What if liberals spent more time thinking up good ideas instead of hating on Bush?

[Polish3d]

I watch Al Franken sometimes, its 99% hating on Bush or the Bush admin, or Republicans

All elected democrats seem to be doing is complaining, rarely are any legitimate ideas offered.

I heard some dem the other day say they didnt need to put forth a plan to win Iraq because Bush got us into it. That's great, hell if you get elected though if you're going to act like a two year old about it.

It takes no skill to sit back and complain, literally anyone can do it

We've all heard the criticism from democrats... how about some forward looking plans now...

There are tons of anti-Bushites here... let's hear what you'd do NOW. Not what you would have done now that you have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.


You hate Bush? Fine, what's your alternative?


And I would really like to hear too. One strength of democracy is that you have a ton of ideas put forth, and the best ones often float to the surface... so lets have some proposals

 

[ntdz]

That topic made me laugh, liberals can't think up good ideas

 

[EatSpam]

This was my biggest problem with the Kerry campaign. Kerry never really offered any compelling reason to vote for him, besides that he wasn't George W. Bush. This was fine for 49% of the country, but not the other 2% he needed to win.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I watch Al Franken sometimes, its 99% hating on Bush or the Bush admin, or Republicans

Change 'Al Franken' above and replace it with any liberal's name. They all act the same, and its why they can't win an election -- works for me

 

[Rainsford]

This is a good point, one of the issues that the left has in fighting the right is that they don't always put forward alternative ideas. Kerry's "I'm not Bush" stance did surprisingly well, but I think he could have beat Bush like a captured "enemy combatant" if he had really presented some alternatives. And yes, I am actually planning on responding to this thread with some ideas of my own later, just wanted to quickly reply while I was thinking about it.

One other thing, I always find it kind of amusing how the righties tend to address this issue. As has been said before, this country has the Republican party, which is the party of bad ideas, and the Democratic party, which is the party of NO ideas. I think this does tend to hold true, and for the life of my I can't figure out where the Republicans get off talking down to the Democrats. "We may be a bunch of morons that can't do anything right, but at least we're trying" is a rather lame defense. I'm not suggesting that doing nothing is any better, but a failure by the left to generate ideas does not make those of the right any less stupid.

And like I said, I'm going to post what I think would be some good ideas later...just wanted to point out how lame this discussion usually gets.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ntdz
That topic made me laugh, liberals can't think up good ideas

So what are your good ideas? Just curious. Very easy to blame the party not in power for running the country into the ground. But, we all know who is doing that, now don't we. If you were a democrat, how do you propose to run your ideas through a republican run congress? What is the sense in expressing ideas when you know for certain they won't be heard or will be voted down? To the OP, what is the sense in this post exactly? Trying to pass everyone off on just hating Bush is just so predictable. How about some originality in your next OP?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
This was my biggest problem with the Kerry campaign. Kerry never really offered any compelling reason to vote for him, besides that he wasn't George W. Bush. This was fine for 49% of the country, but not the other 2% he needed to win.

And that's pretty sad that 49% were sheep. To be more specific than that, something like 65% of that 49% voted only because Kerry wasn't Bush -- not because they supported him, his platform, or his ideas. That is pathetic.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Frackal
I watch Al Franken sometimes, its 99% hating on Bush or the Bush admin, or Republicans

Change 'Al Franken' above and replace it with any liberal's name. They all act the same, and its why they can't win an election -- works for me

Ah yes, this from "Mister Ideas" himself...

 

[MicroChrome]

I see the bush camp is out in force on this thread. I know there are a few more...

Good Idea's for are retarded leader?

I've been emailing him all kinds of good ideas. But he won't listen. I can't help it if he keeps picking stupid people like himself to be a judge. It's abvious that you folks (first posters) have no clues and you like everthing he says. Sorry, I don't look to god for my "good ideas".... Maybe he should take a hint?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
This was my biggest problem with the Kerry campaign. Kerry never really offered any compelling reason to vote for him, besides that he wasn't George W. Bush. This was fine for 49% of the country, but not the other 2% he needed to win.

And that's pretty sad that 49% were sheep. To be more specific than that, something like 65% of that 49% voted only because Kerry wasn't Bush -- not because they supported him, his platform, or his ideas. That is pathetic.

And how many on your side voted for Bush because he wasn't Kerry? Pathetic as well.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
This was my biggest problem with the Kerry campaign. Kerry never really offered any compelling reason to vote for him, besides that he wasn't George W. Bush. This was fine for 49% of the country, but not the other 2% he needed to win.

And that's pretty sad that 49% were sheep. To be more specific than that, something like 65% of that 49% voted only because Kerry wasn't Bush -- not because they supported him, his platform, or his ideas. That is pathetic.

So I'm a sheep because I don't blindly follow Bush? Wow. I think you need to rethink your definition of sheep.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: ntdz
That topic made me laugh, liberals can't think up good ideas

The DNC is a party without ideas. Since they criticize other so much, if they had ideas, they'd open themselves to criticizm. Since they don't want that, they don't offer ideas other than... if I was that person way back when, I would have done this. Sure, easy to say when you look back in time.

It would be interesting though... and probably a great source of ammusement.

The left has said some things on this forum, such as:

If I was President, everyone would be driving hydrogen cars.
If I was President, there would be more jobs.
If I was President, gas would be cheap.
There's a "revolution" coming. (Could be referring to Nintendo's new product)
If I was President, we'd close our doors to the world and adopt an isolationist stance.
If I was President, I'd erase the trade deficit. (mainly because the left failed economics 101)
And more...

They are all so funny, I can't stop laughing! I wonder what other stupid ideas they'd have. :laugh:

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

And how many on your side voted for Bush because he wasn't Kerry? Pathetic as well.

Comparatively much fewer.

 

[Moonbeam]

No matter who you are looking at what you are seeing is yourself.

People who focus on the hate in others are filled with hate. The thief thinks you will steal his purse. The liar calls you a liar. This is who we are and how we act. To see who you are is to die to phony pride. Hope you make it. It's Toad's wild ride.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
This was my biggest problem with the Kerry campaign. Kerry never really offered any compelling reason to vote for him, besides that he wasn't George W. Bush. This was fine for 49% of the country, but not the other 2% he needed to win.

And that's pretty sad that 49% were sheep. To be more specific than that, something like 65% of that 49% voted only because Kerry wasn't Bush -- not because they supported him, his platform, or his ideas. That is pathetic.

And how many on your side voted for Bush because he wasn't Kerry? Pathetic as well.

Why would anyone vote for someone who would do the opposite of Bush? Kerry would be lost in the whitehouse because Bush would be gone.

If you can't set direction, you don't deserve to be in charge. Kerry & his party have no direction and that's why they lost and will continue to do so.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: umbrella39

And how many on your side voted for Bush because he wasn't Kerry? Pathetic as well.

Comparatively much fewer.

Well then there were those who only came out to vote because of wedge issues. All in all, I think there were more who voted for Bush because of Kerry and Gay referendums than voted for Kerry because he wasn't Bush. But why second guess. Sad when the only two candidates get voted for not because of their platforms, but because of the other guys platform. Face it, you and I will more than likely never cross the aisle when voting for POTUS, regardless of who they are or aren't!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Well then there were those who only came out to vote because of wedge issues. All in all, I think there were more who voted for Bush because of Kerry and Gay referendums than voted for Kerry because he wasn't Bush. But why second guess. Sad when the only two candidates get voted for not because of their platforms, but because of the other guys platform. Face it, you and I will more than likely never cross the aisle when voting for POTUS, regardless of who they are or aren't!

One man's wedge issue is another man's priority.

 

[Rainsford]

Actually, I'll post a "good idea" now (don't want anyone to think I'm all hot air )...an alternative to invasive and ineffective anti-terrorism measures like the Patriot Act and similar expansions of power. Increasing general police powers is not an effective way to fight terrorism, because by definition the strength of terrorists is that they are few in number and generally are part of a much larger population of innocent people (think of the 9/11 hijackers traveling on 9/11 as an example). Measures that are non-targetted (invasive airport security, new Patriot Act powers, national ID cards, etc) can be effective at fighting terrorism, but they aren't very efficient. Why? Well almost all of those measures result in a lot of resources being applied to the wrong people, airport security taking away my pocket knife is a security failure, not a success, because pocket knife or not, I pose no threat to the air travel system. Same with expanded investigative powers, it encourages police to go after people who aren't showing strong indicators of being bad guys (otherwise pre-9/11 powers would have worked), which means there is even less chance they are targetting the right person. National ID is the worst, it's a system that will cost billions and billions of dollars, introduce new security issues, and will be mostly a waste of money, identifying people who we don't need to be identified.

Obviously SOME broad systems are necessary, but there is a much better way that seems virtually untouched...the idea of targetted security operations. Oddly enough, Iraq is sort of on the right track, but war is a pretty ineffective way to target a small group of people. But the general idea is the same, terrorists are able to do what they do because our system does not bring enough force to bear on them. We have a very strong police and intelligence system, hell, a handful of cops could have stopped 9/11 if they were in the right place at the right time. So I think the answer is to increase intelligence and police FUNDING (not power). This will allow them more resources to go after real targets, and shine the spotlight on terrorists, taking away the vast majority of their strength. This is being done to a degree, but I think there is opportunity to do even more...the money spent in Iraq (and that will be spent in Iraq) would have been useful in this regard, but there are other places this money could come from. And in any case, simply doing away with many of the "police state" style security efforts would free up a lot of resources to be used more in directly acting against the terrorists. Bruce Schneier (a security expert many righties have stupidly labeled a liberal) has suggested something like this for a while now. His basic logic is that the best approach stops the terrorist whatever his plans are, by tagetting him BEFORE he attempts to carry out his mission. Remember, the goal is to stop another 9/11 style attack. Nothing would have been more effective at doing that than finding the terrorists before 9/11 and arresting them using nothing more menacing than a few dozen boys in blue.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
This was my biggest problem with the Kerry campaign. Kerry never really offered any compelling reason to vote for him, besides that he wasn't George W. Bush. This was fine for 49% of the country, but not the other 2% he needed to win.

And that's pretty sad that 49% were sheep. To be more specific than that, something like 65% of that 49% voted only because Kerry wasn't Bush -- not because they supported him, his platform, or his ideas. That is pathetic.

And how many on your side voted for Bush because he wasn't Kerry? Pathetic as well.

Why would anyone vote for someone who would do the opposite of Bush? Kerry would be lost in the whitehouse because Bush would be gone.

If you can't set direction, you don't deserve to be in charge. Kerry & his party have no direction and that's why they lost and will continue to do so.

We have a little over a year to see how your theory holds up. I live in a blue state so I can't finger the pulse of how other states are gearing up for their races, but if polling is any indication as to how people will vote, the dems will do just fine. Enough to win back Senate? Remains to be seen.

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ntdz
That topic made me laugh, liberals can't think up good ideas

Very easy to blame the party not in power for running the country into the ground.

lemme see if I got this straight - the party not in power is easy to blame for running the country in the ground?? Whu? :shocked: - how exactly does that work? - whatever, this is a great example of why I don't post in this forum anymore

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
We have a little over a year to see how your theory holds up. I live in a blue state so I can't finger the pulse of how other states are gearing up for their races, but if polling is any indication as to how people will vote, the dems will do just fine. Enough to win back Senate? Remains to be seen.

Nothing to worry about. Everyone knows this is Bush's last term and a new person will take the reigns. Of course the Democrats think they are a shoe in; all they have to do is say they would have done the opposite of Bush.

That in itself is stupid. Anyone who looks back and says that is an idiot. If we all knew the exact outcomes of our decisions before we made them, it would be easier to make decisions!

A leader looks forward.

Democrats look backwards.

Need an example?

Social Security needs reforming; everyone agrees. Republican's came up with an idea. Democrats critcized it. The DNC's idea? *silence*

Get my point? Why would anyone vote for a party who has no ideas? That's the basis of the DNC. If they make a bad decision, nobody can say that was their plan and their plan failed. No accountability. Just find a Republican and start pointing fingers.

I'd like to see the Democrats come up with ideas and a platform to run on. I might vote for them if I like what they are saying, but I doubt they will ever do that.

 

[her209]

In 1988, Kerry successfully proposed an amendment that forced the Treasury Department to negotiate so-called Kerry Agreements with foreign countries. Under these agreements, foreign governments had to promise to keep a close watch on their banks for potential money laundering or they risked losing their access to U.S. markets. Other measures Kerry tried to pass throughout the 90's, virtually all of them blocked by Republican senators on the banking committee, would end up, in the wake of 9/11, in the USA Patriot Act; among other things, these measures subject banks to fines or loss of license if they don't take steps to verify the identities of their customers and to avoid being used for money laundering.

Through his immersion in the global underground, Kerry made connections among disparate criminal and terrorist groups that few other senators interested in foreign policy were making in the 90's. Richard A. Clarke, who coordinated security and counterterrorism policy for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, credits Kerry with having seen beyond the national-security tableau on which most of his colleagues were focused. ''He was getting it at the same time that people like Tony Lake were getting it, in the '93 -'94 time frame,'' Clarke says, referring to Anthony Lake, Clinton's national security adviser. ''And the 'it' here was that there was a new nonstate-actor threat, and that nonstate-actor threat was a blended threat that didn't fit neatly into the box of organized criminal, or neatly into the box of terrorism. What you found were groups that were all of the above.''

In other words, Kerry was among the first policy makers in Washington to begin mapping out a strategy to combat an entirely new kind of enemy. Americans were conditioned, by two world wars and a long standoff with a rival superpower, to see foreign policy as a mix of cooperation and tension between civilized states. Kerry came to believe, however, that Americans were in greater danger from the more shadowy groups he had been investigating -- nonstate actors, armed with cellphones and laptops -- who might detonate suitcase bombs or release lethal chemicals into the subway just to make a point. They lived in remote regions and exploited weak governments. Their goal wasn't to govern states but to destabilize them.

Kerry spent years investigating and trying to pass anti-drug and anti-terrorism legislation which were ultimately blocked by the Republicans.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: MicroChrome
Good Idea's for are retarded leader?

Irony with a capital I :laugh:

 

[Xonoahbin]

You want solutions from a "Liberal?" Our economy's in shambles. It's time to fix it. How's this for you:

1. Withdraw from Iraq. Large scale, in less than one year. It's time to cut our losses, it's a lose-lose situation. If we're there, we lose $5 billion per month and 1,800+ soldiers so far. This is unacceptable.

2. Take away Bush's tax cuts to mainly the wealthiest 1% of Americans. It's time to forget about stupid Reaganomics and use real economics that really work. We could take the money from the taxes that the wealthy would be paying and put it towards education. In the next ten years, we could see the future leaders of America better prepared and the general public more informed to make the decisions of the country.

3. Cut government spending. Iraq- $5 billion per month, $500 billion so far. Enough is enough. NASA needs to go. Money is very much so wasted by our space endeavors. Nothing important has been yielded from space in the past thirty years. We need to take care of our own world before looking to other worlds. Also, we can get rid of the "goodies" that senators and politicians get. Tax write-offs, free money for vacations, etc.

4. Increase relations with foreign countries. Many superpowers of the world are beginning to doubt the United States greatly. It's time to lift trade restrictions with China and get on their good side. By 2020, China will have the second most powerful economy in the world, barring that the United States screws up more. Russia also doubts us, France really doesn't like us, and many other countries feel pretty strongly against us.

5. Increase trades with foreign countries. China predominantly needs to be traded with more. However, our neighbors, Mexico and Canada, could do with better trading with the US. If we help to improve Mexico's economy and standard of living, we wouldn't have to have such high restrictions on border control. Mexicans would want to stay in Mexico. It's also time to lift the embargo on Cuba. Enough is enough, Fidel even helped us with Katrina relief. Let's do them a favor and lift the embargo and give their people a better standard of living.

6. Finally, we need to get rid of the fallacies in our government. Man, are we getting corrupted. This whole "Liberal-Conservative" bs is getting out of hand. It's time to vote people into office that are qualified, not those who are labeled by a party. We need to get rid of corruption in the form of cash under the table and payoffs to political icons. President Bush, like it or not, is buddies with the oil companies. They're in his pocket. This isn't right. They have more power than the average American citizen, and that's not the basis of our country. It's out of hand, buying off politicians is unethical and must be done away with.

Today, we have some major problems that have to be fixed. I don't see Democrats nor Republicans aiming to get rid of them, they're not really that different. They only care for themselves and their image, greed and status. This has to end.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
So I'm a sheep because I don't blindly follow Bush? Wow. I think you need to rethink your definition of sheep.

No, I'm saying that the vast majority who voted for Bush had reasons (besides "he ain't Kerry")... Be it terrorism, religion, morals, what-have-you. A large majority of Kerry's voters didn't have a clue where he stood on anything and voted blindly down partisan lines.