"Values" vote fact or fiction?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by rpm
I just have 2 questions and will don my flamesuit...

1) When did being a liberal become a bad thing? Liberals have done some of this country's finest work. Liberals drug us out of the depression with public works programs putting impoverished people to work and at the same time providing electricity and running water to a major chunk of the nation. Liberals gave us equal rights. No longer do black children and white children drink from seperate water fountains or learn at seperate schools. Liberals also passed hate crimes laws. No longer can biggots violate the civil rights of others without reppercussions for their hate. Yes, many of the high points of American history are marked by the blood, sweat and tears of liberals.

2) When did they switch colors for Republicans and Democrats? Republicans were always blue and Democrats red. WTF??

Liberals did none of the things you said.  Democrats did. Unfortunately the Democratic party changed, sometime in the 60's.  Then they became the party of "How much will you tolerate"?  Its a Liberal mind control trick.

[eagl]

Being "Liberal" began to be a bad thing when a set of behaviors took hold in the liberal faithful.

They changed from being generous to demanding everyone else be generous too.

They switched from encouraging generosity to belitteling and demeaning people who don't like being told they have to give up their hard earned money to those who have some sort of need.

They started using violence against anyone who opposed their progressive ideas, even to the point of publically wishing people were dead simply because they did not agree with their agendas.

They began to forward radical "niche" ideas as deserving equal attention as historically liberal ideas.  Attracting fringe whackos is one way to expand your power base but fronting for their whacko ideas just polarizes everyone who doesn't also share every one of those whacko ideas.  This is why hollywood probably hurts the Democrats more than they help, because some of the causes promoted by hollywood celebrities are truly beyond common sense.

Throwing bottles in the name of peace...  Slashing tires in the name of free speech...  Killing doctors and assaulting clinic workers "but it's for the children!" in the name of humanity.  They have realized that most people don't share their values so they have turned into the same jackbooted thugs they revile so much.

That's why being liberal is bad, because the self rightous liberals will quite literally do anything to get their way especially when it comes to telling other people how they should live their lives and spend their money.  The democrat party has been pandering to these extremists for decades and it now defines their party and agenda.  They'll support any cause that sounds sensitive no matter how little sense it may make and how much it will intrude into people's everyday lives, if it gets them another voter or two.  Well guess what... The pot smoking hippie freaks just aren't that reliable or attractive when it comes to actually putting votes down on paper or encouraging others to follow their lead.

[TweetyBird]

The vile behavior you mention exists on both sides - they are mirror images, including murder in the name of peace. It all our fault for accepting it, and being afraid to step away from rhetoric to call a nut a nut no matter what the party affiliation of the nut (or potato, or opportunist).

They work for US.

[ra]

1) When did being a liberal become a bad thing?

About the same time liberals started calling themselves progressives.

2) When did they switch colors for Republicans and Democrats? Republicans were always blue and Democrats red. WTF??

The main stream media decided red was jinxed, so they swapped for the 2000 election.  Didn't work.

[TweetyBird]

Terse rhetoric ra, "I dunno" would have sufficed. You don't like like Democrats - we got that. 95% of the OC doesn't so you aint special. How about backing off of terse answers and elaborating unless your life's goal is to be a cheerleader.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by rpm


1) When did being a liberal become a bad thing? Liberals have done some of this country's finest work. ...

Liberals gave us equal rights. No longer do black children and white children drink from seperate water fountains or learn at seperate schools.

While President Johnson, and Senators Humphrey and Mansfield were Democrat pushers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

Date: 02 JUL 64

88th Congress, H. R. 7152
An Act

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

The Republican candidate for President in 1964 was conservative Senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater. Therefore one can make the argument that the Republican was the more conservative party at the time.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act passed the House of Representatives by 289 to 124, a vote in which 80% of Republicans voted “yes”.

The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting “no”.

Chief opponents to the bill were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin,  Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd.  Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote.

It turns out that by voting record, the Republican party (the more conservative party) has a much stronger civil rights record than does the Democratic party, which oddly enough until 1964 was largely obstructionist when it cam to Civil Rights legislation.

As for the TVA and electrification of Appalachia,  which party do you think would be more supportive of damming a river today?

[ra]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Terse rhetoric ra, "I dunno" would have sufficed. You don't like like Democrats - we got that. 95% of the OC doesn't so you aint special. How about backing off of terse answers and elaborating unless your life's goal is to be a cheerleader.

Tweety, do you have better answers than mine?

[strk]

"Liberal" has just become a dirty word because the rightwing wurlitzer controls the discourse.  Years ago it was "conservatives" that were snickered at.  

IMHO Jesus was the biggest liberal of them all.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by strk
"Liberal" has just become a dirty word because the rightwing wurlitzer controls the discourse.  

Since when is the NY Times a right wing rag?  The Chigago Tribune? No wait I know, the Los Angeles Times. Or were you meaning Dan.... no? maybe Tom or Peter?  No must be CNN....

Can't be that talk radio and Fox News can drown out the din from all the above news outlets...

[JB73]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It turns out that by voting record, the Republican party (the more conservative party) has a much stronger civil rights record than does the Democratic party, which oddly enough until 1964 was largely obstructionist when it cam to Civil Rights legislation.

that is entirely true, but sadly try explaining that to a minority who has been taught all their life to vote democrat but their parents from before then.

[TweetyBird]

>>Tweety, do you have better answers than mine?<<

I might , Ra, but you have to tell me what your idealogical differences are with the Democratic party.

Is it Blacks?
Is it homosexuals?
Is it taxes?
Is it abortion?
Is it prayer in schools?
Is it big government?
Is it gun control?
Is it women's rights?
Is it you believe the United States should be a one party government?

What is your distict problem(s) with Democrats?

Liberalism did not become a scarlet letter because some used the word "progressive". Thats complete nonsense. There are some parts of liberalism that people hate, whether its culture change, big government, taxes, religious differences etc.

The election is over. There is absolutely no reason to shine over stuff and use euphemisms and abstracts. If you tell me Democrats want to be too many things to too many people  I agree with you! And we can go over EXACTLY how they do this and use specific examples of how it leads to contradiction. If you think the the problem with Democrats is they're more interested in changing things from a cultural standpoint rather than a legal or governmental standpoint, I'll agree with you. Again with specifics we can discuss it.

But please, with all these brains in here, there's no reason to discuss the devide in simplistic stereotypes. What is your distinct problem(s) with the Democratic party?

[Gunslinger]

my $.02  I think the majority of the "undecided" thaught that the lefts alignment with Moore and Soros and Moveon.org was alot less threatening then the right's alignment w/ the christian right.

think about it....Kerry's supporters were just frantic about their hatred that it drove them to do ALOT of things that "peace loving" liberals just wouldnt do.

Then you got the "peace" protester protesting against bush with signs that say the most vial things about America and Bush at the same time supporting most of the enemies that we appose right now.

That coupled with the fact that the demacrats put up a third rate canidate with no record of doing anything except going to nam then protesting it later.  

To me with Kerry the election could have gone either way.  BUT if the left had put up even a slightly stronger canidate with some kind of ounce of convicitions they would have trumped Bush big time.

[rpm]

Killing doctors and assaulting clinic workers "but it's for the children!" in the name of humanity.

eagl, that would be a conservative thing, definitely not a liberals. Liberals are pro-choice and don't bomb clinics...they usually build them.

A few of you have got what I was talking about, a few instantly mixed liberal with democrat. One does not have to be a democrat to be a liberal, but yeah...it helps. Conversely, one need not be a republican to be a conservative as the civil rights movement demonstrated quite clearly. I remember George Wallace and what an ultra melon he was.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by GScholz
This is something that has ... bothered me; why the heck are the Republicans considered "Red America" and the Democrats "Blue America". Shouldn't it be the other way around?!

That's a good question GS.  Not sure were the red and blue thing came from.  But that's the way it is.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by GScholz
This could be one of those "US only" things. Probably not, but everywhere else that I know of red is the collor of the socialists, blue for conservatives, and green for centrists.

That makes sense to me considering socialist are close to communists and since birth i've allways been told to associat red with them.

Green here usually goes to the "green party" wich I think is mostly the extreme environmentalists.  

either way it is a missrepresentation to most people.  If you look at the midwest alot of states are red.  If you look at the coasts alot of states are blue.

This does not mean that these states are strictly conservative or strictly liberal it just means that more people voted that way than not.  If you look at california by county you will see that LA and San Fansico are blue and most of the rest of the state as red.  It is not an acurate picture to say that ALL of california is liberal just as it is not accurat to say that ALL of florida is conservative.

Just my view though think what you like