Gavin in Va Beach Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 I'll buy that...but only in as much as the pansy-ass centers, not having the guts to put together a platform that represents the majority of party members, feel they have to court the extremes so they can represent everyone. Can't piss off the Pat Robertson crowd by strongly representing the 90% of conservatives who recognize he's a crock of sh--. Let's face it, politics is run by special interests. Which means it's going to be dictated by the fringes, since they're the most special of special interests. 702230[/snapback] Sometimes you think it's insane when you realize that politics is like a runaway train? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I don't see it as a contradiction. By "party" I mean "party platform" or ideology. There is a reason I'm a liberal Dem and not a Rep. I don't see a problem with a consensus party ideology. If Joe Lieberman doesn't want to be part of that ideology, then Joe Lieberman should leave it. 702037[/snapback] Wow! You think that Joe Lieberman should leave the dem party because he disagrees with some of your liberal views? Have you ever wondered why dems just continue to lose? Read what you posted, and I think we have at least a partial answer. I tend to be pro-labor very often. Abortion and Gay Marriage are not issues that I care about. I am conservative wrt foreign policy. Are you stating that there is no room for me in "your" party? Maybe I should just step away, right? Also, what I have not noticed in this thread is any mention of politicians acting upon the wishes of their constituents. For example, a vast majority of American citizens are against amnesty for illegal aliens (or whatever you would like to call the senate bill), yet phonies such as Bush, Kennedy and McCain are tripping all over themselves trying to pass this bill in order to please their corporate puppeteers. Yeah, believe it or not, most citizens don't believe that anchor babies should be guaranteed by law a cheaper college education than our children, despite the vote from our sellout senate. Do you think that dems should take the desires of citizens into account, or should they in fact be bound to the liberal stance on every issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 How can something that hasn't been tried in years be proven to not work? And, what's your definition of "working?" To my mind, an unfettered belief in the private sector as is "works" on an economic level. Some people get rich. I don't begrudge them that. I do, however, think that it forces people who want to stay rich to continue the support of a system that is unsustainable. It doesn't account for the changes that will need to be made for a future far after our time because it is so focused on being as successful as possible in the here and now. We need a re-definition of what "successful" means that includes sustainability and accounts for humans as part of the earth, rather than earth as a part of our lives. Flies in the face of human nature? Look at the platforms and tell me which side addresses the fact that humans are forever going to make mistakes. I think the real argument is that conservatives think you can coach out those mistakes, and, in my opinion, at their best, liberals think we need to address those mistakes while working toward something better. The problem is when one side wants to legislate morality and the other wants to legislate all sorts of excuses for people who refuse to try and better themselves. The difficult task to negotiate is how not to penalize those who ARE trying to better themselves. 702194[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 702898[/snapback] I know your an advocate for a third party and I would like to read your thoughts. I have decided to vote for a third party and would appreciate any suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I know your an advocate for a third party and I would like to read your thoughts. I have decided to vote for a third party and would appreciate any suggestions. 702917[/snapback] None of the above, works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 None of the above, works for me. 702918[/snapback] How's the poll search goin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Wow! You think that Joe Lieberman should leave the dem party because he disagrees with some of your liberal views? Have you ever wondered why dems just continue to lose? Read what you posted, and I think we have at least a partial answer. I tend to be pro-labor very often. Abortion and Gay Marriage are not issues that I care about. I am conservative wrt foreign policy. Are you stating that there is no room for me in "your" party? Maybe I should just step away, right? Also, what I have not noticed in this thread is any mention of politicians acting upon the wishes of their constituents. For example, a vast majority of American citizens are against amnesty for illegal aliens (or whatever you would like to call the senate bill), yet phonies such as Bush, Kennedy and McCain are tripping all over themselves trying to pass this bill in order to please their corporate puppeteers. Yeah, believe it or not, most citizens don't believe that anchor babies should be guaranteed by law a cheaper college education than our children, despite the vote from our sellout senate. Do you think that dems should take the desires of citizens into account, or should they in fact be bound to the liberal stance on every issue? 702893[/snapback] I stand by my statement that Joe Lieberman is a political whore and does not represent the Democrats that voted to put him in office. From today's (Sunday's) Hartford Courant: The Bush administration values Joe Lieberman because he has been a crucial ally in efforts to free Enron-style corporate crooks from regulation, transfer wealth to the wealthy, hound gays, trample on the rights of government critics and sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis to dishonest, dangerous military adventurism.[snip] So I went up to the attic and pulled out my Lieberman file, with clippings and documents collected from covering him during his three terms in Washington. It was true. My memory was faulty. I had remembered that, out of the eye of voters back home, Lieberman developed working alliances with the most hypocritical and dangerous right-wingnuts like Ralph Reed and Charles Murray and Bill Bennett. But I had forgotten just how extensive a record he had accumulated. [snip] Finally, it's true that Joe Lieberman is a genuinely nice person, a decent man. That has nothing to do with his record, with masquerading as a Connecticut Democrat while enlisting in a Republican assault on Americans' bedrock freedoms and norms of social justice. He's not a Dem, and shouldn't pretend to be running as one just to get elected. And, in the unlikely event that Ned Lamont does beat him in the primary, he hasn't gone on the record denying a run as an independent just out of spite. He's not just disagreeing with my views, as you state it. He's spitting in the face of the voters in Conn who voted for him thinking he was one thing, only to have him go to DC and bend over with a smile on his face and vote the other way. That's not just my opinion. Do a search of any Conn-based newspaper. He is being exposed as the fraud/whore that he really is. Wow! You think that Joe Lieberman should leave the dem party because he disagrees with some of your liberal views? Have you ever wondered why dems just continue to lose? Read what you posted, and I think we have at least a partial answer. I tend to be pro-labor very often. Abortion and Gay Marriage are not issues that I care about. I am conservative wrt foreign policy. Are you stating that there is no room for me in "your" party? Maybe I should just step away, right? 702893[/snapback] The Dems aren't losing. In fact, they are running strong in some very critical national races, and they are running on historically liberal platforms. You say you are pro-labor. Then that is a view you have in common with liberal Dems. You don't care about civil rights for homosexuals or a women's right to choose. That's fine. Unless you feel strongly against those issues (like Rape Gurney Joe Lieberman), I don't see how that would affect your willingness to vote Dem. You say you are "conservative wrt foreign policy." That's a tidy little talking point, but says absolutely nothing about what you think a "liberal foreign policy" is. I suspect you think the liberals would just turn everything over to the UN, right? That we'd just let radical fundamentalists and despots run loose, that we'd hand out visas to terrorists, and let anybody and everybody into the country with a fresh $100 bill. I suspect you've bought the Republican characterization that liberals are soft and we don't love this country as much as the conservatives do, and that we wouldn't defend it just as hard, if not harder. Well, you would be wrong, Bill. So, Bill, it sounds to me that you probably would fit in quite well in "my" party. You just didn't realize it. The gist of this thread was that it would be easier to bring about a third party than reform an existing party. I have put my views out, saying that I would rather work to reform one of the existing parties that "at it's core" sums up a majority of my beliefs. I want the politicians that I vote for to adhere to those principles. That's why I vote for them. If someone I vote for turns around post-election and votes completely the opposite to almost every single issue that comes up, then I have the right to call him out and help to vote his ass out of the party. I don't see why that is such a big deal for some here to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 702898[/snapback] Laugh some more, please. Put yourself out there and let me know what you're laughing at. Offer up some better plan besides, "everybody sucks." Give me some debate and show me what's so ridiculous about what I've offered here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts