Why do you Americans hate liberals?

AJA, you misread me.

The platform was changed by large infusions of cash from the Christian Coalition in 1979. The Republicans had been pro-choice before that, and they all of a sudden were rabid pro-lifers in the 1980 caucus.

And yet it wasn't as big an issue in the 1980 election as the economy, hostage crisis, etc. - that's why pro-choicer Bush was able to join Reagan's ticket by simply not bringing up his pro-choice stance again. The only person who ever mentioned it again was Barbara Bush, who said she was pro-choice and always would be, and didn't agree with her husband changing his mind the way he had, but it was his job not hers, or words to that effect.

1988 was the first election in which it was a main topic. Suddenly GHWB was staunchly pro-life, in direct conflict with his statements in the 1980 caucus.

EDIT: Hence, manufactured conflict. Because at no point was it all that huge a deal to the American public - until politicians stirred them up about it. Same deal with everything from desegregation (there are still black southerners who don't support this) to flag-burning.

 

The platform was changed by large infusions of cash from the Christian Coalition in 1979.

The Christian Coalition did not exist in 1979. Additionally, Christian conservatives are not a "big money" constituency - they are a sizable voting block, largely comprised of people who are not wealthy. Their contribution to candidates they support is not money, it's votes.

The Republicans had been pro-choice before that, and they all of a sudden were rabid pro-lifers in the 1980 caucus.

Reagan was pro-life, and he recognized that that viewpoint was not being recognized by either party. By doing so, he gained a lot of support from Southern Protestants and blue-collar Catholics, which contributed significanty to his unprecedented popularity.

In other words, I'm not sure it's a manufactured conflict, but in any case, it wasn't "manufactured" for the sake of money, it was "manufactured" for the sake of votes.

 

I've never heard George H Bush ever take a pro-abortion stance.

 

We never said they were all for money. Most manufactured conflicts are for votes.

 

What EagleJedi said. Except, all the players who later became the Christian Coalition WERE present in 1979, and this is also the year the Southern Baptist changed some of its tenets around to be more quasi-political, which began a longterm gradual alienation of many loyal members. These same people were involved in all of this. And I have seen more than one source note that these people do contribute substantially to Republican candidates, as well as help them win votes. They may not send as much cash as Enron, but it seems to be working.

Rikalonius, he debated it at the 1980 caucus. I remember watching. He also called Reagan's economic proposals "voodoo economics". Naturally, once the debating between them ended and they were on the same ticket, he tacitly adopted Reagan's take on the platform - that is to say, he never contradicted it publicly again.

For all I know, he may have always been pro-life and loved Reaganomics, and the other attitude was the front. All I'm saying is he changed his tune mightily because that's what politicians do.

And if they changed the tune to represent changing minds among their constituents, that would be one thing. But a little bit of watching history as it happens reveals that's virtually never their motive.

By the way, I don't mean to single out Republicans for hypocrisy - it's just in my lifetime Clinton is the only Democrat president I watched in action (was too young for Carter). I don't remember him ever changing his tune overtly on his platforms - I just recall him twisting words so eloquently you got the impression he'd said something substantial when in fact it was just a bunch of really good phrases that simply didn't apply to what he was being asked, and sometimes didn't even all fit together so well on second hearing. Equally manipulative, but not exactly the same tactic.

Anyway, the point is simply that they stir up conflict to get the voters riled up enough to vote. This is, IMO, bad for the country and not what they're supposed to be doing.

We would benefit so much if campaigning was legally limited to a few short weeks with one or two debates on broadcast TV and the internet, and no one be allowed to spend more than a certain amount on their campaign, so there's an equal playing ground. Otherwise, we might as well just put the offices up on eBay and let the highest bidder win.

 

All I'm saying is he changed his tune mightily because that's what politicians do.

I respect that. I never heard him say it, but it doesn't suprise me that he would try and curry favor with the side of the party that Reagan didn't have. Anyway he isn't the first to do it.

Al Gore was pro-life until he was nominated as Clinton's VP candidate. And when he was running in Tenessee he was very pro-tobacco, even though his sister had already died of cancer from it. Then we see him in 96 crying on stage about how he will fight all the days of his life to rid the world of big tobacco for his sister who was killed by cancer. What a phoney!

 

I never heard him say it, but it doesn't suprise me that he would try and curry favor with the side of the party that Reagan didn't have.

Naturally. Caucuses are treated like high-school debates, and in debates, you say things you don't mean. Like lawyers. And this is a fine exercise in theory and the art of argument - I just object to the people sworn to represent us having the credibility of a used car salesman.

Another weird thing with Gore is that he spoke at my high school back in 1988 about population control, and how families probably should limit themselves to 2 kids, even though he himself was guilty of having more than that, AND he would never suggest making any sort of legal limitations - he just thought it was environmentally sound. The odd thing about this is that it's an idea from eugenics, the concept that humans should be trying to breed themselves better (a sort of conscious natural selection) that was popular until Hitler came along and literally bred people, making the whole idea quite unfashionable.

And here's the thing that's weirder - I'm positive I read somewhere that both Prescott Bush (GHWB's father, who occupied Joe Liberman's current Senate seat for CT back then) AND Al Gore Sr. who repped TN before his son, embraced eugenics at least to some extent (there was division about whether just to promote the idea or actually legislate bits of it). I wanted to find a link, but all that came up today was sites on how GWB is the anti-Christ and so on. Man, some weird stuff out there. (My favorite internet theory on the identity of the anti-Christ is Keanu Reeves - the claim was based on content from Devil's Advocate, and I'm still not sure if the site was serious or not! But it was a hoot!)

Anyway, eugenics is not an evil idea. Legislating it probably is, but the concept that people should consciously breed for better traits and limit their numbers has been around forever in the form of arranged marriages and so on. (I disagree with it on the basis that people are too stupid to know a good trait from a bad, LOL.)

It has been said - and I'm not sure how valid the sources are - that it was due to his belief in eugenics that Bush was pro-choice. Poor people, who according to social Darwinism weren't fit to survive, should be allowed to abort offspring, as it would benefit the quality of the whole race.

I'm sure there's some truth to some of this, but I don't know where truth leaves off and urban legend begins, and I'm not accusing anyone of anything untoward. I just think it ironic that eventually you wind up with Gore v. Bush, and either way they both support ideas that most people would associate with Hitler if they knew the history behind them.

 

Hahahahaha. Good, good.
But really, underneath, isn't that the point?

 

What are liberals trying to liberate and what are conservatives trying to conserve?

 

Try reading the book that has been on the New York Times best selling list for 12 weeks... Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right by Ann Coulter. Another great book, Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism by Sean Hannity(on the best sellers list for 4 weeks). These books have hard core facts that would knock your socks off. I don't have enough room to write on this thread the evidence that shows more detest on the Liberal's side. America is buying these books.. we care!!

 

Republicans are right on social and economic problems, mediocre on foriegn policy, but the "moral" domestic issues they're often wrong on, ie. pro-life rabidness and nasty anti-stem cell research bs. I guess you could say I'm an indepedent. I think the fact the pro-life/pro-choice conflict is largely contrived as described earlier is part of the big problem.

 

Issue: the Confederate battle flag. Some people want the pattern banned from any public display, whether it be on public property or private, as it denotes white supremacy and violence against blacks. Others (most notably the NAACP) say it shouldn't be banned, as it is part of American heritage as much as the Star-Spangled Banner.

The "pro-Southerners" favor the freedom to display the flag, and call the NAACP liberal because they seem to PC. Now, the pro-Southerners can explain their position, and it has worked at convincing many people already, but the "liberal" NAACP will not hear it.

If the NAACP is unwilling to consider the other side of the arguement, then they might be called stubborn, hard-headed or closed-minded. According to my Franklin Dictionary, those descriptions are NOT synonomous with "liberal."

Edit: I'm not asking whether you are for or against the display of the CBF, I'm just making a point about so-called liberals.

 

Lady_Lucas, those books may indeed contain facts, but your reporting of them sounds somewhat biased. I'm sure equally propagandist books reporting the other half of the facts that were written by liberals can also be found.

 

ANN COULTER???

You've got to be kidding me. Ann Coulter has absolutely zero credibility.

If you want to read a BETTER book, try On Bended Knee: the Press and the Reagan Presidency..

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html

This woman said that she thinks women should be armed-but they shouldn't be allowed to vote. She lashed out at a disabled Vietnam vet, telling him that people like him caused us to lose that war.

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."


"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."



Ann freaking Coulter???? Yeesh!

 

I don't hate liberals, I hate conservatives.

 

"Ann freaking Coulter????"

Yes, Ann Freaking Kill-Them-All-And-God-Will-Know-His-Own Coulter. (Check out her post 9/11 article.)

What, ya gotta problem?

 

If you don't think rich people work for their money check out this link

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/business/finance/coverstory.html

Also there was a survey done that said 89% of millionaires did not receive a gift from their parents of 10k or more.

I am planning to be a millionaire when I retire. It won't be by a "gift" or by "luck" it will be by careful investing on the side as well as my IRA (which I already opened ) and living somewhat below my means, heavily weighted during my youth to take advantage of compounding.

--Joey

 

"You've got to be kidding me. Ann Coulter has absolutely zero credibility."

Yeah, another zero credibility conservative who can't be displaced from the New York Times hardcover nonfiction bestseller list.

LOL!

 

Popularity does not equal credibility, rsterling; you yourself have pointed out some of her more... offbeat suggestions.

 

"Popularity does not equal credibility"

Agreed! Having read the book, which is heavily footnoted, I consider it to be a very impressive piece of work on the subject it addresses.

I think the popularity of the book is due to the fact that liberal bias in the media resonates with a lot of readers out there. This is also why Bernie Goldberg's book, Bias, was so popular.

Still, Ms. Coulter could probably keep her more, um, creative thoughts on "regime change" to herself.

 

You've got to be kidding me. Ann Coulter has absolutely zero credibility.
This woman said that she thinks women should be armed-but they shouldn't be allowed to vote. She lashed out at a disabled Vietnam vet, telling him that people like him caused us to lose that war. First of all she is more credible than you. You stated something she said but where is the proof to back up your statement?

Credible? Sure she is, she has a PhD, she is a lawyer, Graduated from prestigous Universities and written many other books. She also backs up EVERY quote and statement in her book! I know I've read it and its grrrrrrrreat!!

What about, Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism by Sean Hannity(on the best sellers list for 4 weeks)??? That's pretty awesome also, I'll bet you have not even read those books so you can't bash on them until you read them!

 

I think this tendency to view everything in black and white, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican is killing this country. The fact is very few ppl I know are wholly one, or the other. Blacks, since they are prodominantly Democrat are often thought of as liberal, but in fact most blacks (at least previous generation) have always been conservative in thought, if not in deed.

 

Did you even look at the link I posted? Complete with a list of the quotes I mentioned?

Ann Coulter is a rabid, hyper shrew. Her "swarthy males" comments personally offended me, as my grandfather was Hungarian, and had a very "swarthy" complexion. Yet he was a WWII Vet, and as decent and honest as the day is long.

Ann advocates racial profiling, and resorts to ad hominem attacks to get her point across. I'd say the reason she gets so much attention is because of rubber necking. I have yet to hear anything of substance come out of her-it's all cheap shock value sludge.


As for being a lawyer and having a Ph.D-I'm 24, and I plan on going back to college-I have to get my masters first. I do hope someday to have a Ph.D. in Eastern European history.

Having a best seller does not a reliable source make. So she has "footnotes". Big deal. As for "slander", this is a woman who seems to be obsessed with the masturbatory habits of a former president.