For Dems only.

[Texsox]

I'm thinking of some ways to redecorate the new forum and I thought pinned threads for the left and right to celebrate or lick wounds together, without the "other" side, would be nice.

[BigSqwert]

I hope I'm not the only one posting in here. Someone join me!

[jasonxctf]

joined. this is a good idea.

[Texsox]

There are a few topics that I wouldn't mind discussing with sympathizers, like Howard Dean who I think has done a terrible job of public relations and defining the issues. I thought it was a solid decision at first, but I've become so disgusted with some of his rhetoric.

 

But once the GOPerheads get started it would become too ugly. And having a GOP only allows them to chat up DeLay without embarassment.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Are you mocking me? 

 

I'll say this nicely in here.  I really wish the Democrats would get a great message, and clean up some things.  That way, we could have REAL debate about issues, not just what's wrong. 

 

That' sthe real trick, of course. The Democratic Party is a very diverse party and so for some time now it has been hard to find a singularly unifying message.

 

Bleeding hearts, blue collar unionists, academics, civil libertarians, environmental proponents, pro-choice advocates, socialized health care advocates, gay rights advocates, etc., etc., all claim affiliation to the party, and it's hard to find the singular message.

 

Other than general agreement that the GOP cares very little about the average american little guy – unless it is an election year.

[kapkomet]

That' sthe real trick, of course.  The Democratic Party is a very diverse party and so for some time now it has been hard to find a singularly unifying message.

 

Bleeding hearts, blue collar unionists, academics, civil libertarians, environmental proponents, pro-choice advocates, socialized health care advocates, gay rights advocates, etc., etc., all claim affiliation to the party, and it's hard to find the singular message.

 

Other than general agreement that the GOP cares very little about the average american little guy – unless it is an election year.

The truth of the matter is, "conservatives" only vote Republican, because the party is supposed to be for "hands off" government more then the Democrats. The even-more-truth of the matter is this is becoming less and less true as time has moved forward here.

 

It's interesting that you say the Democratic party is a wider variety of people. I tend to agree with that, at least by old standards. But, why is it that they are slowly getting away from that reach to "all sorts of people" and shifting their own focus to what's more "fringe" politics?

 

By the way, this is good stuff. I like this kind of conversation.

[NorthSideSox72]

The truth of the matter is, "conservatives" only vote Republican, because the party is supposed to be for "hands off" government more then the Democrats.  The even-more-truth of the matter is this is becoming less and less true as time has moved forward here.

 

It's interesting that you say the Democratic party is a wider variety of people.  I tend to agree with that, at least by old standards.  But, why is it that they are slowly getting away from that reach to "all sorts of people" and shifting their own focus to what's more "fringe" politics?

 

By the way, this is good stuff.  I like this kind of conversation.

 

Along these lines, I really think that the Republican party is fracturing into two camps. One is the 90's model, which is highly pro-business, stringent fiscal policy, smaller government, and socially moderate (on the average). The other is this weird neo-con group, the religious right, who are socially very conservative, anti-individual-freedoms, and fiscally ambivalent.

 

Which leads to something else that might spark some interesting discussion. I think that Bush played the far-right in both elections to get him into office, but despite outward appearances, I don't think Bush is a social conservative at all. I dislike a lot of his actions as President, but if you look at the really contentious social issues (abortion, religion in schools, gay marriage), he's talked a big game, but has stopped short of making any real moves. Frankly, I think he played the Cons, and they may not know it yet.

[YASNY]

I guess since I'm a registered democrat, I'm allowed in here.

[Rex Kickass]

Along these lines, I really think that the Republican party is fracturing into two camps.  One is the 90's model, which is highly pro-business, stringent fiscal policy, smaller government, and socially moderate (on the average).  The other is this weird neo-con group, the religious right, who are socially very conservative, anti-individual-freedoms, and fiscally ambivalent.

 

Which leads to something else that might spark some interesting discussion.  I think that Bush played the far-right in both elections to get him into office, but despite outward appearances, I don't think Bush is a social conservative at all.  I dislike a lot of his actions as President, but if you look at the really contentious social issues (abortion, religion in schools, gay marriage), he's talked a big game, but has stopped short of making any real moves.  Frankly, I think he played the Cons, and they may not know it yet.

 

How can you say that? Bush pushed for a constitutional amendment codifying discrimination against a group of people. The first time that would have been written into the constitution since the 1700s.

[kapkomet]

How can you say that? Bush pushed for a constitutional amendment codifying discrimination against a group of people. The first time that would have been written into the constitution since the 1700s.

The "gay marriange amendment" I'm 100% against as well. See, I'm morphing.

[Rex Kickass]

Holy Crap!

[NorthSideSox72]

How can you say that? Bush pushed for a constitutional amendment codifying discrimination against a group of people. The first time that would have been written into the constitution since the 1700s.

 

See, I think you're missing my point here. He speaks about the amendment, and about other issues, talking up a game for it to pass. But he gets about 75% of the way there. And that's not just Congress blocking him, either. He could get some of those issues moving if he wanted to. But I think he just wants to show that he's on their side, and then let's it dangle in the wind when it gets close. I really do believe this is the case, but it's very subtle.

 

And for the record, I find the very idea of any law or amendment that is as obviously discriminatory as these marriage acts disgusting. Truly. I am firmly with the Democrats on this one. It scares the heck out of me that there are so many people in this country that are so full of hate.

[Texsox]

I believe politics changed with Reagan. Charisma carried Ron a long way. Then the worse possible combination happened, giant deficts being accepted by the voters, the have your cake and someone else will pay for it.

 

Cable TV and 24/7 news, instead of allowing indepth coverage, became news when you want it. There isn't any more depth, just the same shallow sound bites played 72 times a day, instead of 3 times on the network.

 

Even though Kerry "disproved" and had great expectations for any appearance of flip flopping, the mud stuck and he couldn't shake it. The Swiftees just had to make enough noise, it didn't matter if it was true, no one had time to report the substance and Rush always distills it for you anyways. The GOP Media Network took a 51-49 election and with pretty red and blue blocks, tried to make it look like 90% of the country wanted Bush. And sadly, some people fell for.

 

The GOP attacks our legal system when judges follow their constituational responsibility, they attack our freedom of speech and the press with cries of bias, they rack up deficits, and convince voters someone else is going to ride in and pay for it all. And if you consider yourself a REP, then they have convinced you to back their play and defend whatever slimy stock deal or campaign trick they use.

 

So we have style over substance. The GOP attacks a candidate because she has no legs and that must be the only reason she was selected. Convicted before she even speaks. Perhaps that is why they may nominate McCain. He's a POW and they will be looking for a sympathetic figure.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

The truth of the matter is, "conservatives" only vote Republican, because the party is supposed to be for "hands off" government more then the Democrats.  The even-more-truth of the matter is this is becoming less and less true as time has moved forward here.

 

It's interesting that you say the Democratic party is a wider variety of people.  I tend to agree with that, at least by old standards.  But, why is it that they are slowly getting away from that reach to "all sorts of people" and shifting their own focus to what's more "fringe" politics?

 

By the way, this is good stuff.  I like this kind of conversation.

 

I don't think all of the core dem issues are on the fringe. Or at least they shouldn't be.

 

Concern for the health of the environment is something most Americans profess, but when it bumps up against the selfish interests of big business the environmental advocates are painted as extremist treehugggers (Which do exist. ELF's bulls*** extremism and such does nothing but overshadow the legitimate encironmental advocates.)

 

Civil Rights has always been a core dem issue, and it is only a 'fringe' issue because there are segments of society whoo do not ascribe to the belief that all Americans deserve equality. That the issue has expanded from race to gender to sexual orientation is as it should be.

 

Labor has become a tougher issue, of course, but the Dems need to find the right message here. The GOP Congress has coddled big business and the result is that it has simultaneously become rediculously easy for companies to shed their pension obligations in bankruptcy while becoming almost impossible for Joe Six-pack retirees to file for personal bankruptcy after the companies they worked for for 30 years f***e them over. Without being shills for the Unions (which obviously have their own problems), the dems can find a voice to rail against these incongruities.

 

Social Securrity is the crown jewel of the Dems, which is precisely why the Bush GOP wanted to take it from them in the stalled and flawed overhaul campaign. Point out to Americans precisely why the Bush plan won't work and figure out a better way to fix the system (hint: make the first quarter- or half- million dollars of personal income social security taxble, and not just the first $90K.).

 

Concern over the need for affordable health care for all Americans is a critical issue and I think it is one where the Dems are going to come up with working strategies, find their voice, and win big on. The Boomers are hitting retirement age at a rate of one every 7.7 seconds, IIRC.

 

Veterans' benefits is something BushCo (and the GOP by association) has really dropped tthe ball on. It would be a great thing for the Dems to lead the charge here.

[NorthSideSox72]

I believe politics changed with Reagan. Charisma carried Ron a long way. Then the worse possible combination happened, giant deficts being accepted by the voters, the have your cake and someone else will pay for it.

 

Cable TV and 24/7 news, instead of allowing indepth coverage, became news when you want it. There isn't any more depth, just the same shallow sound bites played 72 times a day, instead of 3 times on the network.

 

Even though Kerry "disproved" and had great expectations for any appearance of flip flopping, the mud stuck and he couldn't shake it. The Swiftees just had to make enough noise, it didn't matter if it was true, no one had time to report the substance and Rush always distills it for you anyways. The GOP Media Network took a 51-49 election and with pretty red and blue blocks, tried to make it look like 90% of the country wanted Bush. And sadly, some people fell for.

 

The GOP attacks our legal system when judges follow their constituational responsibility, they attack our freedom of speech and the press with cries of bias, they rack up deficits, and convince voters someone else is going to ride in and pay for it all. And if you consider yourself a REP, then they have convinced you to back their play and defend whatever slimy stock deal or campaign trick they use.

 

So we have style over substance. The GOP attacks a candidate because she has no legs and that must be the only reason she was selected. Convicted before she even speaks. Perhaps that is why they may nominate McCain. He's a POW and they will be looking for a sympathetic figure.

 

Excellent points.

 

I particularly remember how bizarre it seemed, after the 2004 elections, that so many media people referred to Bush's new MANDATE. Excuse me? The guy skidded by in 2000 without the popular vote, and then won in 2004 by 51-49, despite being a war-time president riding a huge wave of social conservatism. And then people were SHOCKED when his popularity fell back and he couldn't get anything done in Congress. Some people really are easily manipulated.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Along these lines, I really think that the Republican party is fracturing into two camps.  One is the 90's model, which is highly pro-business, stringent fiscal policy, smaller government, and socially moderate (on the average).  The other is this weird neo-con group, the religious right, who are socially very conservative, anti-individual-freedoms, and fiscally ambivalent.

 

Which leads to something else that might spark some interesting discussion.  I think that Bush played the far-right in both elections to get him into office, but despite outward appearances, I don't think Bush is a social conservative at all.  I dislike a lot of his actions as President, but if you look at the really contentious social issues (abortion, religion in schools, gay marriage), he's talked a big game, but has stopped short of making any real moves.  Frankly, I think he played the Cons, and they may not know it yet.

 

I think you need to divide further, as the Christian Right Wingers and the Neocons are really two entirely different species.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think you need to divide further, as the Christian Right Wingers and the Neocons are really two entirely different species.

 

Probably so. I think I used neocons in a different way than the conventional group term. Maybe 3 groups. 80's-style, 90's style and 00's style.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well, I see everyone’s finding the Cool Kids side.

 

I’ve given up on the concept of these “---  only” threads, though.  You usually get just one or two posts into them before the “other” side can’t control its urge to post.  Like the time I tried for a “ghey only” thread and it was swarmed by you perverts in an instant, defiling the sweet purity of the Julie Andrews Day in Chicago.

 

Whatever happened to “I like to watch?”

 

Signed,

Questioning on the Northside.

I agree. f***ing Breeders. . .

 

btw, I have had two of my own Julie Andrews Days since then, while watching my annnibersary edition of Sound of Music.

 

Signed,

2Sloppy2BGhey

[Balance]

This is a good thread idea, so long as each side respects the other and doesn't go around crapping in the other side's thread....

[Mercy!]

I agree.  f***ing Breeders. . .  

 

btw, I have had two of my own Julie Andrews Days since then, while watching my annnibersary edition of Sound of Music.

 

Signed,

2Sloppy2BGhey

I’ve had TIVO so long that I don’t bother programming it much with the thumbs up and thumbs down thing anymore. It finds some interesting things based on my past viewing history to record and surprise me with (if I may be so anthropomorphic). Although I had never watched the Ellen DeGeneres Show before, I found one episode recorded for me last week that featured an appearance by Julie Andrews flogging some project or other she was involved in. I’m afraid Grandma Julie has had so much cosmetic surgery on her face that one could be excused for thinking she has some Asian heritage. But that doesn't detract too much from the memories.

 

End of hijack (for now). Thank you everyone for your patience.

[Texsox]

Whatever happened to “I like to watch?”

 

Signed,

Questioning on the Northside.

 

Only after I am too old and modern medicine can't help, will sex change from a participatory sport to a spectator sport. But just in case, could you send some pIctUrEs? :rolly

[Mercy!]

I sooooo much wanted to post this on the "Republicans Only" thread, because they look so gosh darn lonely over there. But I didn't want to stoop so low.

 

[Balta1701]

Ann Coulter stated in her December 21 column that "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

[Texsox]

All part of the media bias

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And Ann Coulter is a flaming idiot.  But just in case you couldn't tell, it's called SARCASM.

Given her track record, I wouldn't doubt if she was serious. She just throws all sorts of s*** at the wall and sees what sticks. Much like most political hacks (Rush, Moore, etc. etc.)