy of mention when he turned twelve, the age of adulthood in that culture, when he astounded the teachers of the law with his knowledge and insight. He then melted back into the fabric of society, learning a trade and "growing in wisdom and stature". In short, before He could teach us, he had to learn a little more about us. Then, at age 30, Jesus began his ministry. He traveled from place to place, telling stories to whomever would listen, stories that had a deeper meaning than their everyday sound would imply. But that's not all He did. He cared for people-the sick, the lonely, the sinners, the oppressed. He was politically astute, but not politically engaged. He had more important things to do. He routinely touched the untouchable, worked on the Sabbath, and generally turned the system upside down. He was a religious rogue, and the religious establishment hated him. His followers grew in number, but were still cowardly, bumbling fools, which is exactly what God was looking for. God intended, and still intends, to use the simple to confound the wise. As Jesus' time on earth drew to an end, and his main reason for coming to the earth drew ever nearer, Jesus called his disciples together for passover. Jesus then did a strange thing. The leader, the teacher, the Christ, took off his cloak, wrapped a cloth around his waist, and began washing the disciples' feet. In the midst of this incredible act of self sacrifice and humility, Jesus dropped the mother of all commands. "Follow my example." At one time, Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment. Jesus' response provides the segue back in to modern day: "Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. And the second is like it- Love your neighbor as yourself. All of the Law and the Prophecies hinge on these two."
Modern day Christians have neglected to love thier neighbor as themselves. There's no pretty way around it. We've dropped the ball on at least one half of what God has said is the most important thing to Him. I'm one of a growing number of Christians who see this, and want to change it. We have been given a directive, a non negotiable directly from the Father that we have ignored for too long. Now the question-why are you telling me all of this, Teal? Here's why.
The fact that the government has these social programs means that Christians have failed. The government would not need them if we were doing what we have been tasked to do. We aren't, and the government has had to fill the void. One of the reasons that I support President Bush is that I believe that he sees what I see in this regard. Thus, the Faith Based Initiative. The president knows that caring for the less fortunate is the job of every Christian, not the job of government, because we have the heart change necessary to do it without being forced to. I have a passion to see the church return to her roots, being an entity that people would run TO for help, instead of running away. Don't get me wrong, I know why people run away, and I don't blame them. We aren't a very appealing bunch these days. But that's not the way it's supposed to be. In the world that works like it should, the church has been the tip of the sword for the push for social change. Now we hide behind stained glass windows in our little country clubs, where only people like us are allowed to participate. We've got to do what Jesus told us to do, and follow his lead. We are responsible for taking care of the throw aways, the orphans, the widows. We've been given that mandate from the highest authority in existence. When we've begun to take up again the mantle that was assigned to us, the government will no longer be able to use the less fortunate as a political pawn, because they will no longer be in possession of it as an issue. We will. We've failed, that's true, but so has the government, and it's not a republican or democrat failure. The system was never theirs to begin with. It was ours. The government will never be able to fix it. Never. But we can. Because we're supposed to.
Brando, I don't know if this is what you intended, but I'm actually grateful for the statement you made that caused me to get my head out of politics for a moment. This is my passion. I have no intention of disengaging from the political process, but it's not the most important thing to me. Thanks for jarring my memory...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
-
Slumberland
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:00 am
I merely contend that Miller's speech at the RNC was hyperbolic to the point of meaninglessness.tealboy03 wrote:But dumbass/smartass/character assassination (Miller's a nut, not really a Dem, Bush is a moron, he can't say "blah, blah") isn't going to get any of us anywhere.
Referring to the leading dems as derelicts cuts awfully close to the kind of character assassination you're decrying.
Will faith-based initiatives provide care for people regardless of their religious affiliation? What about atheists? Do they deserve some kind of safety network, without being forced to conform to the beliefs of their benefactors? I'd like to think that the true Christian would help anyone in need, but counting on that at a national/organizational level seems as naive as believing pure Marxist socialism can succeed.
-
Slumberland
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:00 am
My take on conservatives (most not all) and libs (most not all)............
Conservatives believe in individual freedom and responsibility. Liberals believe in sacrificing individual freedom for socially desirable outcomes. Liberals believe that one of government's primary roles is social engineering.
Conservatives believe in limited government. Liberals believe in intrusive government to achieve societal needs. (Exception: social-issues conservatives advocate government intrusion on matters like abortion, drugs and pornography.)
Conservatives believe in free markets. Liberals believe in government controls and central planning.
Conservatives believe that some problems have no solution, that they can, at best, be mitigated. Liberals believe that most every problem has a government solution.
Conservatives are concerned about the production of wealth. Liberals are obsessed with the redistribution of it and believe that people will work as hard for the benefit of strangers as they will for themselves and their families.
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals believe in equality of outcome.
Conservatives believe that human nature is what makes us imperfectible. Liberals believe that human nature can be changed and perfected.
Conservatives are nationalists. Liberals hope for world government.
Conservatives believe in peace through strength. Liberals believe in peace through cooperation, trust and goodwill.
P.S. - When liberals use the euphemism "progressive," they mean progress on the road to socialism.
Conservatives believe in individual freedom and responsibility. Liberals believe in sacrificing individual freedom for socially desirable outcomes. Liberals believe that one of government's primary roles is social engineering.
Conservatives believe in limited government. Liberals believe in intrusive government to achieve societal needs. (Exception: social-issues conservatives advocate government intrusion on matters like abortion, drugs and pornography.)
Conservatives believe in free markets. Liberals believe in government controls and central planning.
Conservatives believe that some problems have no solution, that they can, at best, be mitigated. Liberals believe that most every problem has a government solution.
Conservatives are concerned about the production of wealth. Liberals are obsessed with the redistribution of it and believe that people will work as hard for the benefit of strangers as they will for themselves and their families.
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals believe in equality of outcome.
Conservatives believe that human nature is what makes us imperfectible. Liberals believe that human nature can be changed and perfected.
Conservatives are nationalists. Liberals hope for world government.
Conservatives believe in peace through strength. Liberals believe in peace through cooperation, trust and goodwill.
P.S. - When liberals use the euphemism "progressive," they mean progress on the road to socialism.
Teal,
Thanks for the reply. Appreciate your comments on this. I'm kind of sick of this campaign this year as well. Primarily because most of the campaign is being based on things that are tangential to the actual issues (focusing on Bush and the National Guard, Kerry and the Swift Vets, etc. instead of the economy, Iraq, health care, etc.). I'm not really sure who's fault this is...we can blame it on either side, although really I think the media could choose to cover the important things and instead decides to go with all this old crap because it's "good story". Maybe the press will focus on the issues, but I find that unlikely.
As for the government, I understand what you're saying. I don't think the country should be socialist. But I also think that 95% of Democrats agree. Clinton brought about welfare reform, for instance. I don't think that the Democratic party is the party of handouts and superhigh taxes anymore (maybe back in the 70s, but not so much now).
I think the thing is a matter of degree. No Democrat will raise taxes on the richest to anywhere near where it was in the 70s, because it would be political suicide. But they will have a tax plan where the rich pay a larger percentage of their taxes. Now it would be great if everyone donated to their church/charities/etc. so that taxes wouldn't have to be used for social services like welfare, Medicare, etc. But it's not happening, so the govt. is picking up the slack.
The thing is, Democrats cannot make it such that "picking up the slack" means handouts for millions. I think that's why they supported welfare reform...there's this idea that handouts don't work. But an assist to people that are poor will help get them off the ground. And I really think that's what the Democratic party is behind. Not going towards socialism, but being able to give poor people a head start. And if they want to take advantage of it to pull themselves up, then great. If they don't, then too bad.
An example is my family. My father is an immigrant, only has a high school education, and we had 5 kids in the family. He had two jobs when I was a kid (on top of being an elder in his congregation), and we had to work with him. When I was a kid, on weekends I woke up at 5am to deliver papers with him. Because he didn't make tons of money, we got some government assistance. He worked hard and was responsible, but that assistance helped our family a little bit. Now he's got a pretty decent middle-class existence. Government assistance didn't do it for him, hard work did. But programs like WIC, reduced/free lunch in schools, lower taxes for the poorer, etc. gave our family a better chance.
Basically, I don't think that the Democratic position is close to socialism/communism. That doesn't work...it's been proven by history. But giving people with less a chance through things like public school funding, limited welfare, afterschool/preschool programs, somewhat lower taxes for the poor, etc. is different. It's giving poor people a chance to make something of themselves, making the hill less high to climb. And if they want to take advantage of the opportunity, they can.
I think it's a bit of a stereotype to say that the Democratic position is more than that (i.e. a few steps away from socialism). It's like saying that Republicans only care about money. That's wrong. The Republican position is much more nuanced than that, as the Democratic position is much more nuanced than basically being a drive towards socialism.
So for example, blueduke's post about most conservatives and liberals. I know a lot of liberals, and most don't have the view espoused in this e-mail. In fact, most liberals in the U.S. (including people running for office currently) don't believe this. Maybe liberals in Sweden or the Netherlands, but not here. And stereotyping liberals as this is just as bad as stereotyping conservatives as morons or heartless free-market fundamentalists, or anything like that.
I'll be happy to discuss whether these positions are truly "liberal" positions, but I really think that most of these are things that are within the realm of the Green party and their ilk. Which is not the viewpoint of nearly all currently elected Democratic officials and people running for office now. It'd really help the national discourse if people looked at both sides for their actual positions and not through some stereotype of what's a "liberal" or what's a "conservative". Unfortunately, I don't think that's gonna happen this year.
(oh, and Teal. Howard Dean definitely was not a kook. Screamed at the wrong time, but he had some really solid, well-thought positions that were almost conservative (see his position on gun control, which makes a lot of sense.))
Thanks for the reply. Appreciate your comments on this. I'm kind of sick of this campaign this year as well. Primarily because most of the campaign is being based on things that are tangential to the actual issues (focusing on Bush and the National Guard, Kerry and the Swift Vets, etc. instead of the economy, Iraq, health care, etc.). I'm not really sure who's fault this is...we can blame it on either side, although really I think the media could choose to cover the important things and instead decides to go with all this old crap because it's "good story". Maybe the press will focus on the issues, but I find that unlikely.
As for the government, I understand what you're saying. I don't think the country should be socialist. But I also think that 95% of Democrats agree. Clinton brought about welfare reform, for instance. I don't think that the Democratic party is the party of handouts and superhigh taxes anymore (maybe back in the 70s, but not so much now).
I think the thing is a matter of degree. No Democrat will raise taxes on the richest to anywhere near where it was in the 70s, because it would be political suicide. But they will have a tax plan where the rich pay a larger percentage of their taxes. Now it would be great if everyone donated to their church/charities/etc. so that taxes wouldn't have to be used for social services like welfare, Medicare, etc. But it's not happening, so the govt. is picking up the slack.
The thing is, Democrats cannot make it such that "picking up the slack" means handouts for millions. I think that's why they supported welfare reform...there's this idea that handouts don't work. But an assist to people that are poor will help get them off the ground. And I really think that's what the Democratic party is behind. Not going towards socialism, but being able to give poor people a head start. And if they want to take advantage of it to pull themselves up, then great. If they don't, then too bad.
An example is my family. My father is an immigrant, only has a high school education, and we had 5 kids in the family. He had two jobs when I was a kid (on top of being an elder in his congregation), and we had to work with him. When I was a kid, on weekends I woke up at 5am to deliver papers with him. Because he didn't make tons of money, we got some government assistance. He worked hard and was responsible, but that assistance helped our family a little bit. Now he's got a pretty decent middle-class existence. Government assistance didn't do it for him, hard work did. But programs like WIC, reduced/free lunch in schools, lower taxes for the poorer, etc. gave our family a better chance.
Basically, I don't think that the Democratic position is close to socialism/communism. That doesn't work...it's been proven by history. But giving people with less a chance through things like public school funding, limited welfare, afterschool/preschool programs, somewhat lower taxes for the poor, etc. is different. It's giving poor people a chance to make something of themselves, making the hill less high to climb. And if they want to take advantage of the opportunity, they can.
I think it's a bit of a stereotype to say that the Democratic position is more than that (i.e. a few steps away from socialism). It's like saying that Republicans only care about money. That's wrong. The Republican position is much more nuanced than that, as the Democratic position is much more nuanced than basically being a drive towards socialism.
So for example, blueduke's post about most conservatives and liberals. I know a lot of liberals, and most don't have the view espoused in this e-mail. In fact, most liberals in the U.S. (including people running for office currently) don't believe this. Maybe liberals in Sweden or the Netherlands, but not here. And stereotyping liberals as this is just as bad as stereotyping conservatives as morons or heartless free-market fundamentalists, or anything like that.
I'll be happy to discuss whether these positions are truly "liberal" positions, but I really think that most of these are things that are within the realm of the Green party and their ilk. Which is not the viewpoint of nearly all currently elected Democratic officials and people running for office now. It'd really help the national discourse if people looked at both sides for their actual positions and not through some stereotype of what's a "liberal" or what's a "conservative". Unfortunately, I don't think that's gonna happen this year.
(oh, and Teal. Howard Dean definitely was not a kook. Screamed at the wrong time, but he had some really solid, well-thought positions that were almost conservative (see his position on gun control, which makes a lot of sense.))