Author Topic: Democrats: Redefine thyself (Read 1350 times)

ra · « **Reply #15 on:** May 07, 2004, 01:37:32 PM »

Quote

As for homosexual marriage, to me that's something for the individual Church to decide.

Marriage laws come from state legislatures, not from churches. The Constitution more or less requires each state to recognize marriages from other states, even if those marriages would be illegal in the home state. So when a Massachusetts judge decides to marry two men, it will only be a matter of time before every other state is forced to recognize it. Homosexuals from Utah can go to Massachusetts to get married, then return home to Utah as a legally married couple, thus bypassing the Utah legislature. States want protection from this loophole and a constitutional amendment is, unfortunately, probably the only way to do it in this age of activist lawyers and judges.

ra

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #16 on:** May 07, 2004, 02:03:55 PM »

Wasnt their a certain, rather unpopular and dare I say 'extreme' left wing political party of years back by the same name?

Charon · « **Reply #17 on:** May 07, 2004, 02:10:05 PM »

Again Ra, I don't see a need to debate each point since there are multi-hundred post treads on each. Getting back to my initial post, the "Bush haters" may actually disagree with his policies since there is no clear mandate for many of his positions. Even the war with Iraq was built on a WMD-based mandate that has failed to pan out so far.

Right or wrong, there is more than just a "fringe" element that disagrees with many of his specific actions. Reagan and Clinton both had people who hated them for largely ideological reasons. However, they were both able to win over enough moderate support to have some degree of mandate and forgiveness for a variety of sins from Monica gate to Iran Contra, and general policy support even if there were some disagreeable specifics.

I think the country felt it was time for Reagan's activism and Clinton, of course, just stole much of the Republican platform once his "activist" efforts were shot down early in his first administration. Bush came to office with a narrow electoral margin (and not a popular vote margin), a narrow Congressional margin and has acted like he had a much broader mandate with no real concern for getting one. Again, IMO.

Charon

ra · « **Reply #18 on:** May 07, 2004, 02:16:34 PM »

Charon, I'm not nit-picking your points, it's just your use of the word "activist" which I question.

Lizking · « **Reply #19 on:** May 07, 2004, 02:16:57 PM »

I agree with that Charon, both your analysis and with the President doing it. There is no need for a mandate from the public; that is why there is an election. You win by 1 vote, your "mandate" is what you say it is. That is also why it is only a four year term, so we can decide if we like that mandate.

AKcurly · « **Reply #20 on:** May 07, 2004, 02:22:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
liberal fits simply because that is who the democrats pander to... the teachers unions... blacks... gays.. etc. You can hardly find a lefty cause no matter how bizzare that the democrats don't pander to.

Democrats are to be feared, as is kerry because if they have the power they appoint a liberal judicial system... A liberal supreme court is enough to strike fear in the heart of any thinking American and kerry, or any democrat is so beholden to the liberals that he will have to make that happen.

Interesting, Lazs. When you say "A liberal supreme court" is enough to strike fear ...", you must be talking about Earl Warren's court. No other possibilities really.

And yet Earl Warren was an extremely conservative republican governor. How is that?

The politics of a man (democrat/republican) are a poor predictor of the judicial rulings he will make.

The judicial stance over abortion is a poor predictor of future judicial rulings

curly

Tumor · « **Reply #21 on:** May 07, 2004, 02:25:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
......... I wonder if anybody is thinking 10 years down the road.....

Ya, like THATS gonna happen (err...before Nov).

Charon · « **Reply #22 on:** May 07, 2004, 03:21:40 PM »

I have a personal opinion on these issues RA, but by "activist" I'm not making a specific value judgement in this case (or at least wasn't trying to). Perhaps it would be better just to say he has clearly made specific decisions that people will either disagree with or support, and you can't paint everyone who disagrees with him as just some "Bush Hater."

I can see your point Lizking, and you can't argue against its technical merits. My thought would be that some things (perhaps only a handful) have potentially serious ramifications that extend far beyond the term of a single administration and should have a very high degree of consensus. Of course, had all the cowardly Democratic politicians who now find fault with these actions put their tulips on the line earlier instead of waiting to see how things shook out first, maybe there would be less dictating of policy. And what about that disaster of a perscription drug package that people voted for from both parties (and got their checks I'm sure) and now lament. The whole process just pisses me off more and more these days.

Charon

Charon · « **Reply #23 on:** May 07, 2004, 03:28:40 PM »

Quote

Ya, like THATS gonna happen (err...before Nov).

Hell Tumor, it's not like that's going to happen even in the nine years after the election.

Charon

capt. apathy · « **Reply #24 on:** May 07, 2004, 03:33:31 PM »

you can find extremist freaks in any party. the main problem (I guess it's the main one, there are so many problems to choose from) is that the majority of America, the working middle class, the people who pay the bills, are almost completely unrepresented.

you have the college student, out of work hippy, welfare mom, board house-wife activists with way too much time on their hands getting involved in the political process. and you have the rich people who pay lobbyists to make sure they get the gov't they are paying for.

meanwhile the majority of us are too damn busy to be out protesting and to short on cash to pay some lobbyist.

would be nice to get the Christians and working class republicans out of that rich-mans party (which doesn't represent their interest so much as just play lip-service to their concerns).

and combine them with your working democrats (basically take the democratic party and throw out all the special interest, granola eaters, and crybabies.

working democrats are by far the largest percentage of the democratic party, working class republicans also are the majority of that party, but neither are getting fair representation from their party. truth be told the groups that control either party are such a minority they would be just an annoying special interest group if it wasn't for the backing they get by people who they fail to represent.

Charon · « **Reply #25 on:** May 07, 2004, 03:43:43 PM »

And getting back to Rips initial post, defining someone as a liberal or conservative these days is done as part of a standard political tactic to turn an election into a "US vs Them."

A liberal will give all your hard earned money to welfare mothers popping out future terrorist supporters so that they can **** on the flag as part of a NEA grant while shouting "Deeth to Ameerika." A conservative will put welfare mothers into meat grinders for coprorations to sell as dogfood in the local Wal-Mart, while wiping their tulips with special $1 million bills printed on toilet paper rolls for the occasion.

This really pisses me off.

As long as elections are wrestling matches driven by weak emotional generalizations (and hey, they work, we fall for them just like we do when the pad has "wings" or the coors twins shake and jiggle) we will get the government we deserve.

Charon

[edit: well though out post apathy, been a long week here at my end I guess

]

lazs2 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 07, 2004, 04:10:54 PM »

charon... there is no problem with generalizing so far as the parties go.. In general, social programs that increase taxes will be instituted by the democrats.. in general... left wing causes will be embraced by democrats in power... in general, nanny laws like gun bans and seat belt laws and helmet laws and smoking bans on private property will be embraced by democrats.. in general, public schools will be protected from competition by democrats.

In general, every nanny law and liberal PC bit of crapola I have ever seen was foisted on me by democrats.

As for the supreme court.. In general, democrats will appoint liberal judges and republicans will appoint conservative ones... there are a few exceptions to any of these "generalizations" but you would be well guided to just accept them as the fact of the matter 90% of the time.

lazs

capt. apathy · « **Reply #27 on:** May 07, 2004, 04:16:36 PM »

I agree with most of what you post laz. except this-

Quote

in general, nanny laws like gun bans and seat belt laws and helmet laws and smoking bans on private property will be embraced by democrats..

most of these laws are lobbyed for by insurance companies, that are owned and ran by republicans.

Dune · « **Reply #28 on:** May 07, 2004, 04:20:09 PM »

"The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge pinata -- a papier-mache donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budge and other goodies. The American voter is blindfoled and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly bastard." - P.J. O'Rourke, "Parliament of potatos"

lazs2 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 07, 2004, 04:29:11 PM »

capt... the bills are allways presented by democrats... well maybe "allways" is too strong a word but.. you will surely be better off not voting for democrats... Unless you feel that you are unable to make such decisions for yourself and long for the simpler times when you lived with mom and she told you what to do.

lazs