Did we even know the issues?

[Azred]

Excellent point, MagiK. Anybody can reform the American Nazi Party ( [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] I can't recall if one still exists anymore) and run on a platform of "kick out all the non-whites and foreigners" but they won't get very many votes.

The Democrats lost many votes they might otherwise have won because they were more vocal in protesting the war in Iraq. I would never take away anyone's right to protest, but even if you disagree with a war then protesting (or even arguing against it) is a really bad idea if you plan to run for office, because you will be seen as weak on national defense. Had Clinton gone after Hussein back in 1999, then Gore might have won decisively in 2000.
If the Democrats really want to win in 2008 (and you know they will nominate Hillary) then they need to make inroads in Southern states; to do this then I advise them to find the pulse the Hispanic community (they are already the largest majority in Texas and by 2008 should be the majority).

Chewbacca, relative morality has nothing to do with it; it is all down to how many votes your group has. Many political scientists througout history have equated majority rule to mob rule (and I partially agree with that sentiment), but that is simply how the system is designed right now.

I agree with Timber re: stopping the rampant subsidizing of corporations. Capitalism is about competition to increase your market share or improve the quality of your product/service; subsidies mean you can relax and maintain market share despite having poor products or service.

[ 11-04-2004, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: ]That's right! Not only did he put limits on what stem cell research could have been done (mistake #1) he chose to FUND something that the private sector was more than perfectly happy to pay for (mistake #2). I don't think Merck and the other big drug and medicine companies need anymore welfare than they already get. Pretty soon, we're going to see all our major corporations hanging out on their porches drinkin their 40-oz'ers cause they've all been livin on the dole for two generations now. GET CORPORATIONS OFF WELFARE.

I think you'll find they can still do their own research if they wanted to. The limits he put were only on federaly funded research. Your entire premiss is off the mark. California I beleive just passed a Stem cell research law. President Bush sure stopped them now didn't he.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: My Family LIVES in Florida and they would disput your ASSumption.

That's not very nice. Downright rude. I don't know what's with you the last 2 days. [/QUOTE]Prehaps you should read some of your own writings of late
You expressed a wish to leave this Basackwards country I simply offered to help you, give you help fulfilling a wish. Have I been screaming about how the country is going to hell in a handbasket? And don't even try to give me, I would if Kerry had won, You seem to be a better judge of character then to believe that. I would have writen the same thing I wrote when Kerry Concided "What's Done is Done". I'll be happy to scrap about something until the final decession is made, "HALE" I love it. Once it is made, it's made, it's to late to scrap about it then, life goes on.

You know good and well anticdotle(sp?) evidence is of little value, in the proposition you forwarded about calling friends in the swing states is flawed, if anybody's friends are Kerry supporters they would view damn near any add as an attack add. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR BUSH SUPPORTERS. [/QUOTE]No, you're off the mark. You attacked ME PERSONALLY. The ASSumption bit implied I was an Ass for making an assumption. I didn't like it. You wanna scrap with me, I'll trounce you. I voted, so I am free to bitch about the outcome if I like -- that's a privilige we get from voting. I will continue to bitch. I will continue to point out every shortcoming of this administration -- and I hope there are many. What's done is done -- I agree. But, what's done has been horrible, and I hope the failures are collossal enough to convince us to never go down this path again. If failure isn't complete and horrible, our ignorant illiterate voters just won't get the message. So, I am forced to wish for the worst -- so we never sign a blank check turning this country over to the neocons and their special interests ever again. I'm hoping for some tough love -- some abject failures to show us this was not the way.

[Azred]

I don't care if you bitch about the results of the election, Timber. In fact, I hope you do so proudly, loudly, and clearly. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I say that because it will be my turn to bitch in 4 years after Hillary has won. That's the way the cookie crumbles. The Democrats need to woo the Hispanic vote beginning now, and the Republicans need to start forming a strategy to combat her now, beginning with finding new leadership other than Jeb Bush.

[Timber Loftis]

Hillary likely will NOT run in 2008, and she should not. She is a junior senator, and should be able to promise the voters of NY a full term, now that she's garnered their support. Her next Senatorial election is 2006 -- that would put her most likely time to seek a Presidential election at 2012, at the earliest. She should run smart, and when she does, she'll have my vote.

[Cloudbringer]

I usually subscribe to the 'what's done is done' theory of politics as well, but hey, a bit of kvetching over things you don't like is part and parcel of the way we do things in this country and should be. Just so long as the dissapointed/disaffected folk don't start lobbing grenades at the others and so long as the 'winning' side doesn't gloat excessively, everything's cool. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Me, I don't vote party lines, I vote the best option for the postition according to my beliefs/conscience so I don't hope any one party does poorly now that the elections are over and offices filled. I hope they all do the best they can to make things work well and the country and its citizenry prosper. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: The pursuit of happiness, but not the pursuit of liberty. Who said anyhting about liberty? BTW which people where confuse pursuit with gaurantee? As I said, MANY people all around you, mayhap even yourself from time to time think you are gaurenteed happiness. When we think we are gaurenteed happines...we are wrong Oh and the the idea of a pursuit goes hand in hand with success or failure of the pursuit. I would argue that the pursuit of happiness is an implied gaurantee of happiness, if one can achieve it. I seriously doubt the particular wording amounts to a green light to arbritary limitation on happiness. You seem to have wandered off the main line here...who was talking about limiting happiness? we were talking about gaurenteed results. quote: Equal as in they have the same rights....not that they have more or better rights than others. If "WE THE PEOPLE" decide we don't want men marrying men and women marrying the women...those two minority groups better get used to it...cause the truth is..in this country the number of votes you can drumup deterines the laws of the land, like it or not....

Wow, the first sentence contradicts the rest of this rant.

'twasn't a rant. It was a matter of fact commentary on the way the "real" world operates and not the idealized version some people wander around thinking they're entitled to.

Sure in some cases the majority vote determines the law of the land, but not the supreme law of the land. It takes more than a mere majority to change the Constitution AND the Constitution can over-rule any given majority-determined law that is not a constitutional amendment.

You obviously have not been paying attention to civics lately. There have been a great MANY issues determined not by a majority but by a handful of Judicial types who are seizing power to legislate from the bench. Oh I grant that in the long run things tend to even out but in the short term..Mr. Joe agitator tends to get his butt trampled before the supremes get involved.

The bottomline from my perspective is that Any majority that uses their majority-status to trample, limit, or make unequal the civil rights of any given minorities is a shameful and worthless majority, with no true moral authority- no matter how much wind is blown to stake out that ground.

LOL now you sound like my 9th grader..."But Dad, that isn't fair". Me thinks you have a bit of idealist in you. Sorry that real life lets you down.

Majorities have been gravely wrong before, history is full examples, so it maybe a fools errand to hang a hat on them without due consideration.

Chalk it up to my limited intellect but I have no idea what you mean here. Uless you are railing against the fact that the majority bullies the minority. That my dear friend is called, the law of the jungle. Minorities of any sort exist at the pleasure of and are at the mercy of the Majority. Always have and always will. Well technically there is a caveat to that as well....what I said is true untill you change the equation by introducing Superior Firepower to the minority...then the balance swings. But in general in any culture you wish to pick, the majority rules the local customs and mores and minorities for the most part are not well tolerated when their ideals and goals differ greatly enough from the majority.




[/QUOTE]

[ 11-05-2004, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by MagiK: Now that is just downright rude to anyone who has faith in a religion and shows a total lack of tolerance to other peoples opinions

Indeed, and my apologies to all. It was poorly worded; I was meaning to attack people who chose the President purely on religious grounds (as some of that poll I posted in Timber's thread seemed to show) but it came out as a sideswipe at all religious people which wasn't particularly my intention. Although I await the day eagerly when religion is long gone... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

@John D, please don't think that was directed at you personally either. I respect you very much for doing precisely the opposite to what I disapprove of, and making the effort to learn the issues and therefore having other reasons for voting for Bush apart from religion. Even though I don't particularly agree with them of course. Thanks for the restraint you showed in your reply also.


I would however question whether the belief that "you have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" is a good guide to choosing an elected leader. It seems to assume that somebody who doesn't adopt a 'cast-iron' view of issues is automatically not trustworthy or sincere, which isn't necessarily the case.

[ 11-05-2004, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [No, you're off the mark. You attacked ME PERSONALLY. The ASSumption bit implied I was an Ass for making an assumption. I didn't like it. You wanna scrap with me, I'll trounce you. I voted, so I am free to bitch about the outcome if I like -- that's a privilige we get from voting. I will continue to bitch. I will continue to point out every shortcoming of this administration -- and I hope there are many. What's done is done -- I agree. But, what's done has been horrible, and I hope the failures are collossal enough to convince us to never go down this path again. If failure isn't complete and horrible, our ignorant illiterate voters just won't get the message. So, I am forced to wish for the worst -- so we never sign a blank check turning this country over to the neocons and their special interests ever again. I'm hoping for some tough love -- some abject failures to show us this was not the way.

Nobody said you don't have the right to speak, shout to the mountain tops, for all I care, sing it loud and proud, more power to you. I'll do the same weither you like it or not.

Now you won't trounce a damn thing, I've dealt with meaner, smarter, wiser, more vicious and I'm still here. "Hale" I've looked down the barrels of guns before, what effect does anybody think a word or two will have. Complain about an implication, while issuing forth Statements not impling about others all you want. This is the USA, shout it from on high if that's what floats your boat. I'll return fire cause that's what floats my boat.

TL I think you just stumbled on to another key difference between the left and the right. The left just begs for bad things to happen just to spite the right, no matter what harm comes to the nation, while the right, prays that things turn out well, whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office....the right tends to want things to work out for the best.


Why does the left always seem to be wishing for the worst? Such negativity has to be bad for you.
Karmicly speaking...what goes around comes around..perhaps this is why the left suffers such huge setbacks?


[ 11-05-2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]