Adam Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 My question was meant to be whether the battle between conservatives and liberals has become bigger than democrats vs. republicans. IMHO, it has, and until the democrats nominate a conservative democrat, they will not return to the white house, so nominating Clinton would be a waste of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 My question was meant to be whether the battle between conservatives and liberals has become bigger than democrats vs. republicans. IMHO, it has, and until the democrats nominate a conservative democrat, they will not return to the white house, so nominating Clinton would be a waste of time 174783[/snapback] Why should we move more to the center when the republicans are moving more to the right? We lost 51 to 48. No way. I don't know about any of the other libs on this board, but I'm not going to sacrifice what I believe in just because a few talking heads on TV say it's what we need to get back into the White House. I'll just fight harder on the local level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 In the next couple of years the right wingers in office (I don't call them conservatives because they don't adhere to the conservative values of balanced budgets or limiting government interference in our private lives) will let the power go to their head, will overreach in their proposals, and distance themselves from enough moderates that there will be enough of a swing in voters to make a difference. Clinton was a conservative in the true sense; balanced budget and reduced interference in our private lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 In the next couple of years the right wingers in office (I don't call them conservatives because they don't adhere to the conservative values of balanced budgets or limiting government interference in our private lives) will let the power go to their head, will overreach in their proposals, and distance themselves from enough moderates that there will be enough of a swing in voters to make a difference. Clinton was a conservative in the true sense; balanced budget and reduced interference in our private lives. 175140[/snapback] REDUCED INTERFERENCE? Clinton raised taxes eacch time he could. He expanded social programs, hired more policemen.... just to name a few. Nice delusion you've got there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 REDUCED INTERFERENCE? Clinton raised taxes eacch time he could. He expanded social programs, hired more policemen.... just to name a few. Nice delusion you've got there. 175160[/snapback] Yes he did and having cops on the street and providing health insurance for children is VERY BAD isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Yes he did and having cops on the street and providing health insurance for children is VERY BAD isn't it? 175219[/snapback] Unfortunately, a lot of those cops were needed to shuffle the additional paperwork required under the Brady Law. If you are going to hire cops to patrol the streets, fine. I am not a fan of hiring cops just to process more paperwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Yes he did and having cops on the street and providing health insurance for children is VERY BAD isn't it? 175219[/snapback] Providing health care would have been a better idea. Providing insurance only feeds an already bloated and inefficient industry that quite frankly shows itself increasingly incapable of providing true health care no matter what your level of insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daryl Manonica Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Why should we move more to the center when the republicans are moving more to the right? We lost 51 to 48. No way. I don't know about any of the other libs on this board, but I'm not going to sacrifice what I believe in just because a few talking heads on TV say it's what we need to get back into the White House. I'll just fight harder on the local level. 174797[/snapback] That's the spirit! What the Democrats need a hard turn to the left....not to move closer to the GOP. I think Nancy Pelosi would make a great candidate for President on '08! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 My question was meant to be whether the battle between conservatives and liberals has become bigger than democrats vs. republicans. IMHO, it has, and until the democrats nominate a conservative democrat, they will not return to the white house, so nominating Clinton would be a waste of time 174783[/snapback] Well, I thought I gave you a pretty good response on the other thread, and would have liked to read your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 30, 2004 Author Share Posted December 30, 2004 Well, I thought I gave you a pretty good response on the other thread, and would have liked to read your thoughts. 176790[/snapback] I think Bush won because he has a conservative base. Conservativism is taking a hold as morales seem to bebreaking down- everything is entertainment and technology. We need a place to put those who prioritize those 2 things above morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I think Bush won because he has a conservative base. Conservativism is taking a hold as morales seem to bebreaking down- everything is entertainment and technology. We need a place to put those who prioritize those 2 things above morality. 185862[/snapback] Complaining about a "breakdown in morals" has been a popular mantra for generations of politicians looking for attention. It is as predictable as older generations complaining about the music of younger generations. Bush won because he is an incumbent in war time. He we elected by one of the lowest margins ever for a re-elected President because his Presidency has been something akin to a disaster. He has 4 years to turn that around and I hope he does. Which morales are breaking down by the way? Is it the majority of people who are pro-choice or who favor gay unions? Or maybe the problem is too much violence and sex on TV and in advertisements. If you think for one second that this will change, that corporations will suddenly stop producing precisely what Americans, using their dollars as votes, really want, you are mistaken. They have no agenda or politics beyond profit. They will sell what sells. That isn't Sean Penn's fault, but it is the fault of the very conservative corporate sultans who own the studios, the networks, the recording industry and the publishing houses. They give us what we want despite all the holier-than-thou pretensions of politicians masquerading as preachers to gather votes from the faithful. Moral breakdown? More of a national mental breakdown that we reward these charlatans with votes if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Why should we move more to the center when the republicans are moving more to the right? We lost 51 to 48. No way. I don't know about any of the other libs on this board, but I'm not going to sacrifice what I believe in just because a few talking heads on TV say it's what we need to get back into the White House. I'll just fight harder on the local level. 174797[/snapback] There is no sense moving to the right on social issues, the republicans will just move a little further to the right themselves. Its not like there is a limit as to how far they can go. You can't outflank them there. Democrats should cut taxes like mad hatters but only for the middle class and forget about the effect on the budget. They'll need to put on poker faces and spit out some mumbo jumbo when the press brings up how much that would tank the budget. When it comes to putting money in people's pockets, they'll believe any half-baked explanation justifying it democrats can come up with. Republicans don't worry about the budget when rewarding their constituents, why should we? At the same time, we need to target republican congressman in states with large cities such as Florida, California and New York. We need to show the locals how these guys are helping to screw over their own states by supporting budgetary policies that reward rural states by taking federal tax dollars from the wealth producing states and bestowing it in true communist style on rural states who receive tons more in federal $$$ than they pay in federal taxes. Voters in the wealth producing states need to see why their states are losing army bases while those welfare states keep theirs. Its because those welfare state congressman stick together and can count on just enough republican congressman from northern and coastal states to give them the votes they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts