55-44-1

Now we can see just how conservative President Bush is. No election to worry about, no opposition in the Senate - he ought to have a free reign to implement conservative policies now.

 

Arlen Specter who becomes the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January has vowed to block any openly pro-life judges.

 

Actually, you still have to have 60 votes in the Senate, so 4 people can now control the work of the nation. But I do think there is a valid argument for a Republican mandate. for the 6 straight election, Republicans have gained. Bush is the first president in 16 years to get a majority of the presidential vote.

My question is, Why aren't the Democrats learning anything? How many times do you have to lose seats to figure out that people don't like where you stand?

 

Nothing will change. Just as "contract with America" didn't change much of anything.

 

So what do you suggest? That the Democrats give up their beliefs and become Republicans so they'll be "liked"? Or should they repackage where they stand to make it more attractive to "people"?

 

They should dump the leftist extremists from their party! That would be a good start.

Then they should listen to Southern Democrats like Zell Miller who have been trying to tell them they're only listening to themselves instead of the American People.

As the population center moves further west from the Northeastern Elite Conclave the democrats find themselves further and further away from REAL AMERICA!

 

I am not making any suggestions really. I am not driven by left-leaning politics so I don't know what to say about it. I am just curious as to why they keep losing and don't seem to be able or willing to figure out why.

I think the Republicans have been successful by running on teh right, to middle right ground. The country is largely conservative. The vast majority favor at least some restrictions on abortion and social programs. The vast majority favor tax cuts. The vast majority favor the social conservative agenda. The Democrats don't seem to have figured that out.

Personally, it seems to me that the nation is speaking out about the types of policies and the agenda of the Democratic party. If you are running for office and can't convince people of your view, you probably should find a new profession.

 

Do you think that there is no place for an opposing voice?

And it's not like the Democratic Party was wiped out. They win some, they lose some. The presidential race was very, very close.

For us Liberals, it's another story altogether. I guess idealism and belief in social justice and environment issues will have to keep us going. I don't think a person or organization should just give up and die simply because they are unlikely to prevail (this time).

 

The Democrat Party is obsolete. The GOP has adopted all of its policies, and is implementing them. Smart Democrats should just switch registrations.

 

*personal attack deleted* Thanks for sharing that.

[ November 04, 2004, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

NOt when they are bad voices. This idea that every idea deserves to be heard is nonsense. Some ideas are just stupid. Dissent is not the problem. Stupidity is the problem.

Well ... it was close, but not that close. But my reference was to the congress where Dems keep losing.

If you were pursuing idealism and social justice and sensible environmentalism, you would be a conservative ... ... Seriously though, most of the liberal positions on these are not well thought out, and don't fit in the purview of the government. They actually exacerbate the problem and increase social dependency. I think we need to move away from that approach to the problem.

 

Well, you know, I was thinking that myself recently - that the two parties might just flip.

 

It's true, Jim. Bush was even joking last year how he had copped the democrats' agenda from them.

The only difference is who Bush wants to take the money from and who he wants to give it to.

Neither Bush nor Kerry were interested in giving it to the middle class.

 

Yeah, stupidity is a problem.

 

Not when they are bad voices. This idea that every idea deserves to be heard is nonsense. Some ideas are just stupid. Dissent is not the problem. Stupidity is the problem. </font>[/QUOTE]This statement is downright disturbing. Perhaps you do not grasp the concept of LIBERTY. Liberty means that one has a right to be stupid, if one so desires. You even have the right to be closed minded and intolerant. [I suppose you agree with Neil Boortz's egregious statements on the radio yesterday.]

Living here in the Commonwealth, I am a great admirer of Thomas Jefferson. He is the author of the Constitution. That Constitution is the document that gives us the RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no exclusion for perceived stupidity, even when it is demonstrated by intolerance.

Here's an idea: take the difference between the votes for Bush and the votes for Kerry. Now divide that number by the aggregate number of votes. Notice that it is not a very big percentage.

 

Absolutely NOT!

Greetings Daisy, my like-minded sister in Christ. Until about a year ago, I was a hard-core dyed-in-the-wool Republican. When the Administration began posturing for a war in Iraq, I was all for going in and sending all of them to the afterlife. Then something happened, and I had an epiphany of sorts. My political views began to swing to the far left. I have never looked back.

Never lose that progressive mindedness. Never compromise your ideals in order to appeal to the masses. The Hard Rock Cafe stole a slogan from us: LOVE ALL - SERVE ALL!!

A Sincere wish that this post finds you on the receiving end of God's Immense Grace,

BiR

 

That's exactly what the Democrats expect of the Republicans.

 

I have no idea who Neil Boortz is so I don't know if I agree or not. Calling them "egregious" doesn't help any though ... My point is not that they don't have a right to be stupid. My point is that not every idea is equal. There are some stupid ideas. Surely you don't disagree with that ...

I completely agree. Many stupid ideas are based in intolerance. There is a great deal of intolerance that comes from the left ... hence, my comment about stupidity. There is also some intolerance that comes from the right. The problem is that no one agrees with what intolerance actually is. The Democrats claim to be standing on principle while filibustering judges. IN reality, they are intolerant. They have a fit when someone mentions God in school. How much more intolerant can you get? They believe in freedom of speech so long as your speech does not include God in certain areas. That is highly intolerant.

That is true, but 3.5 million is a rather large number. But the bigger issue, as I think I poitned out, was that the Congress went Republican again. The size of the victory must include the resounding statement about the Congress. People appear to like Republican ideas better. They keep giving them improbably victories.

 

I absolutely contend that the whole idea that we don't have the right to a particular viewpoint is EGREGIOUS. This is tantamount to thoughtcrime in Orwell's novel 1984.

They ABSOLUTELY have the right. Furthermore, what is your basis for the exclusion of what is arguably a relative term?

I totally and completely "disagree with that." The people to whom you refer as "stupid" are entitled to have any point of view. It is disturbing that you would honestly offer this as a legitimate viewpoint. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your intolerance.

If you really believe this, then I would contend that you do not comprehend the concept of liberty.

I completely agree.</font>[/QUOTE]What?
Here are your words again:

Either you agree that people have the right to a viewpoint, or you don't.

Now you are seemingly backpedaling. Are you essentially saying that stupidity is relative to your particular point of view? Are you offering these examples as some sort of justification for your own intolerance?

................which proves what? Were you so quick to judge the tolerance of the GOP when they used filibustering to stop legislation?

I said nothing about the separation of church and state. As a matter of fact, I don't want the mention of God in school. I prefer to have that taught in the church. Similarly, I don't want Hinduism, Islam, Athiesm, Scientology, or even Mormonism taught in school. If we are going to teach about God in the schools, which "god" are we going to reference?

Yes, and now the pressure is on, isn't it? The President is supposedly against abortion. Let's see if he does anything to reward the people who elected him. He said that he supports tort reform. I wonder what he is going to do. Now that he has these "victories" in Congress, he has NO EXCUSE for failing to deliver. Did you see that the dollar fell against the Euro again today? What is he going to do about that?