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

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Frackal
Come on man, eloquent writing, but I'm not a Christian and even I'm unsure about whether abortion constitutes murder or not... The question does come down to "when does life begin" and I cannot answer it with any personal satisfaction so I don't take a position on abortion. (ie, I won't vote for or against someone because of abortion views.)

C'mon, man. You asked for a good liberal idea.

Defending a woman's right to choose vs. a religious pressure group's right to use the punitive power of our federal government to deny her her choice is a prime example of today's liberals upholding true conservatism, as outlined in our Constitution.

Who's the REAL radical here? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Well you're using really affective language there. (womens right to choose vs. punitive religious etc)


That only applies if abortion does not equal murder of a human.. which I'm not sure about personally... if it doesn't, than there is no reason for it not to be allowed...

If it IS murder, than its actually a violation of the constitution

 

[imhotepmp]

start :wine:
this post sums it up quite nicely!
too bad nobody actually has responded to the ideas in the post.

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

and even after this little bit:

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.

the label throwing continues...

[begin the 'under the influence of...' rant]

the problem is that some people dont like thinking for themselves, its much easier to have things fed to them. (Republican party is a feeding machine!)
Furthermore, most people are too busy with distractions, including work(to some), to actually take the time and effort to be truly involved in politics. As exemplified by the increasing destruction of our environment, most people carry the attitude that If it doesnt effect them here and now then why worry about it?

shortsightedness, greed, indifference,and cruelty are rampant.

why does everyone think that only two parties exist?
who says that only two parties can participate in a debate?
Who decides what questions get asked during the debate?

Get it through to people that both parties are the same, ie Republocrats. They only look out for one thing, and thats their pockets! Because the people with money put them there! Look at iraq defense contracts, new orleans contracts, all Bush pocket fillers.

the point im trying to make is that the people in power our not looking out for us, only the people that line their pockets. As soon as people realize that then things will change. But until then we're just getting deeper and deeper in the hole.


end :wine:

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Frackal
Come on man, eloquent writing, but I'm not a Christian and even I'm unsure about whether abortion constitutes murder or not... The question does come down to "when does life begin" and I cannot answer it with any personal satisfaction so I don't take a position on abortion. (ie, I won't vote for or against someone because of abortion views.)

C'mon, man. You asked for a good liberal idea.

Defending a woman's right to choose vs. a religious pressure group's right to use the punitive power of our federal government to deny her her choice is a prime example of today's liberals upholding true conservatism, as outlined in our Constitution.

Who's the REAL radical here? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Well you're using really affective language there. (womens right to choose vs. punitive religious etc)


That only applies if abortion does not equal murder of a human.. which I'm not sure about personally... if it doesn't, than there is no reason for it not to be allowed...

If it IS murder, than its actually a violation of the constitution

Saying the fetus is a human being at conception IS a RADICAL reinterpretation of our 200 year old jurisprudence, no?

Again, my question: Which side are the radicals here and which the conservative defenders of the status quo?

Which side wants MORE federal government interference in a (female) citizen's life and which wants LESS?

Which side wants to ignore the Constitution's dictum that our federal government not uphold any ONE religious establishment's view of things and which wishes to abide by the LETTER of the Constitution?

Through the looking glass, my friend . . .

 

[Polish3d]

I see your points...


One question is, are they arguing it primarily on religious grounds, or on scientific grounds...

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 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?

Here's an idea. WIN AN ELECTION.

You have won 2 of the past 4 elections, excuse me if I am not as impressed with yourself as you are. I sometimes need to remind myself whose posts to skip over, thanks for doing it for me.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I see your points...


One question is, are they arguing it primarily on religious grounds, or on scientific grounds...

You can't really agruee that a fetus is a person on scientific grounds. People need to stop mixing up science with philosohpy...

 

[piasabird]

Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em!
Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em!
Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em!
Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em!

 

[Whaspe]

I think the problem is one that is possible for anyone political party on the losing side. For instance, the Conservative Party in Canada is blamed for the exact same thing the Democrats are being blamed for. Why? Because they focus too much on their opponents weakness and not enough on their own strengths.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Perknose

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

Sentence fragment permission ON/


Frackal, your question bears repeating. And answering. One reason you don't think liberals have any ideas is that you're so busy branding dissent treason that you never stop to listen.

Liberals have, to a woman and man, put their money and their collective effort where their mouth is, trying to save the American idea of the republic from the idiot imperial Presidency. You see, irony of ironies, liberals are the true conservatives of today:

-- Liberals believe that any and all 200 billion plus dollar a year excellent adventure should be pay as you go, with all the social and political implications that that has in a democracy.

The "so called" conservatives of TODAY take the radical elitist postion that the President (Daddy) knows best. They ACT AS IF THEY BELIEVE in the retro monarchist view of the Sun King. "He must not be questioned!" These radicals, so wholly outside of the yeoman egailitarian American tradition. piss me off with their lemming like passion for DADDY.

-- Liberals believe in our settled law, the long march of progress that finally gave each individual American woman the right to have dominion over her body, not the state -- and because she alone must face the full brunt of the consequences between herself and her God or alone. her conscience -- over every collection of cells within.

It was one of the high water marks in the real life application of one of our fundamental Constitutional ideals., that our Federal government should never allow any one religious group to to use the punitive power of the state to mpose their religious beliefs upon the entire citizenry.

Conservatives push the nouveau and radical notion that individual human life begins at conception, and the nanny state big government view that "jack booted bureaucrats in Washington" should be able to tell any and every individual American woman what and what she is not allowed to do with her body from even THIS particular moment: When she is stalked in a subway corridor, dragged behind a concrete abutment, and raped at knifepoint by a slobering stranger.

-- Liberals believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. Never let any pandering propagandist convince you otherwise! In the following fight they are defending the LETTER of the constitution against radical extremist "so called' conservatives.

Liberals believe that the power to DECLARE WAR is vested in Congress, as so stated in our Constitution.

The so called conservatives of today want you to believe in the radical extremist idea that some nebulous congressional authorization of force will now be sufficent in our brave new world -- All hail the omnipotent leader and his cabal! -- for us to invade another soverign nation. The Constiution clearly tells all Americans otherwise.

It is the biggest, boldest smokescreen of our time that today's so called conservatives hide behing the embattled image of their idiot boy king, hoping, hoping, hoping that today's consumer good satiiated citizen will buy their tendentious BS, and never notice the strawman behind the curtain with the strings . . .

Todays so called conservatives in Junior's junta are the true extremist radicals, PT Barnum confident you'll never notice the far reaching implications of their elitist, Bozo Knows Best palace coup.

They think you're as dumb and blindly compliant as zendari and Pabster.

As an American, I resent that implication with every fiber of my freedom loving soul.


/Sentence fragment permission OFF

You're logic isn't making a whole lot of sense to me. The liberals are being conservative? The belief in a traditional form of government is a conservative veiw is it not? Thus your claim that the conservatives want to resurrect the "Sun King" would fit inline with their ideology. And while the States was founded on a rebellion against this system, that does not mean conservative all of a sudden applies to liberal ideals. Next you marginalize the liberal veiwpoint by asserting that it solely functions to protect a womans right to have an abortion. And the idea that a embryo is a human at conception is a traditional veiwpoint that was held and then challenged by those in favor of abortion, therefore nouveau and radical would better describe a proabortionist. The fact that you feel the government is "big" and a "nanny-state" also stem from a liberal veiwpoint (and one of the realities of social change caused by the World Wars). You're resorting to the use of "radical" and "extremist" is an old political ploy of labeling your opponent with undesireable images, it weakens and cheapens what you are trying to say. While I could get the "essense" of what you were trying to say, you really hurt your position with the way you said it.

 

[Red Dawn]

I don't want Liberals running this country but I also don't want the type of Conservatives that the Republican Party has become running it either. I'd take a Moderate like Bill (no not Hill) Clinton or a Conservative like Ronald Reagan over either.

That said I think both Clinton and Reagan were successful because they had a Congress controlled by the opposing party to keep their extremism in check. In fact I think losing Congress to the Republicans made Clinton more moderate and inline with the political leaning of the majority of Americans which can be gauged by the polls as his Presidency progressed in to the latter half of his first term and through his second term up until today. I bet if he was able to run he'd beat any challenger put forth by either the Democrats or Republicans for the White House in 2008.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I don't want Liberals running this country but I also don't want the type of Conservatives that the Republican Party has become running it either. I'd take a Moderate like Bill (no not Hill) Clinton or a Conservative like Ronald Reagan over either.

That said I think both Clinton and Reagan were successful because they had a Congress controlled by the opposing party to keep their extremism in check. In fact I think losing Congress to the Republicans made Clinton more moderate and inline with the political leaning of the majority of Americans which can be gauged by the polls as his Presidency progressed in to the latter half of his first term and through his second term up until today. I bet if he was able to run he'd beat any challenger put forth by either the Democrats or Republicans for the White House in 2008.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Whenever the same party controls both Congress and the Presidency, things tend to get unbalanced.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I bet if he was able to run he'd beat any challenger put forth by either the Democrats or Republicans for the White House in 2008.

As much as I hate agreeing with you ... you're probably right.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em!
Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em!
Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em!
Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em! Tax Em!

Considering that Reagan and Bush 41 had the highest and second highest tax increases in history and that Bush 43 wants to raise taxes of the middle class by taking away mortgage interest deductions and health insurance deductions, I'd say that your response is as misinformed as it is inane.

 

[imported_tss4]

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.

<sigh> the flip side is that its pathetic that Bush could be viewed as such a bad president that even a poor alternative like Kerry was preffered by 65% of the 49%. I agree that it is a pathetic reflection on both candidates.

 

[imported_Condor]

Beyond their capabilities! Completely out of their scope! If they can't mouth the same chit and bash Bush (their symbol for their failure), they have nothing to talk about.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I bet if he was able to run he'd beat any challenger put forth by either the Democrats or Republicans for the White House in 2008.

As much as I hate agreeing with you ... you're probably right.

What's the rule on Bill Clinton being picked for the Vice President spot???

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I bet if he was able to run he'd beat any challenger put forth by either the Democrats or Republicans for the White House in 2008.

As much as I hate agreeing with you ... you're probably right.

What's the rule on Bill Clinton being picked for the Vice President spot???

Yeah, Hilary rode that horse into the Whitehouse once, why can't he be beneath her again. Imagine, the clutch of those shapely knees!

 

[Ryan]

What if people stopped making the assumption that ALL liberals spend every waking moment plotting against Bush?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ryan
What if people stopped making the assumption that ALL liberals spend every waking moment plotting against Bush?

What makes you say a statement like that?

That may have been true before last year's election and it didn't work and nothing could be done about the guy now especially with the Republicans in control of Congress.

They are all untouchable except for occasional blatent criminal slip ups by some of the cronies like Delay, Rove etc.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Frackal
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

It's a political ploy to attack Bush and not provide viable alternatives.

But the Dems are just holding off till 2006, the election year - they have their own plans already drawn up, and are waiting for the right time.

Think "Contract with [on] America", which the Republicans did during Clinton's term to sweep into power.

You have to say, the Dems political moves are working. Bush's rating has moved down significantly, and Republicans in Congress also.

 

[Future Shock]

The issue is that for the last century LIBERALS (in many parties) have been advancing the state of humanity in the US and abroad via a series of legislative and government agendas and ideas. Such liberal ideas have included:

1) Limits on business monopolies for the benefits of consumers

2) Social security for the elderly

3) A minimum standard of living (via Welfare) - to enhance social stability in the country, making the country as a whole more productive and settled

4) The guarantee of a set minimum wage, except for training and some service-sector jobs - again helping to assist in the creation of a stable electorate and society

5) A progressive income tax band strategy, that ensurse that the bottome half of society has money to pay for necessities

6) Limitations on the intermixing of church and state, so that we have elected officials that govern our country, not church leaders

7) Racial equality and equal opportunity, designed to help alleviate the problems of a growing underclass which can only unsettle the country and cause turmoil

And there are more, but these are amost the best and brightest stars in the "liberal" crown. These are the ideas that liberals have been pursuing for more than a century, and whose provenance Bush and Co. are sworn to destroy.

The liberal's ideas? You see them every day, in a safer and more secure America, where we don't have millions people living in barrios in the outskirts of our major cities, a la Rio, Mexico City, etc. We have freedom of religion, not state-sponsored religion. We have a lower-class that can aspire to and achive middle-class status, and a middle class that can aspire become rich. We have lessened racial tensions and promoted equal opportunity - where we have top government officials that are only a few generations removed from slavery. We have a vibrant entrepranureal class, who can establish their own businesses, in markets free from the total domination of a few big monopolies (well, except desktop OSes).

These are the liberal ideals, writ large and living. Liberals, not just Democrats, but Republicans, Libertarians, and others, have fostered and nurtured these ideals, and enshrined them into our society.

Now an unholy alliance of everything unliberal - big business monopolies and power hungry church leaders - is placing those gains under attack. Their goal is to return America back to the 1800s, where church leaders were as powerful (if not more so) than elected officials, where big business roamed free and unrestrained, crushing the entreprenuers that attempted to compete and start their own businesses. Where everyone "not like them" was discriminated against and excluded from prosperity and power. Where those at the top, stayed at the top - and those on the bottom of society, stayed at the bottom. Where the well-off lived like The Great Gadsby - and the poor lived in employer-supplied dormitories or in hovels.

The grand liberal idea of the 21st century? Make sure that doesn't happen.

Future Shock

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: her209
Kerry spent years investigating and trying to pass anti-drug and anti-terrorism legislation which were ultimately blocked by the Republicans.

that's interesting, considering the forum liberals think the war on drugs is silly.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
You have no point.

They aren't in power in any section of government anymore, there is no reason for them even attempt. Their goal should be to gain back power, then push the ideas forward.

That is how American government works.

You comments are a perfect example why the DNC has failed and will continue to do so!

 

[judasmachine]

if the left had as effective pundents as the right, the right would be in serious trouble. the ideas of the left are nothing really new, but they have ideas, they're just effectively marginalized.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Saying the fetus is a human being at conception IS a RADICAL reinterpretation of our 200 year old jurisprudence, no?

Again, my question: Which side are the radicals here and which the conservative defenders of the status quo?

Which side wants MORE federal government interference in a (female) citizen's life and which wants LESS?

Which side wants to ignore the Constitution's dictum that our federal government not uphold any ONE religious establishment's view of things and which wishes to abide by the LETTER of the Constitution?

Through the looking glass, my friend . . .

I can't speak for women, but as a man I'd sure like some of that choice I keep hearing about...