main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

How to Fix a Sinking Political Party (or how to save the Democrat Party)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by TripleB, Nov 4, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth_OlsenTwins

    Darth_OlsenTwins Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 18, 2002
    libmav, and Kerry called Bush out every time on that issue (tax relief), did he not? Claiming that it put an undue burden on the middle and working class. Claiming that they now carried more of the tax burden and that Bush only helped the rich get richer. The only thing Bush had were tax cuts, thats it.

    I generally do believe that that is the base of the Democratic Party, the working and middle class. But my point is to ask how the Democratic Party could believe that the richest person in Congress, a person who has never had a working class lifestyle, a person who has never struggled financially, and a person who never worked hard for a living could ever be that emissary. It just simply wasn't believeable.
     
  2. appleseed

    appleseed Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2002
    All those people in the not so great illegitimate red states like Georgia, just to pick one at sort of random, who voted in a manner not to your liking aren't people with opinions worthy of being heard and worthy of respect. No, those people are merely unintelligent, ignorant, backwoods trailer trash, racist homophobes only worthy of contemplation because there are 59,000,000 of them.

    I was born, raised and have lived all my life in a southern red (neck) state and that's exactly what the vast majority of people down here are. I just happened to pick Georgia out of a hat. You can substitute any other southern state and it's the same. I've travelled all through the south as well as all over the country and I stand by my opinions 100%. I'm not speaking from an ignorant point of view-I'm from down here. I just happen to be able to recognize the fact that the south sucks.

    The Democrats cannot attract these people without selling out. It's just not possible. The south is getting more reactionary, more fundamantalist and is going back to it's racist roots more and more. It's 100% Republican controlled and always will be. If the Democrats have to turn into faux Republicans to have a shot in the south then what's the point?

    It'll take at least 15 years of nasty media manipulation for Democrats to even equal the scales with the Republicans, and I honestly don't think they have the guts to do it. A party built of morals of equality, tolerance and fairness does not attract the Karl Rove types that are necessary to use ruthless measures to win political campaigns. For America to return to it's progressive roots, things will have to get so bad that a change of direction is clearly needed, like when FDR was elected. Until then the GOP will use fanatical religion, racism and homophobia to continue to control America.

    What I want is to see the Democratic Party get back to its own roots. They have lost their way. Look back to JFK, FDR, Truman...look forward to Barack Obama. The Democrats need to cut out all their BULL and hatred and regain some class and charisma.

    Barack Obama is incredibly impressive, but he has absolutely no chance to ever get elected President. Red (neck) state voters will NEVER vote for a black man for President. Plus we need to see how he performs as a Senator first.

    The best bet in the short term is still for Gulliani or McCain to beat J.E.B. Bush for the Republican nomination and drive the party back to the middle at least somewhat. Then maybe if the Democrats nominate a centrist they could eventually have a chance. At least the a more moderate leader could be elected no matter who won. I'd still vote Democratic in all likelihood, but if Rudy Gulliani was the President I certainly wouldn't throw myself under a bus or anything.
     
  3. liberalmaverick

    liberalmaverick Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Darth_OlsenTwins: The fact is, you were wrong when you said Bush did not try to win the middle-class vote by claiming to be a champion of middle-class people. Whether or not Kerry could effectively discredit Bush is irrelevant.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt was rich. John F. Kennedy was rich. Are you telling me those Presidents cared not a whit for the working class?
     
  4. appleseed

    appleseed Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2002
    It's ironic that most of the wealth is in the blue states, yet those are the same states that vote Democratic. Meanwhile people in red (neck) states slit their own financial throat because gay marriage grosses them out. Idiots.
     
  5. darth_paul

    darth_paul Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2000
    libmav - No, I didn't infer in any way that your strategies were illegal or anything like that. Didn't mean to give that impression at all.

    I'll preface this by saying I have no idea what sort of plan you've come up with, but all I can think is that it has to do with policies to adopt, types of candidates to run, and how to present the candidates and their issues. If it's something else then you could have reasons for not wanting to discuss it that I just can't guess. But I don't see what other types of ideas you could have.

    I guess the problem for my understanding is that I'm not particularly partisan. This may be because I'm not afforded the chance to be; the only party that comes close to matching my beliefs on a majority of subjects doesn't run candidates in most races. But, either way, I have trouble getting into this "us vs. them" mindset for politics as a whole. I understand how individual issues can break down like that, and indeed, I tend to fall into the language of "us vs. them" when debating such topics as gay marriage. But politics is complicated and any candidate or party will be about a wide variety of issues. So it would seem to me that instead of saying "Go Democrats" and doing everything possible to prop up the Democratic Party, no matter what, it would be more constructive to open all the issues in question up for discussion to everyone.

    Again, this may just be my political perspective talking, but I just don't think you can support your party like you support your alma mater. I don't see the merit in propping up the Democrats just because they are Democrats. Theoretically, you should be propping them up because they agree with them. In that ase, if a Republican takes your ideas and runs with them, isn't this a good thing, as it means your ideas are entering the political system? If, on the other hand, Republicans use your ideas to launch a scathing critique of the Democrats, isn't this likewise a good thing, in helping you find your faults, find defenses, and emerge with stronger ideas and as a stronger party?

    As I say, maybe I don't understand what's going on, but if I do, I don't see the purpose in breaking it down into a war with two sides as opposed to a swirling pool of ideas and issues.

    -Paul
     
  6. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    JediXen,

    You're confusing years and years of politics, with one election. I'm talking about a gradual buildup of irritation on the part of christians and conservatives and the waning of the democratic party's concern for their own conservative and/or christian constituents.

    They sold us down the river for platforms erected on special interest money: abortion, gay activists, feminist groups, environmental groups, etc. Now, as a general rule, most americans are not against the freedoms of others, nor are they against policies that protect the environment, but they are against being taken to court if they don't hire who the liberal lawyers tell them to hire, or fired from their jobs if they abstain from tolerance training because it disagrees with their religious standards, etc.

    It seems common sense has flown out the window. As a christian, I am against the concept (not the people) of homosexuality. As an american, I support the gay americans right to marry. I also expect them to support my rights as a christian not to be forced to hire a drag queen in my bible bookstore, unless I want to. (Hey, if I had a bible bookstore and a transvestite wanted a job there, I'd probably hire the person just so I could witness to him/her night and day, but that's another issue.)

    People should not be forced to accept someone else's moral values, unless those moral values are written into law. Then there's the question of whether or not those laws are in keeping with our constitutional rights, which should preceed and hold superior position to any other legal document.
     
  7. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Hah benevolent republican.

    <makes the sign of the cross over Libmav> ooh I bet that burns don't it?

    :p


    Anyways.

    The Democrats need someone to step up to the plate as a party leader who appeals to middle america.

    I realize Kerry 'only' lost by a hundred thousand votes in Ohio, but frankly if your plan is to just try and get an extra hundred thousand votes in Ohio you're going to lose again... and again... and again.

    To win you must appeal wider. You don't need to be conservative, but what you do need is liberal policies expressed in a way that makes sense to the majority of Americans by someone they feel they can trust.

    Part of what I feel the democratic party needs to do is get rid of the freefor all primaries they're used to. Yes I realize you think having more choices means betetr choices or something along those lines but lets be blatantly honest here. Kucinich? Moseley-Braun? Realism is a good thing people.

    In an atmosphere where many liberals mantra was 'anybody but Bush' why did you waste months self-destructing over who that anybody was going to be?

    Months wasted pandering to democratic special interests instead of focusing on uniting in the one thing that was going to be the motive force for most of them anyways.

    Think about it. The major voters in primaries are the hard core people. These are the people most into issues, msot likely to vote, I'm sure if you offended the anti-war crowd it would piss them off, but I doubt it would do so enough for them to vote for Bush. The worst they'd do is stay home, in which case it isn't much fo a deal since for the most part the most liberal segments which you might offend are also those safely encysted in safe Democratic states. Lets say you actually manage to offend enough new yorkers that one million stay home instead of voting for you... you'd still have won New York by almost 200,000 votes.

    Make the electoral system work for you. Pandering to safe special interests doesn't do that.

    To summerize my confused rantings.

    You need a leader who is trusted by middle America, who is high profile, and whose appeal extends more toward the mid west then towards the safe coastal areas.
     
  8. Jedi_Xen

    Jedi_Xen Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 26, 2001
    You need a leader who is trusted by middle America, who is high profile, and whose appeal extends more toward the mid west then towards the safe coastal areas.

    This is why some Democrats support clones, Bill Clinton and Senator Obama are the future. :) Sorry but your right, Im looking forward to more Obama, guys we see here our future President, he crushed the hatefilled Alan Keyes. Im looking forward to seeing more of this guy.
     
  9. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    I would be careful counting your black presidential candidates before they served a term in a single elected position.
     
  10. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    Hold up. Hold up. Since when is Alan Keyes hate-filled? Did something happen here and no one notified me?

    I want Condoleeza Rice for president :D You can read about her here:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
     
  11. Darth_OlsenTwins

    Darth_OlsenTwins Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 18, 2002
    Darth_OlsenTwins: The fact is, you were wrong when you said Bush did not try to win the middle-class vote by claiming to be a champion of middle-class people. Whether or not Kerry could effectively discredit Bush is irrelevant.

    And that went so very little into disproving my point. You yourself even believe and have gone to great lengths to show that Kerry was a much better candidate when it comes to the needs of those classes. You even just posted a paragraph showing that Americans aren't supposedly getting anywhere near the tax relief they were promised.

    Yet the middle class and working class could not get Kerry elected. Why is that? Because they were fooled by Bush's tax cuts? Hell, Kerry promised them the same tax cuts.

    Or is it possibly because Kerry simply couldn't get them to believe in him? That possibly they thought that John Kerry could not even relate to them? What does John Kerry even have in common with anyone in those classes?

    Franklin D. Roosevelt was rich. John F. Kennedy was rich. Are you telling me those Presidents cared not a whit for the working class?

    I'm telling you that they simply didn't buy Kerry's message. He didn't have even a shred of the charisma of FDR or JFK, thus he could not relate to them on any kind of personal level. And, honestly, I'm not sure he had anything to offer them in the first place.
     
  12. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    Does This Hate Honor America?
    By Thomas D. Segel
    September 24, 2004

    He was wounded, he received two surgeries and was only out trying to enjoy some music when he was hit, thrown to the ground, kicked and beaten unconscious. This was the greeting a 19-year-old soldier received from his countrymen while on medical leave from Iraq, according to a report by the Columbus Dispatch.

    Army PFC Foster Barton had been sent home for some rest and recuperation, following two surgeries on a serious knee wound. He decided to attend a concert, showing up for the event wearing a pro-military T-shirt.

    For that statement of his patriotism, Barton was attacked and beaten while his assailant screamed profanities and hate filled language about the United States Armed Forces. What is even more disturbing are the many witnesses who stood by and watched the attack but did nothing.

    Vietnam veterans commenting on the attack of this wounded soldier recalled the assaults, the spitting and the hate filled language they encountered upon their return from combat. Those attacks occurred at the same time John Kerry was diminishing their service before the United States Congress.

    It is their feeling Kerry is doing the same thing again during his presidential campaign....and with the same impact on American service personnel.

    The hate language of the left has translated into violence against a young soldier who wears the same Purple Heart medal so loudly heralded by Kerry supporters. It is the anti-war supporters that are John Kerry's core campaigners who breed such violent outbursts.

    When Foster Barton heals from his wound and from his public beating, he will be returning to his unit in Iraq. What kind of message will he be taking back to the men and women of his unit?

    Mike Linnane, a retired Special Forces soldier believes we must not allow this attack to become the life-long memory on Barton's feelings about the nation's gratitude for his service. Says Linnane, "I have spoken with Jeb Phillips, the Columbus Ohio reporter, who wrote this up. Phillips has agreed to accept and forward letters and packages to PFC Foster." Correspondence can be addressed to:

    PFC Foster Barton
    C/o Jeb Phillips
    Columbus Dispatch
    34 South 3rd Street
    Columbus, Ohio 43215

    "I invite all of you to join me in expressing our gratitude to this young American hero", says Linnane. "Let's tell him and his buddies what America really thinks about his service."
    http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/tsegel/2004/ts_0924.shtml
    ---------------------

    My question to you is, why didn't any of the onlookers at the concert stop this if they truly had any compassion for our american military? At that point, the campaign against Bush had equated to the campaign against the military, just as was suspected.

     
  13. liberalmaverick

    liberalmaverick Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 17, 2004
    darth_paul:
    I'll preface this by saying I have no idea what sort of plan you've come up with, but all I can think is that it has to do with policies to adopt, types of candidates to run, and how to present the candidates and their issues.

    You would be correct.

    As I say, maybe I don't understand what's going on, but if I do, I don't see the purpose in breaking it down into a war with two sides as opposed to a swirling pool of ideas and issues.

    Forgive the childish tone, but they started it. (You saw those Republican quotes I put up, right?) For too long, we Democrats have been sitting around dreaming of a bipartisan happy land when that is the last thing that Washington D.C. is. If we keep that up we'll lose elections for eternity.

    Politics is war precisely because political campaigns are not easy to win, so they require discipline, conviction, and strategy - precisely what is required for an actual military campaign. We need the fervor in our base and the determination to succeed in order to win a victory. We saw some of that this year on our side and much more of it on the Republican side, except that Republicans had better strategy and tactics. Karl Rove's a bloody genius; he's like the Genghis Khan of the political arena.

    I guess the problem for my understanding is that I'm not particularly partisan.

    Exactly. If you're neither a Republican nor a Democrat, you're not a target of either dominant party, so you're situated well above the fray where it's safe. From that observational vantage point, it's easy to rhapsodize about common ground and such.

    If you're a foot soldier in the midst of battle, however, you don't care about some ideal of common ground, you just want to stay alive.

    There's a good article about this topic that I can't locate at the moment. At any rate, what it says is that bipartisanship is at best a phantom dream that will never exist in a permanent state. It may come about temporarily, like it did in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but it always inevitably dissipates, for a good reason that is well exemplified in this forum: it's hard to convince people of principle to change their minds.

    Again, this may just be my political perspective talking, but I just don't think you can support your party like you support your alma mater. I don't see the merit in propping up the Democrats just because they are Democrats. Theoretically, you should be propping them up because they agree with them.

    For the most part, yes. There are all too many "traitors" among the Democrats (departing Senators Zell Miller (Ga.) and John Breaux (La.), for example), however, which is why I don't believe in supporting Democrats just because they're Democrats; they have to be real Democrats.

    In that ase, if a Republican takes your ideas and runs with them, isn't this a good thing, as it means your ideas are entering the political system?

    It is good in that sense, and it is good in the sense that we Democrats would have a reliable vote on the other side of the aisle. But it'd be best if that Republican just switch party affiliations to Democrat. It'd put him/her into "the fold", and it'd also make things official in the sense of deciding who has majority/minority, in-power/out-of-power status in the legislative body/governorship/White House.

    If, on the other hand, Republicans use your ideas to launch a scathing critique of the Democrats, isn't this likewise a good thing, in helping you find your faults, find defenses, and emerge with stronger ideas and as a stronger party?

    Not if it's destructive rather than constructive criticism.

    Now, I better shut up before I give too much away. :p

    Darth_OlsenTwins:
    And that went so very little into disproving my point.

    And that wasn't my intent, though it certainly is within my power.

    Yet the middle class and working class could not get Kerry elected. Why is that? Because they were fooled by Bush's tax cuts? Hell, Kerry promised them the same tax cu
     
  14. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Please explain to me why my retiring State Senator John Breaux (D), LA is a traitor, maverick?

    Is it because he doesn't espouse the far left ideology that you do which has cost your party in national elections?

    The truth is you need MORE Democrats like John Breaux and Evan Bayh and LESS Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton if you want your party to survive in national elections in the future and not be relegated to perpetual minority status in Congress.

    I suppose a 'real' Democrat to you is Micheal Moore or Howard Dean. Those types are costing your party big time.

    No offense, but if you think the nation will accept your personal brand of 'liberalmaverick' ideology as wholesale or part of the moderate norm (on the left or the right), then you have a bit of a perception problem.

    The Democrats have a choice to make.

    They can go the way of liberalmaverick here and solidify themselves on the far left. In my opinion, that will doom the party for good in national elections.

    Or, they can moderate and begin to appeal to the heartland and South by starting to refrain from treating the 'flyover' country with scorn and an elitist mentality.

    I will remind you that no Democrat from the northeast has won the White House in over 40 years.
     
  15. Cyprusg

    Cyprusg Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 16, 2002
    My question to you is, why didn't any of the onlookers at the concert stop this if they truly had any compassion for our american military? At that point, the campaign against Bush had equated to the campaign against the military, just as was suspected.

    Absurdity has reached new heights ladies and gentlemen.

    First of all, we don't know the whole story. The accussation that he was attacked purely because of the shirt he was wearing is speculation on the part of the victim and his family.

    What strikes me as odd, having seen the actual shirt, is that someone saw the shirt, then without any words passed the victim, turned around, and punched him in the back of the head knocking him down. Even looking at the shirt on the internet, I could not tell what it said without reading the text description, and I certainly wouldn't have thought the person wearing the shirt was in the military just by looking at it.

    Plus the part about the "peace protester" was not in the orginal news story, and it seems to me like it was added by the Republican propaganda you guys eat up.

    Then to say that people didn't help this man because of him being a soldier is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. He's at a Toby Keith concert, I hate to stereotype, but I'd bet a thousand bucks at least 70% of concert goers are Republican. Have you ever been in a fight, have you ever seen a real fight? I've been in my share of fights and I've seen my share of fights, most of the time people don't get involved. But again, there is NO FRICKIN WAY the crowd was saying to themselves "I would help this guy...but he's a soldier so I'm going to let him get a beatdown". That's not even taking into account the fact that there is no possible way everyone in the crowd could have attributed that shirt to him being a soldier.

    So there's definintely a lot more to this story than what's being told. It just amazes me how you guys buy into such bull**** without an ounce of analytical thought.
     
  16. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    There wasn't much to analyze. I read the liberal version, the moderate version and the conservative version and they were all pretty much the same, except the liberals questioned whether or not the guy had done something to anger the other guy that beat him unconscious (you know, sorta like how it's the woman's fault if she wears shorts and a haltertop and some guy rapes her?). 6 witnesses claim they heard him yelling at him about being in the United States military. The shirt said "OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM" on it. My husband has one just like it. You get one if you are deployed to the region. Actually, a man beating a guy unconscious and yelling at him about his military career, isn't what I call hard to figure out. Guy on ground wearing Operation Iraqi Freedom shirt/Other guy beating guy on ground and yelling at him about being in the united states military. How is this hard to comprehend. The attacker's girlfriend actually tried to pull him off the soldier, according to the paper in the area where it happened, but this was after he was already unconscious and the attacker continued to kick him and so forth. What do you think set him off?
     
  17. Jades Fire

    Jades Fire Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 1998
    I don't think that things are as bad for the Democrats as the pundits, talking-heads, reporters looking for an angle, and the partisans on the other side want you to believe.

    If it wasn't for a poorly designed ballot and a bunch of inattentive voters, we could very well be talking about why the Republicans haven't been able to win in 4 successive presidential races.

    People who talk about MANDATES don't understand the concept of a mandate. The President won 51% to 48%. Almost 59.5 million people voted for Bush and almost 56 million people voted for Kerry. Talk about the President winning the most votes in any election is also pretty much moot. In 2000, Al Gore won the most votes in history, but as we all know, he wasn't even elected the President. The last President to have a real mandate was Reagan in 1984.

    Take a look at the states that were most directly affected by Sept. 11. All but one went for Kerry: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, and DC. The only 9/11 state for Bush was Virginia. I think that says something about the way people think the President has handled the issue of terrorism (a repudiation?).

    On most of the real issues of the election, John Kerry won. Bush lead on terrorism, and taxes by a smaller margin. Kerry won on Iraq, the economy/jobs, education, and health care, by large margins. Bush, of course, won on "moral values," which is quite nebulous and undefined.

    If the Republicans hadn't shrewdly brought up the wedge issue of gay marriage, it is a fair bet that Bush would not have won Ohio, and thus the election. It isn't a suprise that it was brought up prior to the election and that the GOP was able to get it on the ballot in some of the crucial swing states (Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon) as a way of energizing their base to vote for the ban and while their in the voting booth, for Bush too. As one religious conservative put it, Pennsylvania and Ohio are very similar in terms of voter demographics and voting patterns; one has a gay marriage initiative, the other didn't. Kerry won the one without it and lost the one with it.

    If it wasn't for "moral values," aka gay marriage, Bush would have lost this election. Republicans can't run and win on ideas, they have to run on values in order to win.

    As for the future of the Democratic Party, if it can get over it's hesitancy to talk about values, and start speaking to people in those terms, most especially in broad terms as it relates to social justice and economic security (good jobs and a work ethic that rewards people and doesn't keep 'em down), and convince people that Democrats don't hate religion (they don't) and aren't going to ban Bibles (never), then it can peel off some of those "moral values" voters who voted for Bush but are more aligned with Democrats on pocketbook issues.

    If they can do that, then the future of the Democratic party is bright and has a viable future.


    PS: And no Hillary in 2008. She'd get trounced and would be bad for the party.

    PPS: Look, anyone who believes that the Democratic party hates religion and wants to ban bibles is crazy. They've been brainwashed by conservative partisans and the right-wing media. They've tapped into the Christian persecution complex and played it like a piano. Break the shackles of your fear. Ask yourself if anyone who doesn't believe in God can get elected to higher office in this country? It's not possible. Democrats are believers too. They just believe it is personal and have a difficult time talking about it to others.
     
  18. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I would be careful counting your black presidential candidates before they served a term in a single elected position.

    Thank you, farraday. I believe that anyone who thinks Senator Obama should run in 2008 is an idiot. I want him to run in 2016, which I believe he will. That will give him two years in the Senate and enough time to grow on the American people and let them realize that just because he's black, doesn't mean he can't be president.
     
  19. DarthYama

    DarthYama Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 16, 2001
    So, what's being proposed is a one-party state? I'm packing up and moving to Burma* if that happens.

    *See, Burma, it would be easy to overthrow the government and let Aung San Suu Kyi be president. All you need is anti internet-filtering software and cause the workers to halt production of supplies for the military. However, in the US, you need tanks and giant robots.
     
  20. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    Jades Fire,

    What is this then?
    http://www.adherents.com/misc/school_houston.html

    Or this report:

    Court Upholds Teaching Bible as Fiction in Schools
    (2004-06-09) -- The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week upheld a lower court's ban on a weekly Bible class which has been taught in public schools for the past 51 years in Rhea County, TN, because the morality lessons treated the Bible as "religious truth."

    However, the court ruled that public schools may "teach moral lessons from the Bible as fiction."

    According to the ruling, "As long as the students understand that the Bible is not true, then its moral lessons--honesty, integrity, etc.--are constitutional."

    The Court gave the following example: "The school children could be told that the character 'Moses' went up on a mountain and pretended to talk to an imaginary friend who told him that people should not steal from each other. 'So, boys and girls,' the teacher could say, 'it's important that you also pretend that stealing is wrong.'"
    http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001733.html

    ------=======-


     
  21. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Take a look at the states that were most directly affected by Sept. 11. All but one went for Kerry: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, and DC. The only 9/11 state for Bush was Virginia. I think that says something about the way people think the President has handled the issue of terrorism (a repudiation?).

    I'm sorry are you really trying to argue New York city and Washington DC would have voted for Bush if he'd 'handled terrorism better'? That bullcrap. I mean honestly, complete and total bullcrap. Furthermroe the fouth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, are you trying to tell me this is more directly affectign Pennsylvanians then, I don't know the famalies of those unboard? I'm sorry this arguement is just really dumb.

    On most of the real issues of the election, John Kerry won. Bush lead on terrorism, and taxes by a smaller margin. Kerry won on Iraq, the economy/jobs, education, and health care, by large margins. Bush, of course, won on "moral values," which is quite nebulous and undefined.

    Uh yeah right, because votes are counted based on issues instead of geographical location. And how do you know these things? Exit polls? Aren't these the same exit polls which projected Kerry was going to win comfortably? Perhaps we should take all of their conclusions with a grain of salt hmm?

    But yeah "Kerry won on the issues"? Too bad he lost on, you know, actual votes.

    You're like a fan proudly proclaiming your team 'won' time of posession by ten minutes. Yeah? Well I'm sure the refs overlooked that when the other team was awarded the victory for scoring more points.
     
  22. Jades Fire

    Jades Fire Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 1998
    Undomiel,

    Did you really take a look at the second website you linked to? ScrappleFace, the daily news satire site,[/ib] You've been had. Seems like they took a little of something and really stretched it.

    Do you think real, isolated instances of religious intolerance are endemic of the whole of society? Should the entire Republican party be thought of as loony-toons because their newest Senator-elect has said that girls should not go to the bathroom alone because of rampant lesbianism? Websites like those are designed to whip you into a frenzy over Christian persecution. Isolated instances of misunderstandings and intolerance, captured on one place, gives the impression of a widespread problem, when it is not.

    Farrie,

    You're just one of the 'partisans' looking to make things sound worse than they are. Using words like 'bullcrap' and 'dumb' just illustrate it. You're not interested in a thoughtful conversation. Bush thought he could win New York, that's why he had his convention there, and he thought he could win New Jersey, where a large number of families whose family members died on 9/11. Here in Connecticut, another state with lots of casualties, Democrats did pretty well. Democrats increased their majorities in the state House and Senate; the state House now has a 2/3rds majority. We came within 4% percetage points of voting out Christopher Shays (R) because he'd stopped listening to the voters in his district.

    If Democrats can put up candidates that do a better job of connecting with people, then they've got a great chance. The issues are already on their side. A little tinkering with the 'game plan' and they'll gonna be back. Maybe not the House because almost no one gets booted out there, but the Senate and Presidency are not out of reach.

     
  23. lordmaul13

    lordmaul13 Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 18, 2000
    I just happened to pick Georgia out of a hat.

    We must have the same hat. ;)

    I've travelled all through the south as well as all over the country and I stand by my opinions 100%.

    You may stand by your opinion all you want but I, for one, cannot respect your opinion. It is close minded and arrogant to suggest that tens of millions of people you've never met are just a bunch of dumb rednecks based on the one thing you know about them: how they voted.

    It would be the exact same if I said all the blue state voters were elitist, condescending, arrogant, bleeding heart liberals and justified it by saying it's obviously true because they voted for John Kerry.

    The south is getting more reactionary, more fundamantalist and is going back to it's racist roots more and more. It's 100% Republican controlled and always will be.

    You mean those same states that seceded when a Republican was elected president?

    Meanwhile people in red (neck) states slit their own financial throat because gay marriage grosses them out. Idiots.

    Are you saying they're idiots because they have different values than you? Because maybe money isn't the end all be all for them? Or because maybe they don't think the Democratic agenda is financially good for them?

    For someone who is a member of a "party built of morals of equality, tolerance and fairness" you have made some awfully unequal, intolerant and unfair statements. Or are you only supposed to be tolerant and fair to gays and blacks?

    lordmaul13
     
  24. Hades2021

    Hades2021 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 29, 2003
    It's ironic that most of the wealth is in the blue states, yet those are the same states that vote Democratic. Meanwhile people in red (neck) states slit their own financial throat because gay marriage grosses them out. Idiots.

    So we're idiots because we still believe in something. Thanks a lot.

    Most midwesterners have morals, and are religious. We vote on issues like gay marriage and abortion. Kerry is pro-choice, so we went for Bush.

    11 states voted to ban gay marriage. It's not because it grosses them out, it's because it's WRONG. Sorry if we look in the Bible and see how Soddom and Gemorra (spelling?) were destroyed, and don't want the same thing happen to us.

    And I believe we are doing just fine financially, until I have some proof otherwise.
     
  25. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    Jades Fire,

    It isn't just satire, it makes a point. If we offer a class on biblical studies and then insist the teachers present it as fiction, it loses alot in the translation and might as well be pitched in the garbage for all the good it would do. The same would go for any subject they might teach that has the potential to be factual. When I attended college, my World Religions teacher was a hindu, and as a result, we took a great deal of time learning about eastern religions, most specifically hinduism. He never once mentioned that it was a fantasy or fictional. As far as he was concerned, it was the truth. No one complained, either, not even me, and I'm a christian. The teacher should be able to teach the subject material the way it was meant to be taught.

    In the other instances I linked, those cases are not going to remain isolated. When a judgement is made, the case can be used by other lawyers as precedent, depending on the outcome. These things have a way of building on themselves,
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.