requires that I agree with your solutions or agree with your definition of "what actually works in the real world'.
When libs appear to be compromising they invariably have set up false choices or inserted a poison pill in the 'solution'. Case in point. New drilling as part of their new energy policy? They know very well that their concession to allow new drilling is in the least productive areas and those adjoining states which are FORBIDDEN from benefiting will veto or opt out.
-- Modified on 9/23/2008 6:15:35 PM
defeating 'the enemy', the other party, the other team
or
coming up with political policies which actually work in the real world?
From what I observe, those on the right are far more concerned with merely winning than they are understanding and formulating policies which will actually work in the real world. That makes sense if one assumes that more people on the right fear change due to ignorance and participate in politics merely to validate their own prejudices (please don't think I mean racist prejudice.
You can make an argument WW, that the GOP is great at campaigning. Not so good at governing.
what is in all of this for me. Self interest is what guides my thinking.
Liberal Jews hate Republicans more than they hate Fatah, Hamas or the Prez of Iran. Same with Catholics, Protestants, etc. etc. Makes no difference. If you're a liberal---YOU HATE THE PEOPLE FIGHTING THE ENEMY MORE THAN THE ENEMY.
The socialist/commie leftys are corrupt from head to toe. They'd kill their own mothers for power.
That's why the drive-by media is doing everything it can for Obama.
Partisans are only interested in defeating the enemy. If anything is going to get solved correctly, then that bullshit has to stop. We have far too many challenges to overcome, and seemingly not enough intestinal fortitude currently to get the job done.
I'm Blackbeltxxx and I approved this message.
Hate to say it, but I think the left is more concerned with winning than anything else.
Take pressuring Iran as one example of something that would be good for the country. Hillary was going to speak at the rally at the UN, until the heard that Palin was supposed to be there, at which time Hillary cancelled. She would rather not pressure Iran if it meant being on the same stage as Palin. Thus, she would rather win than help defeat the enemy.
Using the same event, the organizers of the event who happened to be on the left then asked Palin not to show up. It was more important for them to deny Palin a platform than it was to pressure Iran. They said they didn't want to appear one-sided, but remember, the Dems were the ones who refused to come.
There are dozens of other examples. Just to be brief, during the 60's to 80's it was more important for the left to be against the anti-communists than it was to be against the communists.
That is why they tried to hinder anything Reagan (or other GOP leaders) did to fight communism. It was more important to fight Reagan.
Final example, before the Iraq war, there was a TV interview with one of the "human shields" who was living at, and therefore "guarding" a water treatment plant in Iraq. After giving an interview where he expressed his dislike of Bush, he gave a tour of the area he was protecting, including his bedroom, set up by the Iraqi government. His bed was under a portriat of Sadam.
His hatred to Bush was the governing factor to the point where he had nothing bad to say about Bush's enemy who was truly one of the worst people in the history of the last few centuries. Nope, got to defeat Bush.
don't have a party. There are at least a half a dozen regular posters here thay you consider "on the right" are actually independents that are neither Republicans or Democrats. Recognizing that McCain is far better, or at least far less harmful to this country doesn't make me or them a Republican.
I am very concerned with defeating Obama, who I see as the enemy. He advocates policies that will cost me hundreds of thousands personally, cost the country countless billions and send us back down the road of the late seventies.
Massive tax hikes added to an already fragile economy would be disastrous to this country.
From what I see the libs seem to be more concerned with merely winning, they have been crying foul for eight years now. The number of libs that still haven't gotten over the 2000 election is astounding and disturbing. How can they move into the future when they can't let go of the past?
here aren't explicitly loyal to a party and are very thoughtful. Just not very many.
I understand your position on Obama, too. Let me ask you a question- should we continue to finance the war, the bailouts, etc. with more deficit spending or should we increase taxes to actually pay for what we want government to do?
I realize that's a bit of a false dichotomy because I excluded the choice of cutting government spending but let's get real. No way is government spending going to get cut and that would actually be worse for the economy than increasing taxes since the government spending multiplier is larger than the tax multiplier.
"He advocates policies that will cost me hundreds of thousands personally"
(Posted by GaGambler)
If one make less than $250,000/year Obama's tax plan won't touch you.
Most Americans earning $150,000/year seem to be quite comfortable and have ALL the necessities(as well as many luxuries) well taken care of.
How many fuck'n homes, cars, boats, Rolex watches, swimming pools, custom tailored suits, country club memberships etc do you NEED?
My heart fuck'n bleeds that you and your avarice addled top 5% are going to need to cut back on your Beluga caviar and luxury vacations.
Now PLEASE excuse me while I continue my Internet search for a health care plan that I can budget into a sub $50,000/year wage.
-- Modified on 9/24/2008 6:59:54 AM
They never actually work in the real world. They are only campaign fodder.
I hear this bullshit from conservatives all the time. I don't know if you're lying or just ignorant, but there are many, many political solutions to problems that have worked just fine.
Drive on the interstate highway system much? Political solution to a problem.
Did you go to public schools? Political solution to a problem? Of course, we have current problems in that system which need political solutions now but conservatives are afraid of an educated public and have been fighting spending the money necessary to reform education.
Social Security and Medicare. Yeah, laugh. These two programs have worked incredibly well for almost two generations and, with some modest tweaking, will continue to work. Contrary to the conservative Chicken Little squawking, SS is not going bankrupt.
WWII. Yeah, it was fought by the military but who finances and directs the military? That's right, politicians.
Reagan's first round of tax cuts. Yes, we had a problem with marginal tax rates being too high. Solution? Politicians cut taxes.
requires that I agree with your solutions or agree with your definition of "what actually works in the real world'.
When libs appear to be compromising they invariably have set up false choices or inserted a poison pill in the 'solution'. Case in point. New drilling as part of their new energy policy? They know very well that their concession to allow new drilling is in the least productive areas and those adjoining states which are FORBIDDEN from benefiting will veto or opt out.
-- Modified on 9/23/2008 6:15:35 PM
if I were to see a consistent adherence to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and needs of the citizens by either party or their individual politicians.
From what I surmise each party picks particular Constitutional ideologies, dogma and straw-man issues in a concerted attempt to chronically enrage the other side and keep the public fighting among themselves while the politicians smash, grab and usurp as much of the American legacy and treasure as they can.
George Washington was right in his detesting of political "parties".
a queen?
What we need is candidates that play neither to organized left or right ideologies; but rather to Constitutional precepts.
It is counter productive madness to have parties that require towing the line on the Second Amendment also demand that the representative ignore and rail against individual civil liberty issues like reproductive choice, OR the absolute opposite.
It would be refreshing to see someone genuinely in the center. Someone who could support both the first and second ammendments, not spend countless hours disputing Roe v Wade and Gay Marriage.
I really wish our country was in such good shape that Gay Marriage was the worst thing we had to worry about. I guess if you are gay AND you want to get married(I still don't why you'd want to), the issue becomes more important. To me it defines "non issue"
actions by my govenment - that gives all an equal shot at "the dream"
as to your statement that those on the rigth are more concerned with merely winning than they are understanding.... that could be said about the left as well. Neither side has a monopoly on wise, fair and logically sound. Want an example... the right believes that government regulation is largely unnecessary - and now look at the mess of Fannie mae and Freddie Mac...
The left believes that year after year of "social promotion" is a good thing... and they wonder why we have illiterate High school grads....
Both parties are so concerened with polarization of the voting public - that they fail to truly appeal to the vast majority of Americans... I am neither right nor left.... I hold positions in both camps... and where I doubt - I will always go with the opinion that provides the most freedom to the individual - and at the same time protects the most people from the abusses of the excesses of the few privaledged.
want an example? Abortion - I honestly cannot support abortion on a personal level - but to tell someone else "how they should" think about the issue I feel would limit their choice.... conservative position? probably not -
Energy- I think that the goal of Al Gore - getting off fossil fuels is a very noble goal... but I hate the "playing with truth" dance he does about global warming. it would be far better to take the stance that for the US to continue as a sovereign nation - we MUST be energy independant - and that means alternative energy sources... but it also means we drill here, drill now, and build more refineries... Liberal position? probably not. But it does achieve the same end.
I am very much sick of the double standard professed by many special interest groups... Examples? NAACP... and other black freedom movements... why do they celebrate Barak Obama, but in the very same breath - call Colin Powel an "uncle tom" IN ALL OF AMERICA I respect Colin Powel the most ... Why? Because rather than be an "uncle tom" he resigned from Buse 43's cabinet when he realized he was being used.... not exactly an easy thing to do.
Another example? Where is NOW - or the feminists - who should be celebrating the "have it all hockey mom" H clinton - runs for President... hailed as the person to break the glass ceiling and HAVE IT ALL- S Palin? should stick to staying home.. and bein' tha little woman - cause she could not have two neurons that synapse in her cute little head.... talk about your double standards...
yea, both sides sicken me. they should you as well.
BSD: Well said. Thank you for stating what I would have difficulty writing.