The Democrat Thread

[Texsox]

In Washington's farewell address he argued against political parties, and I really believe he was correct. He had Hamilton and Jefferson fighting each other. Both parties place their interest above the country's interests at times. They may convince themselves they are doing to for altruistic reasons, but we know that is crap sometimes. The parties exist for their self interest and those of the members. It would be the rare person whose beliefs actually line up 100% with either party. Although I guess there are some weak willed voters who follow a party 100% because someone tells them it's the thing to do, or what they hear on the radio, television, and newspapers. Parties understand occasionally needing to break from the party's platform to be alinged with voters in a particular district, but on the big stuff, there is tremendous pressure to stay in line.

 

Since conservatives are more about conserving what we have and not about expanding, there would seem to be less diversity of issues. Get us back to 1950s America. Since liberals believe they can make most everything better with a little government action, and there are so many different areas to expand, there would be more diversity. What becomes the issue is when that list is narrowed down to a do-able list. Some people's pet projects get tossed aside.

 

SS can continue to poke fun, but a Dem team photo and a GOP team photo really does reveal which tent is bigger. But you are only welcome in either tent if you play by their rules. You will only want to be in the tent if it helps you. Your constituents and country be damned.

[southsider2k5]

In Washington's farewell address he argued against political parties, and I really believe he was correct. He had Hamilton and Jefferson fighting each other. Both parties place their interest above the country's interests at times. They may convince themselves they are doing to for altruistic reasons, but we know that is crap sometimes. The parties exist for their self interest and those of the members. It would be the rare person whose beliefs actually line up 100% with either party. Although I guess there are some weak willed voters who follow a party 100% because someone tells them it's the thing to do, or what they hear on the radio, television, and newspapers. Parties understand occasionally needing to break from the party's platform to be alinged with voters in a particular district, but on the big stuff, there is tremendous pressure to stay in line.

Since conservatives are more about conserving what we have and not about expanding, there would seem to be less diversity of issues. Get us back to 1950s America. Since liberals believe they can make most everything better with a little government action, and there are so many different areas to expand, there would be more diversity. What becomes the issue is when that list is narrowed down to a do-able list. Some people's pet projects get tossed aside.

 

SS can continue to poke fun, but a Dem team photo and a GOP team photo really does reveal which tent is bigger. But you are only welcome in either tent if you play by their rules. You will only want to be in the tent if it helps you. Your constituents and country be damned.

 

How incredibly narrow-minded of what true Conservatism actually is.

[kapkomet]

Every elected Democrat is exactly the same, so much so that they can't... even agree... on their biggest legislative priority in the past 40-something years when they have a supermajority and solid control of the House?

 

Ultimately they did. The whole thing was a game of charades to figure out how to ram it through without pissing off VOTERS, not each other.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ultimately they did. The whole thing was a game of charades to figure out how to ram it through without pissing off VOTERS, not each other.

Interesting - you just made the case for Congress being in it for the voters, not themselves. Which I am surprised to hear from you.

 

[Texsox]

How incredibly narrow-minded of what true Conservatism actually is.

 

But they still let me in the tent . . .

 

Family values -- Give us 1950s with gays in the closet . . .

Media -- Give us Leave it to Beaver, no swearing, no nudity, etc

Abortion, make it illegal again.

Government -- cut back, eliminate social programs added since 1950

Schools -- get prayer back in, focus on RRR

 

So conservatism has nothing to do with conserving?

[Balta1701]

Ultimately they did. The whole thing was a game of charades to figure out how to ram it through without pissing off VOTERS, not each other.

So, it was a game of charades to figure out how to make the large group of voters who elected them happy without pissing off the voters who didn't elect them. In other words...it was a normal policy debate, just like virtually every other one, except it took a while longer.

 

Evil, scary, horrible democrats.

[kapkomet]

Interesting - you just made the case for Congress being in it for the voters, not themselves. Which I am surprised to hear from you.

 

 

The voters didn't/don't want this bill, but they were trying to play the tightrope of how do we get this through with a chance to keep our seats. It's not going to work... and really, I shouldn't have said voters, I should have said special interests.

[NorthSideSox72]

The voters didn't/don't want this bill, but they were trying to play the tightrope of how do we get this through with a chance to keep our seats. It's not going to work... and really, I shouldn't have said voters, I should have said special interests.

I think the reality with the health care bill is that no solution will make any 50%+1 happy - that applies to voters, to Congressmen, and to special interests. And we are talking about a huge bill with so many moving parts, and expenses that are immense (even though some of them would create savings). For all those reasons, a bill that put in place a good long term plan was not possible.

 

What we got instead was the inevitable result - a huge, lumbering bill that sends a lot of money to various places, does a few good things, a few bad things, and leaves a lot on the table. Is that progress? Probably. But I think these guys see it as just a step, to be re-addressed later.

 

[southsider2k5]

But they still let me in the tent . . .

 

Family values -- Give us 1950s with gays in the closet . . .

Media -- Give us Leave it to Beaver, no swearing, no nudity, etc

Abortion, make it illegal again.

Government -- cut back, eliminate social programs added since 1950

Schools -- get prayer back in, focus on RRR

 

So conservatism has nothing to do with conserving?

 

True Conservatism is all about preserving the individual. Taking from people to give what others see fit doesn't seem like a very big tent to me. It seems much against people and their rights.

[kapkomet]

True Conservatism is all about preserving the individual. Taking from people to give what others see fit doesn't seem like a very big tent to me. It seems much against people and their rights.

 

 

Tex's post is what's wrong with people's views on "conservatism". And it speaks volumes as to the message that the Republican party is spewing out. Republicans and conservatism are not on the same page, which IMO is why they are getting their rear ends handed to them right now in elections. "Conservatism" is not "evangelical" or "the party of morals" or "low taxes, no government" or "make abortion illegal". But that's the message, and they get outright dismissed by people, just like in this very thread.

[Balta1701]

Tex's post is what's wrong with people's views on "conservatism". And it speaks volumes as to the message that the Republican party is spewing out. Republicans and conservatism are not on the same page, which IMO is why they are getting their rear ends handed to them right now in elections. "Conservatism" is not "evangelical" or "the party of morals" or "low taxes, no government" or "make abortion illegal". But that's the message, and they get outright dismissed by people, just like in this very thread.

Then what is conservatism?

[Texsox]

True Conservatism is all about preserving the individual. Taking from people to give what others see fit doesn't seem like a very big tent to me. It seems much against people and their rights.

 

Preserving the individual?

 

Perhaps as long as they do not need medical care . . .

Tell that to the gays who are denied marriage

Tell that to an immigrant who wants a job and a place to live

Tell that to a person whose life may be made better from stem cell research

Tell that to a controversial artist pushing his 1st Amendment rights

 

The tent seems to be getting smaller for conservatives

[southsider2k5]

Preserving the individual?

 

Perhaps as long as they do not need medical care . . .

Tell that to the gays who are denied marriage

Tell that to an immigrant who wants a job and a place to live

Tell that to a person whose life may be made better from stem cell research

Tell that to a controversial artist pushing his 1st Amendment rights

 

The tent seems to be getting smaller for conservatives

 

-At someone else's expense

-The marriage thing they are wrong on

-and take someone who needs a job here

-tell that to the dead babies that are harvested for stem cells

-as always the right to swing your arms ends at the end of someone else's nose.

 

Things aren't always popular, that protect the individual.

[Balta1701]

-tell that to the dead babies that are harvested for stem cells

So you are in favor of banning In-Vitro fertilization then?

 

Why is it a conservative opinion that families that can only conceive through that technique should not be allowed to reproduce?

[Texsox]

-At someone else's expense

-The marriage thing they are wrong on

-and take someone who needs a job here

-tell that to the dead babies that are harvested for stem cells

-as always the right to swing your arms ends at the end of someone else's nose.

 

Things aren't always popular, that protect the individual.

 

- much like taking from someone else and giving to educate an individual, a healthy population helps us all

- agreed (and the Dems have a few of those as well)

- I know 8 people now out of work and so far none have takjen positions as bus boys, migrant farm workers, meat packing plant workers, etc. But I agree that having a job in hand or some means of supporting yourself should be a minimum to immigrate here.

- There are more ways to harvest the cells

- fair enough, but conservatives often times replace morals with nose. ( and I usually agree)

 

And I'll again offer, the 1950s fit in nicely with a conservative point of view.

[southsider2k5]

So you are in favor of banning In-Vitro fertilization then?

 

Why is it a conservative opinion that families that can only conceive through that technique should not be allowed to reproduce?

 

I'm not going to argue right or wrong on the platforms. I am saying why it is where it is. Unlike some, I don't take on the entire platform of my party as my own.

[southsider2k5]

- much like taking from someone else and giving to educate an individual, a healthy population helps us all

- agreed (and the Dems have a few of those as well)

- I know 8 people now out of work and so far none have takjen positions as bus boys, migrant farm workers, meat packing plant workers, etc. But I agree that having a job in hand or some means of supporting yourself should be a minimum to immigrate here.

- There are more ways to harvest the cells

- fair enough, but conservatives often times replace morals with nose. ( and I usually agree)

 

And I'll again offer, the 1950s fit in nicely with a conservative point of view.

 

It seems like that because the last 50 years have been the biggest assault on the individual in the history of this country.

[Texsox]

It seems like that because the last 50 years have been the biggest assault on the individual in the history of this country.

 

Expansion of education benefits

Safety net of food, clothing, and shelter

Expansion of medical care for the poor and elderly

Closer equality for women, minorities

 

The GOP tent seems filled with the white middle class. And since that is still the majority, I guess you are right, the GOP tent is bigger to accomodate all of them. But since that is shelter, they better damn well pay for their share of the tent. The GOP isn't going to allow someone to have a warm dry place to stand if they can't afford it.

[Balta1701]

I'm not going to argue right or wrong on the platforms. I am saying why it is where it is. Unlike some, I don't take on the entire platform of my party as my own.

But you've missed the key point here. You've argued that conservatism is all about preserving individual rights. But you've offered up an example where preserving individual rights on one side means denying it to others. I can play this same trick on a lot of the ones you've given. Health care, for example; you have a right to not have to pay for someone else's care, but what happens when the system doesn't exist when you need care, or when you can't afford the health care because there's an inefficient system built up that only caters to the rich.

 

This is of course the great game of conservatism; picking which groups get to have their rights preserved.

[southsider2k5]

This is of course the great game of liberalism; picking which groups get to have their rights preserved.

 

[Texsox]

This is of course the great game of conservatism; picking which groups get to have their rights and money preserved.

 

This is of course the great game of liberalism; picking which groups get to have their rights for the first time and money taken.

 

Helping ya both . . .

[Balta1701]

So, your argument is that Conservatives should get to decide which groups have rights and Liberals shoudn't.

[southsider2k5]

So, your argument is that Conservatives should get to decide which groups have rights and Liberals shoudn't.

 

That would make your argument that liberals get to decide and conservatives don't.

 

I would argue that your definition of rights is very different than mine. You seem to believe that people have the right to take things that people have from other people as often as possible. I feel is should be done as little as possible.

[Texsox]

That would make your argument that liberals get to decide and conservatives don't.

 

I would argue that your definition of rights is very different than mine. You seem to believe that people have the right to take things that people have from other people as often as possible. I feel is should be done as little as possible.

 

I think they have to have those rights first.

 

You do have me rethinking the tax system and how some contribute more than others. However, I do not see a system working where everyone pays the same amount working.

[Balta1701]

That would make your argument that liberals get to decide and conservatives don't.

 

I would argue that your definition of rights is very different than mine. You seem to believe that people have the right to take things that people have from other people as often as possible. I feel is should be done as little as possible.

BUT...you also feel perfectly ok in making decisions about when it should be done. No matter how much you want to try to make it sound like an absolute position here, you've left yourself that back door, whether it comes to abortion, or gay marriage, wiretapping, whatever, pick your issue.

 

The only difference we really have on these sorts of general policy questions is how we respond to certain motivations when we ask people to give up individual rights. I look at the current health care system and think "it's killing people, costs are out of control, and in 10 years its going to bankrupt the country if nothing changes" while you respond "but you're taking away individual freedoms". On the other hand, I look at the government, oh, let's say, requiring me to pay for some variety of military occupations around the world, and you respond by trying to justify them.

 

In some cases you're probably going to be right, and in some cases I'm going to be right (and the odds of us admitting it approach zero with time). But right now, you're trying to present conservatism as this holy standard that you guys follow, compared to those dirty liberals, and neither your representatives nor you ever actually follow that.