quote Originally posted by Raydar: I can't believe I just read all of this. I want those last 30 minutes of my life back.

I'm truly sorry you feel that way. While these conversations are sometimes petty, sometimes turn into flame wars and are generally upsetting, they are important. Much of the voting population is terribly uninformed because they do not engage themselves in discussion and exploration of issues. They simply go to the poles and pull a lever.

The future of our nation and civilization itself is at stake. I'm not attempting the dramatic with that statement.

If we do not FORCE our legislators to lead with integrity, we will loose this land. Militants have sworn to kill us. Illegals are dragging our health care system to its death. If you doubt that, do some research on the number of hospitals that have closed, and the numbers of doctors who have left certain areas of the country due to the influx of illegals. That is only a small part of the problem they've caused. I said nothing about the drug war that goes on constantly along the border or of the "other than Mexican" issue on the border.

Why, with such huge oil reserves in Alaska, do we have to kiss butt with murderers for our needs.?
Why can we send our youth do die in the mid-east when all we have to do is use our own oil.?
Why do we have to worry ourselves with who is Presidente in Mexico?
Why do we have to worry about whether North Korea or Iran have nukes?

We have some difficult issues ahead of us. It is IMPORTANT that we argue these issues.

Yet some can only focus on Tom Delay, or Nancy Pelosi or whether the dems or repubs are in office.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: She is planning a four day "swearing in" ceremony.

A Filibuster Coronation Mmmm....

Must be getting everyone ready for a Oxymoron Congress!

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: after eight years of serious discussion of a "permanent republican majority" and openly working for one-party rule in what is supposed to be a functioning democracy, you finally get that? gee, cliff. what a brilliant political observation.

Funny thing I always thought this was a Republic? Maybe that's the problem? We've been acting like this was a democracy? Hummm

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: PELOSI: "Well, let me say this: Our party is standing for honest leadership and open government. We will turn the most corrupt Congress in history to the most honest and open Congress -- and maybe it'll take a woman to clean up the house".

Isn't it interesting how sexism is OK when it's a woman making the statement. Can you IMAGINE what would happen if it was a man who said that, intimating that it might take a man to clean up the house? Welcome to your new speaker of the house, a sexist. Geez.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Why, with such huge oil reserves in Alaska, do we have to kiss butt with murderers for our needs.? Why can we send our youth do die in the mid-east when all we have to do is use our own oil.? Why do we have to worry ourselves with who is Presidente in Mexico? Why do we have to worry about whether North Korea or Iran have nukes?

1) So we can use up all of the middle east's oil supply
2) See number 1
3) Beacuse if we don't [pay attention to] what happens in Mexico [it] can come to bite the US in the butt, that's why "
4) Because the rogue powers like Iran and the PRK can try to use them on America, thats why.

Just an obervation from someone who is in the Military.

S. Williams

------------------
1988 Fiero Formula T-tops
CJB 143 of 1252 "factory T-top cars"

[This message has been edited by htexans1 (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Don't know much about this blog, but the second link is from his writings http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/11/pelosis_land_de.html This one is pretty close to her backyard. Take a look at the chart near the end of the piece. http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/kirshenbaum_061029.shtml

Thanks for taking the time to supply more info Texasfiero. Looks like a classic politician who's relatives benefit greatly from their positions... partially sad, but also the real world. The developer, investor connections are way to common all the way down to local city and county levels, where the real world is controlled mostly behind the scenes and NOT for the public benefit. I've experienced much of what those articles discuss locally, where the developers and their investors write the rules, and have access to the politicians that the public can't fathom.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Why, with such huge oil reserves in Alaska, do we have to kiss butt with murderers for our needs.? Why can we send our youth do die in the mid-east when all we have to do is use our own oil.?

Republicans have repeatedly tried to open up more Alaskan oil fields, and every time they are accused of trying to destroy the planet and wipe out native creatures.

Maybe the Dems can get it done? Because if they propose it, they'll think it's a good idea, but if a Republican proposes it, it's the work of the devil himself.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Republicans have repeatedly tried to open up more Alaskan oil fields, and every time they are accused of trying to destroy the planet and wipe out native creatures. Maybe the Dems can get it done? Because if they propose it, they'll think it's a good idea, but if a Republican proposes it, it's the work of the devil himself.

While in the majority, Republicans only needed one thing to get it done. As with so many other issues, and the major cause for their losses, they needed BALLS!

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: While in the majority, Republicans only needed one thing to get it done. As with so many other issues, and the major cause for their losses, they needed BALLS!

So we can make the same judgement about the Dems now if they don't make the world perfect. Only a veto should be able to stop them, since they have the majority.

Or maybe, just maybe, things aren't that black and white? Could it possibly be complex issues have complex answers? Sorry if that doesn't fit your rhetoric. But now that Democrats have the majority, all that will change. Right?

I'm not holding my breath.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So we can make the same judgement about the Dems now if they don't make the world perfect. Only a veto should be able to stop them, since they have the majority. Or maybe, just maybe, things aren't that black and white? Could it possibly be complex issues have complex answers? Sorry if that doesn't fit your rhetoric. But now that Democrats have the majority, all that will change. Right? I'm not holding my breath.

mmm... not quite. legislative process and rules - some of which i understand are to be relaxed under the democrats, making it possible for the opposition party to be a little more effective - make it, as you point out, not at all as black and white as "majority vs. veto".

if anyone's rhetoric is tuned to the pitch of "the democrats have congress, tea and crumpets for everyone!" then something's obviously askew. some things may change. many things might not. as i said before, being a partisan does not necessarily mean blind faith.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: I'm truly sorry you feel that way. While these conversations are sometimes petty, sometimes turn into flame wars and are generally upsetting, they are important. Much of the voting population is terribly uninformed because they do not engage themselves in discussion and exploration of issues. They simply go to the poles and pull a lever. The future of our nation and civilization itself is at stake. I'm not attempting the dramatic with that statement. <snip for brevity> We have some difficult issues ahead of us. It is IMPORTANT that we argue these issues. Yet some can only focus on Tom Delay, or Nancy Pelosi or whether the dems or repubs are in office.

I'm not disputing anything that you wrote. I agree with most all of it.
It's just that threads like this seem to always turn into the same old posturing, and finger pointing. When that has been done to death, it then degrades to bitching about semantics, grammatical skills and punctuation. (Well, not in this thread. Yet.)
Nobody is changing anyone else's mind.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: While in the majority, Republicans only needed one thing to get it done. As with so many other issues, and the major cause for their losses, they needed BALLS!

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So we can make the same judgement about the Dems now if they don't make the world perfect. Only a veto should be able to stop them, since they have the majority. Or maybe, just maybe, things aren't that black and white? Could it possibly be complex issues have complex answers? Sorry if that doesn't fit your rhetoric. But now that Democrats have the majority, all that will change. Right? I'm not holding my breath.

Republicans simply failed to fight for the issues they were elected to address. They wouldn't work to keep liberal/moderate members in line. They wouldn't stand for what their constituents voted for. They were weak on Social Security reform, on enforcing the border, extending tax cuts, and energy, as a start. In too many cases, they were just RINOs, more liberal than conservative.

Jeb Bush was against drilling on Florida's coasts and Ahnuld won't support drilling on the west coast. Regardless what some say, the war in Iraq is about oil and access to it. I believe Sadam is/was a murdering savage and we did the right thing in taking him out. I believe he was developing WMD, but the war was about access to oil.

I am a bible believing Christian. For many years I've studied and followed biblical prophecies. If what we are seeing in the mid-east continues to hold to those prophecies, we are in for some tough times in the near future. Failure to hold to principle, and to legislate with honor and integrity, is the cause of many of our problems. Many in the Republican party have NO respect for the principles of the voter. Many ran on upholding them but turned away as soon as they were in office. They simply didn't have courage to stand on what is right.

No, we can't make the same judgement about Dems. and W doens't have the courage to veto or stand against them. On some issues he will likely support them. It's farily obvious that he'll support them on amnesty for illegals. They have proven one thing for sure over time. They will stand together and fight. The know how to use the media and to keep CNN et al in their corner.

Now Democrats are taking on those "values". Only at election time do they care about values but they haven't cared about them in the past, and if the current regime doesn't change they won't care about values as they legislate. The "values" they will fight for are not the same as what the conservative voter supports. They are not the same values that conservative Democrats would support either, but they will stand united and fight for abortion, gay rights, higher taxes on the wealthy (without defining wealthy as to mean most of us) as a start. They'll fight to end the conflict in Iraq WITHOUT victory. They've been calling that battle "Vietnam" for months and now they will hand us the same defeat that they handed us before.

You are correct. The issues ARE complex and solutions deserve and demand complex answers. The problem is Republicans failed to stand on principle and fight for solutions and Democrats will give us answers that won't work.

Don't mistake my complaints about Republicans. There is NO Democrat that I'll vote for, not Joe Lieberman, not Zell Miller. Though both of them exhibit qualities that I admire, I wouldn't vote for them for one reason. Zell Miller made it clear that he'd always been a Democrat, his daddy and mamma were Democrats and he would remain a Democrat. I don't care about the rhetoric, or the positions they state. If they are willing to wave the Democrat flag, then they are willing to stand with destructive forces within our government. I believe most liberal ideas of government are destructive within society and I won't support them from either side. I simply choose to stay within what I believe, and eliminate those who won't stand on their campaign promises.

The primaries are comin' and that's where the battle is. If Republicans refuse to support the platform that was developed as a statement of who we are, then they can be removed in primary season.

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Don't mistake my complaints about Republicans. There is NO Democrat that I'll vote for, not Joe Lieberman, not Zell Miller. Though both of them exhibit qualities that I admire, I wouldn't vote for them for one reason. Zell Miller made it clear that he'd always been a Democrat, his daddy and mamma were Democrats and he would remain a Democrat. I don't care about the rhetoric, or the positions they state. If they are willing to wave the Democrat flag, then they are willing to stand with destructive forces within our government. I believe most liberal ideas of government are destructive within society and I won't support them from either side. I simply choose to stay within what I believe, and eliminate those who won't stand on their campaign promises.

see? now that's partisanship. this person is my polar opposite, and then some. i recognize him, and i expect he recognizes me.
but will he receive the same probing criticism for being partisan, that is directed toward the local left?
i think not.


edit: i should add, by the way, that the attitudes he expresses are part of whay i say i feel threatened. when i and my values are seen in such stark terms, i in essence become "the enemy within"... and perceptions like that, particularly when they find their way into governance (and they do), don't exactly put me at ease.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 12-29-2006).]

And you don't see those SAME attitudes in the Left? I see it a lot MORE in the left, and it's evidenced in they way they tend to excuse, rather than punish, incorrigible behavior by those in their midsts.

I have voted for Democrats before (I voted for our Democrat governor in the election before this one, but not this time). I didn't vote for a candidate for our attorney general because I didn't like the incumbent, Phil Kline, going after a boatload of medical records from abortion clinics. Although I detest the use of abortion as retroactive birth control, there's a right way and a wrong way to pursue that agenda, and his was the wrong way. I just as strongly detested his opponent using money from those SAME clinics, outspending the incumbent 6:1, to get the job. The Democrat also ran some particularly nasty attack ads and while Klines weren't what anyone would call complimentary, they weren't nearly as viscious as his opponent. In the end, I chose not to vote for either because, in my view, neither were worthy of the office, regardless of party affiliation.

I do find it interesting that you believe txfiero's viewpoint "Partisan" when you told me earlier in response that you wouldn't vote for a socially liberal Republican like Arlen Specter. I know Arlen Specter. He's from Russell, KS and graduated in the same HS class as my father. If I lived in PA I would work to get a different Republican candidate in the primaries for a number of reasons. It would have to be a pretty stark, raving liberal running against him before I'd vote for him.

I make no bones or apologies for my being a Conservative. I'd probably register as a Libertarian except KS doesn't have open primaries so I couldn't vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary if I did that. That said, I'm going to vote for the PERSON that I feel most represents my interests, regardless of party affiliation, as long as that person doesn't pursue those interests in what I view as an unethical manner (referring back to our former attorney general, as an example).

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: see? now that's partisanship. this person is my polar opposite, and then some. i recognize him, and i expect he recognizes me. but will he receive the same probing criticism for being partisan, that is directed toward the local left? i think not. edit: i should add, by the way, that the attitudes he expresses are part of whay i say i feel threatened. when i and my values are seen in such stark terms, i in essence become "the enemy within"... and perceptions like that, particularly when they find their way into governance (and they do), don't exactly put me at ease.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I do find it interesting that you believe txfiero's viewpoint "Partisan" when you told me earlier in response that you wouldn't vote for a socially liberal Republican like Arlen Specter. John Stricker

i think you've misunderstood my point. i do believe his view is partisan, and while i don't want to speak for him, i would expect that he wouldn't flinch at the characterization. and i have stated my belief, not because i believe that partisanship is a bad thing, and that referring to him applies some kind of label that i would myself shun, but because in fact i have openly stated that i am partisan, and had to deal with what amounts to a lot of contingency-hacking, as if my actual worldview were up for debate.

as for the perception of threat... well, that's context for you, i suppose. maybe i should just start calling everyone who meets the description of "christian conservative" destructive, amoral and treacherous. it would be so much easier, now wouldn't it?

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Republicans simply failed to fight for the issues they were elected to address. They wouldn't work to keep liberal/moderate members in line. They wouldn't stand for what their constituents voted for. They were weak on Social Security reform, on enforcing the border, extending tax cuts, and energy, as a start. In too many cases, they were just RINOs, more liberal than conservative. Jeb Bush was against drilling on Florida's coasts and Ahnuld won't support drilling on the west coast. Regardless what some say, the war in Iraq is about oil and access to it. I believe Sadam is/was a murdering savage and we did the right thing in taking him out. I believe he was developing WMD, but the war was about access to oil. I am a bible believing Christian. For many years I've studied and followed biblical prophecies. If what we are seeing in the mid-east continues to hold to those prophecies, we are in for some tough times in the near future. Failure to hold to principle, and to legislate with honor and integrity, is the cause of many of our problems. Many in the Republican party have NO respect for the principles of the voter. Many ran on upholding them but turned away as soon as they were in office. They simply didn't have courage to stand on what is right. No, we can't make the same judgement about Dems. and W doens't have the courage to veto or stand against them. On some issues he will likely support them. It's farily obvious that he'll support them on amnesty for illegals. They have proven one thing for sure over time. They will stand together and fight. The know how to use the media and to keep CNN et al in their corner. Now Democrats are taking on those "values". Only at election time do they care about values but they haven't cared about them in the past, and if the current regime doesn't change they won't care about values as they legislate. The "values" they will fight for are not the same as what the conservative voter supports. They are not the same values that conservative Democrats would support either, but they will stand united and fight for abortion, gay rights, higher taxes on the wealthy (without defining wealthy as to mean most of us) as a start. They'll fight to end the conflict in Iraq WITHOUT victory. They've been calling that battle "Vietnam" for months and now they will hand us the same defeat that they handed us before. You are correct. The issues ARE complex and solutions deserve and demand complex answers. The problem is Republicans failed to stand on principle and fight for solutions and Democrats will give us answers that won't work. Don't mistake my complaints about Republicans. There is NO Democrat that I'll vote for, not Joe Lieberman, not Zell Miller. Though both of them exhibit qualities that I admire, I wouldn't vote for them for one reason. Zell Miller made it clear that he'd always been a Democrat, his daddy and mamma were Democrats and he would remain a Democrat. I don't care about the rhetoric, or the positions they state. If they are willing to wave the Democrat flag, then they are willing to stand with destructive forces within our government. I believe most liberal ideas of government are destructive within society and I won't support them from either side. I simply choose to stay within what I believe, and eliminate those who won't stand on their campaign promises. The primaries are comin' and that's where the battle is. If Republicans refuse to support the platform that was developed as a statement of who we are, then they can be removed in primary season.

Bravo!
I agree completely. I'd like to add one thing. I've been watching politics for decades. Democrats are caught dirty about 4 to 1. I'm not going to the trouble to prove that. That is MY observation. I am a Libertarian/independant; I have no love for either party. I think they are both destructive to the country and the common good. If you compare both party's platforms NEITHER is anywhere close to the Constitution. The Repubs are slightly closer-but not much. Many times I've been forced to vote Repub. by default because there is no legitimate candidate on the ballot. Things have gotten worse under the Repubs. because they had complete control of the government. One party with control and the will to do wrong is probably the worst thing for the people. GWB was elected (by Me and others) to get us closer to the Constitution, Just like his daddy, he betrayed us. But I'm still in the position of having no legitimate candidates to vote for. Until people get wise and go back to the Constitution(fat chance)the best compromise is to have congress one party and the other the Presidency. This is a piss-poor solution but it seems to be the only obtainable one. Half (or more of )the country is of the liberal/socialists/communists/nazi/collectivest/progressive religion. Some of these people are well-meaning but the results are ALWAYS evil. The prognosis is BLEAK.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: as for the perception of threat... well, that's context for you, i suppose. maybe i should just start calling everyone who meets the description of "christian conservative" destructive, amoral and treacherous. it would be so much easier, now wouldn't it?

I don't know, is that what you think of "christian conservative"(s)?

Just curious, since I am one. Also, since I am one, I'd have to say that your opinion of me is very wrong.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I don't know, is that what you think of "christian conservative"(s)? Just curious, since I am one. Also, since I am one, I'd have to say that your opinion of me is very wrong. John Stricker

and unlike, oh... say, wichita, with respect to my own character... i'm perfectly willing to take your word for that. i don't think you're evil, even unintentionally. but quite a lot of christian conservatives (such as the two preceding) don't seem quite so willing to provide the same benefit of any doubt.

none of which is actually meant to be a complaint, really, so much as to illustrate why i say i feel threatened. the antagonism and parody that i sometimes present is, as i've indicated elsewhere, a direct and conscious response.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: and unlike, oh... say, wichita, with respect to my own character... i'm perfectly willing to take your word for that. i don't think you're evil, even unintentionally. but quite a lot of christian conservatives (such as the two preceding) don't seem quite so willing to provide the same benefit of any doubt. none of which is actually meant to be a complaint, really, so much as to illustrate why i say i feel threatened. the antagonism and parody that i sometimes present is, as i've indicated elsewhere, a direct and conscious response.

I just admently disagree with your ideology and believe it's not healthy for the nation to adopt as a whole. It will revert our standard of living. And there is historial evidence that backs it up.

I don't think you're dangerous or stupid. I just disagree with you. But I think you and the left should have a voice in be involved in the political process of our democracy. I just don't want you guys to take complete control of our country, because you will ruin it. A few of you won't, but as a whole you will.

But to be fair, so would the far right if they had complete control of the government. They would turn this nation in to a theocracy so fast, we would have hardly any political freedoms of expression.

Lets just say I won't let you get away with crap and I'll stand up a debate you on any issue any time!

quote Originally posted by jstricker: And I think you are DEAD WRONG here. Very rarely can you change someone by bludgeoning them. John Stricker

I'm not entirely sure of your direction here. If you mean bludgeoning Republicans, then that is what I was getting at.

I'll be watching the members of Congress, who will be running in the next primary, to see how they vote. I will not support any incumbent who fails to stay on "platform". I'm very tired of McCain type, wander all over the map, Republicans. I cannot tell you the disdain I have for Lincoln Chaffey, Jim Jeffords type Republicans, who will change their affiliation in a heartbeat for their own personal politics. Have you stopped to consider that Jim Jeffords, one single liberal Republican, negated the Republican vote of the entire country with his party switch, giving control of the Senate to Tom Daschle and the Democrats. The same Tom D. who went behind closed doors with Trent Lott and in a bipartisan act, CHOSE not to prosecute Bill Clinton. The man had lied to his family, and to his country, and a grand jury, but was let off because the same Trent Lott who is now minority leader wanted to "play nice". One single senator...think about that. THAT is why I will NOT vote for a Democrat like Zell Miller. I like the man and I respect his courage. I just worry about "I just can't bring myself to change parties".

Bipartisan is "fair and balanced". Bipartisan means I'll work with you and see your side if you'll see my side. The song says, "I'll start walkin' your way, and you'll start walkin' mine, and we'll meet in the middle. Too often though, bipartisan means...Republicans bend over. We're starting to hear it now. Joe Biden wants "bipartisan" and Chuck Schumar wants "bipartisan" and C...well, you get the picture. We're going to find out the true definition of "bipartisan" very soon.

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Oh, and BTW, I suspect that middle ground will be something that Euterpe, Wolf, and Conn won't like very much, and it's also going to be something that You, I, and others here on the conservative side aren't going to like very much either. But that is the nature of a compromise. Nobody is completely happy, but we come up with something that might work. John Stricker

'struth.

Very good discussion, I can appreciate the opinions of almost everyone that has stated one or at least taken a position. The confusing and frustrating posts are those of the "Great Debaters" who make a few slippery and non commital statements, then attempt to turn the screw on the other side by posing queries. Very good debating tactic if one falls for it. What I'd really like to see is more posters state their case, provide some sort of evidence or proof and a reason for that stance or statement and take a position. I have a hard time respecting an opinion that only jabs and tucks in the ring. Oh yeah, I'm pretty much a conservative but vote my conscious, not a party platform.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: not a party platform.

The party platform is developed in local conventions. It is grassroots. Wannabees come the party conventions and make their promises. That is why I don't support them if they slither down off the platform.

Case in point: The illegal alien, NOT immigrant, issue is having devastating effects throughout the entire country. The employment, healthcare, crime, and drug war they've brought with them rolls into a huge problem. Don't know if you've seen them or not, but there are video tapes of Mexican officials of some level, in uniform, escorting drug dealers across the border. Governor Rick Perry, running for his political life because of his failure to lead a Republican majority in Texas to put a cap on property tax increases, came to town and promised do protect the border. That is an issue that all Texans want fixed.

Suddenly, after he was re-elected, he now says that we can't be too tough on the border because we don't want to be unkind.

Here is what he told us when he was trying to get re-elected:
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/priorities/other/border/border_security/view

and AFTER re-election
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2006/12/rick_perry_bord.html

THAT is why the Republican party was thrown out. They abandoned conservatives, both on the right and the left (Reagan Democrats)
They MUST STAY ON THE PLATFORM.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: While in the majority, Republicans only needed one thing to get it done. As with so many other issues, and the major cause for their losses, they needed BALLS!

The odd thing is, people complain when they don't do enough, then complain when they do too much. Maybe people just like to complain?

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-29-2006).]

The democrats are about the most un-American group of people that I have ever seen,,, I mean , how can you live here and be an elected person to government office, but dont believe in the Constitution of the United States, The Bill of Rights, the ammendents to the Constitution, and for the most part hate Americans .

quote Originally posted by ron768: The democrats are about the most un-American group of people that I have ever seen,,, I mean , how can you live here and be an elected person to government office, but dont believe in the Constitution of the United States, The Bill of Rights, the ammendents to the Constitution, and for the most part hate Americans .

-sigh-

well. at least i don't have to work so hard to demonstrate the pattern.

quote Originally posted by ron768: The democrats are about the most un-American group of people that I have ever seen,,, I mean , how can you live here and be an elected person to government office, but dont believe in the Constitution of the United States, The Bill of Rights, the ammendents to the Constitution, and for the most part hate Americans .

And I could say you should be substituting the Republicans leadearship holding power for the last 6 years in place of where you used Democrats, since I feel they've shredded the Bill of Rights while in power and have complete disdain for the American people. Only reason I won't go into how and why is that we've beaten that to death over and over.

It'll be interesting to see if the Democrats manage to do any better. Some of what Pelosi is promising as far as working with the Republicans sounds promising, the Democrats majority is a slim one, so that may be a good strategy if it works out. It'll be interesting to see what gets priorities now.

Your broad brush stroke that Democrats are unamerican and don't believe the things you've stated is part of the problem. Not that a particular Democrat, or group of Democrats. Just slander them all with a big sweeping statement with nothing to back it up. My problem with Republicans isn't with what used to supposedly be core values of small government, fiscal responsibility, personal freedoms. It's what it's morphed into with selling out the basics for votes and money, the move towards appeasing christian fundamentalists and screw anyone in a minority belief, the move towards a totalitarian society where we look more like the USSR of the cold war than they do now, secret police searches, secret prisons, snatching people up and holding them without charges,trials and incommunicado, tapping any communications they want, labeling anything potentially bothersome secret. Allowing Eminent Domain to be turned into a tool for corporate developers to snatch private property.

Things I've liked that have happened under the present administration and congress...
1) Assault weapon ban was allowed to time out... heck. pretty much laws should have expiration dates. Give the Congress something to do, review and renew laws that make sense and let old ones drop away.
2) Damn, there has to be something else... I hope I can think of SOMETHING else they've done that I'm happy about. The first didn't even take them actually doing anything, it was about not doing anything.

I think I'll start a thread on that subject... What has the Present Administration done that you've been happy about?

What people believe is something you need to ask them, not accuse them of without backing it up.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Your broad brush stroke that Democrats are unamerican and don't believe the things you've stated is part of the problem. Not that a particular Democrat, or group of Democrats. Just slander them all with a big sweeping statement with nothing to back it up.

In the words of my esteemed verbal combatant/colleague/hopefully friend Euterpe..........

'struth



John Stricker

[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 12-30-2006).]

quote Originally posted by ron768: The democrats are about the most un-American group of people that I have ever seen,,, I mean , how can you live here and be an elected person to government office, but dont believe in the Constitution of the United States, The Bill of Rights, the ammendents to the Constitution, and for the most part hate Americans .

Worst Troll Evar.

The reason I don't trust/like Pelosi and those of the far left are simple.

While no big fan of Bill OReilley he's put the question to a few people "Do you want the US to win in Iraq?"

This is a great interview.. take what you want
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0AY3A2v9c

"I'm not smart enough to debate you but I'll say 60% of what you say is crap"
This and John Stewart debates/commntary seem to be what is making up the left/liberal ideology these days. Good god don't you want to know.. or do you only want to "fight the man"

This is really telling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nD_iNPalY
"Do you want the US to win in Iraq.. It's hard for me to say because I'm thoughtful"
WTF? Sorry I know our resident political junkies dismiss this kind of crap, but this is what the uninformed sheep (to borrow a RayB quote) eat up.. dismiss the entire thing based on a letterman quip..

[This message has been edited by Uaana (edited 12-30-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Uaana: "I'm not smart enough to debate you but I'll say 60% of what you say is crap" Sorry I know our resident political junkies dismiss this kind of crap, but this is what the uninformed sheep (to borrow a RayB quote) eat up.. dismiss the entire thing based on a letterman quip..

Don't sell yourself short Uaana, I'll take an honest stance any day (even if it's one I don't particularly agree with) and respect it more than some of the political tripe I see espoused in some of these threads. Utiliizing language and verbage seldom used is usually an attempt to demonstrate intellectual superiority, it normally ends up just alienating the rest of us normal folks.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: The reason I don't trust/like Pelosi and those of the far left are simple. ..

"far" left?

one of the more annoying consequences of the interminable pounding rhetoric of the right is that they have actually managed to establish the nonsensical notion that anyone to the left of say, joe lieberman, is "far" left. one would think that half the electrorate were still reading the Little Red Book.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: "far" left? one of the more annoying consequences of the interminable pounding rhetoric of the right is that they have actually managed to establish the nonsensical notion that anyone to the left of say, joe lieberman, is "far" left. one would think that half the electrorate were still reading the Little Red Book.

Almost! People indentify with a political party by mostly inheriting it from their parents. If your parents are Democrats, then you are most likely will be a Democrat.

The ideologies between the Democrats and Republicans can be broke down very simply by their name. Democrats represent and believe in Democracy and the Rule of Man. Republicans represent and believe in the Republic and the Rule of Law.

If you put your trust in people, you vote Democrat, if you put your trust into the Constitution, you vote Republican.

There are a wide range of conterversial issues that both parties adopt, either through historial precidents or they just took the opposite side of an issue just to appear to be different.

I'm a Libertarian, so I always default to freedom. But I will side more with Republicans than Democrats, because I trust the rule of Law. I believe that the rule of man, mob rule, and absolute democracy are determential to the survival of our Republic. It's not a good thing.

That is why our founding fathers structured the Constitution to have it immuned from mob rule as much as possible. But Democrats are steady trying to errode it away.

There are some Democrats I like and some are genuine good people. Joe Liberman, Bill Richardson, Kathleen Sebelius, Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, Ann Richards, Richard Daily, Max Baucus and a few others. These are ones that compromise on issues and reconize the importance of commerce, global trade, a capitalism.

Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid are examples are very terrible power hungry and corrupt people. If they can get away with it, they would slit the throats of anybody who went against them. They are potentially brutal dictators and I'm not joking. If it wasn't for our rule of law, they would do anything in their grasp to obtain absolute power. They think nothing but themselves. And I think the Democrat electorate are damn fools for voting for them.

But people like Pelosi and Hillary and Reid take advantage of the Democrat electorate, which a great majority of them are uneducated, net tax and charity recipents, and easily manipulated emotionally. The weak and followers of our society.

To be fair, there are terrible Republicans that are power hungry and corrupt and shouldn't be in office. Tom Delay is a very evil man (glad he is out of office.) Charles Hagel, Ted Stevens, Lisa and Frank Murkowski are fine examples of terrible Republicans that are dangerous.

(Sorry! Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld isn't in that pack: They are good people)

I can go on and on! But you get the picture! It's no secret what Democrats and Republicans stand for. The Democrats are left because they believe in more government power, more socialism, more nanny state, more control. The Republicans are right because they believe in less government (used too), more capitalism, more corporate state, and more control.

But people don't arrive at choosing to be Democrats or Republicans because their brilliant in thought, more educated, more logical than each other. They choose it by mostly inheriting it from their parents and peers. (There are exceptions for those trying to make that aurgument! OK!).

They just think their smarter than you! And people who are for the opposite party are misguided people.

Just believe what you believe!

E,

Nothing personal, but umm Ya.

However the left types think anyone Right of Hillary is Hitler.

Just to make things clear about me.. I want the gov't out of my bedroom and out of my wallet. I want personal responsibility and I want people punished for crimes the commit.

It's a libetarian ideal and I end up voting R more often than not. The socalist republic of MN fulfills my need to "fight the power" as its run by a pack of jackhole idiots who I wouldnt trust too balance my checkbook.
I've watched and lived with Dem control for the better part of my 38yrs and seen how it has destroyed local economies let crime flurish.
Exampes.. We have less cops, but more funding for rooftop gardens, can't keep librarys open but have funds for keeping sexual predators employed

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: ...laws should have expiration dates. Give the Congress something to do, review and renew laws that make sense and let old ones drop away.

This bears repeating. In bold type.
"Laws Should Have Expiration Dates." --many of them, anyway.

It's relatively easy to get a law passed, that further limits our liberties.
OTOH, it's damned near impossible to get a law repealed that has outlived its usefulness, and has become a burden.
Case in point: The 55 MPH speed limit.
I'm sure that everyone has their own favorite in mind.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 12-30-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Democrats represent and believe in Democracy and the Rule of Man. Republicans represent and believe in the Republic and the Rule of Law. If you put your trust in people, you vote Democrat, if you put your trust into the Constitution, you vote Republican.

a solid entry and one that i'l give more consideration to later... i need to get ready to go shopping.
but it strikes me that when those on the right seek to create or interpret law, it is perceived very differently than when those on the left do so.
also, as a democrat, i have a fundamental respect for the constitution... which is, for instance, why i don't enter into second amendment debates, even though i may have contrary personal feelings about guns and gun ownership. but it seems to me - and i'm speaking here entirely non-analytically - that the right is more willing to interpret its provisions as limitations on the scope of individual rights, rather than as a pretty broad license on civil rights, and a strong boundary on state power.
as i've mentioned before, the democratic party does not adequately represent my actual values, and my partisanship is not blind or unwary. i guess a blunt, and not entirely facetious way of putting it, is that at least their lip service appeals to me.

i will say this: i am very much a social liberal (no surprise there, eh?). and while the right generally infuriates me on this score, the sanctimonious tendencies of some leaders of the democratic party really, really makes party affiliation a matter of "holding your nose and pulling the lever."


edit: something just struck me as odd about your entry. i thought that democrats were traditionally accused of not putting their trust in the people but rather in the machineries of government?

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 12-30-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Uaana: The reason I don't trust/like Pelosi and those of the far left are simple. While no big fan of Bill OReilley he's put the question to a few people "Do you want the US to win in Iraq?" This is a great interview.. take what you want http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0AY3A2v9c "I'm not smart enough to debate you but I'll say 60% of what you say is crap" This and John Stewart debates/commntary seem to be what is making up the left/liberal ideology these days. Good god don't you want to know.. or do you only want to "fight the man"

I just watched the Letterman video. Two things...

1 - Bill O'Reilly debating Letterman is like the valedictorian debating the class clown, and the audience laughing intimates that the clown is winning the debate.

2 - The onlookers, cheering madly at the anti-conservative rhetoric, make me wonder about how sound the oppostions knoledge of the facts can be

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: edit: something just struck me as odd about your entry. i thought that democrats were traditionally accused of not putting their trust in the people but rather in the machineries of government?

The people have spoken! The will of the people. Popular vote! Majority of Americans say...?

It is not that Democrats putting the trust of the people. It is that Democrats want people to become dependent on government. Once you have accomplished that, it is easy to control them through government.

Gun Control is a fine example! You think it's bad for people to have guns! But guns and violence isn't the issue! You just have been convience that guns should be taken away from citizens.

I don't know you very well, but if we ever met in person, it would be very easy for me to put you into a subordinate state. Not that it's not a bad thing. Not everybody can assume leadership roles or the Alpha male/role. It's just people on the left tend to be people who are very easily manipulated. You can be convience to give up your entire freedoms. Basically you won't fight.

Don't think this as an insult! People like you are what makes the world work. But lets just say we can't have a functioning society that allows everybody to be like you. We need competition, we need liberty, we need unfairness. Although you can live without it, our society and standard of living cannot.

Just like a pack of wolves or a tribe. You have a role! But a pack of wolves cannot survive if every one is a submissive wolf.