Democrats & Liberals: Archives

well said….

and if the Dems start governing for and to the extremes (as the Reps did), then they, too, will be ousted. I hope they can govern just slightly left of center.

The were ousted in the 90’s for being too extreme Tom L.
It’s funny though, many of us on this site were telling the Dems that they had to come back to center if they wanted to win. How did the liberals answer us on here? They said the problem was that the Dem party had moved to far to the center and that is why they kept loosing elections. That they needed to move further left. So what happens on election day? The Dems keep their extreme liberal wing hidden and run “Conservative Democrats” and win.

And Stephen. We may not be as divided as some say, but until the liberals can respect the fact that life out here in the boonies is ALOT different than the East Coast, West Coast or wherever else libs rule, they will continue to struggle come election time.

Massachussetts Liberal. The Left Coast. Red State, Blue state… Whatever happened to the United States?

Y’all liberals have divided it into political sections and made it multicultural. That’s what.
As far as us conservatives are concerned, it should still be one nation and one culture.

Ron Brown, that didn’t even make sense. And are you saying that multicultural is a bad thing? This is what I don’t get: blue states are by and large much more successful than red. Better economies, better systems of education, better opportunities. Blue states support this country, as evidenced by this map. If Blue America stopped subsidizing Red America, the quality of life in the red states would suffer dramatically. Here are the rates on teen pregnancy. How about divorce rates? When are the red states going to realize that their way of doing things simply does not work? When are they going to realize that they need us more than we need them? When are they going to put down the damn bibles and pick up a newspaper? WAKE UP! You are ruining your lives, your children’s lives and the world around you with your BS DOGMA!

I think Americans are only truly separated by regional differences in very superficial ways. For instance, I don’t remember anyone making the distinction on or after 9/11 that it was New York City that was attacked. It was simply viewed as an attack on America. Nor do I remember anyone not being dismayed when New Orleans and parts of the Gulf Coast were destroyed following Hurricane Katrina. Even though some people did question the actions, or the intelligence of those folks who ended up dead or stranded, it wasn’t as though any of us was glad that a unique and vibrant, and historic American city like New Orleans had been almost entirely wiped away, or that so many folks who lived on the Gulf Coast had just lost everything.
Also, the fact that we are at war seems to make our people much more aware of how our soldiers who hail from every state in our nation are right now over in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting and dying side by side.
I think only a very small percentage of Americans view our regional differences as a big deal, and yet even among these folks, when push comes to shove, or disaster strikes, those regional differences aren’t nearly as important as the fact that We the People are all fellow citizens of the United States of America.
E Pluribus Unum — out of Many, we are One — at least when it truly counts.

Btw Stephen, nicely written piece.

kctim:
“many of us on this site were telling the Dems that they had to come back to center if they wanted to win. How did the liberals answer us on here? They said the problem was that the Dem party had moved to far to the center and that is why they kept loosing elections. That they needed to move further left. So what happens on election day? The Dems keep their extreme liberal wing hidden and run “Conservative Democrats‎ and win.”

Actually kctim, it turns out that E Pluribus Unum currently applies to the Democratic, as well. The true left and the moderates of the Democratic party cannot be separated and so, must find a way to compromise with each other. Because you see the Netroots have forever changed how Democratic campaigns raise money, draw support, and encourage the liberal base to get out and vote. Instead of what you are claiming, the results of the election now past have demonstrated that the Netroots Left cannot win elections on their own (not yet anyway) without the Moderates, and that the Moderate DLC wing cannot win a major national election without the Netroots Left. So you see, all the people in our party are very much linked together, and so, we will either succeed together, or fail together, as well.

I don’t think it was extremism that ticked people off about the Liberals. I think what killed that majority is the same as what killed the one that came after it: corruption, and the failure to deal with the people’s problems.

As for the Center? I think we could have done a better job in 2004 if we had done this kind of 50 State Strategy. We had the advantage, even then, of being more centrist than our opponents, but at that point, we didn’t have the kind of bold strategy that would reach out to centrists beyond our big regions and the swing states.

Additionally, You should direct your criticism more towards the Republicans. They’ve run screaming from the center, and they aren’t doing much to reconnect to them.

Continuing in that vein, I did not see liberals struggling in the polls. I saw them winning, many by large margins. Large swaths of the NE and Midwest went blue, and gains were made across the country.

Conservatives have asked for a whole lot of respect for the Boonies, and gotten much of it. However, the time has come for the pendulum to swing, and for the suburbs and cities to get a little more respect in turn. Respect is a two way street.

Ron Brown-
We pursued a strategy that didn’t play to one region or another, but which preached our message to the country as a whole. The truth is, we are a multicultural society, but one where the environment encourages people to assimilate on their own.

Ron-
Let me add: American culture encourages assimilation, but it encourages it by choice. When identity is decided freely, and cultures absorbed naturally, the tensions that mark forced conformity do not develop. Because they don’t develop, we don’t see the kind of tension those in other nations see.

I mean, if you want to see where forced conformity to one culture gets you, look at Iraq and the Middle East. What has it gained them to be so uptight about it. Real, functional multiculturalism is about being relaxed about the foreign and the different, rather than trying to control something you likely have no power over.

—Stephen Daugherty—
I think politics has less to due with Ideas, but
more to due with their financial status. During the
sixties, more of the population were becoming more educated, earned more money, and chose to follow the American Dream where ever success would
would take them. People are no longer the home
bodied soles they once were. People today also have
special desires for specific neches, as to what an
who surround them, for a variety of reasons. I
also think, with the huge increases in population,
more choices, and a great deal of wealth, and the
poor people back in the seventies an eighties,
who moved to warmer climates an lived in their car
until they earned enough money to pay rent, or buy
a home. Unfortunately some are still on the street. Using Redistricting is one of the largest
tools for controlling political lines, seems very
effective. Big Money takes care of the rest.

Stephen

From someone who grew up in the “Boonies” (I’m not sure where you psuedo-intellectuals came up with this condescending geographical region to describe people in the Midwest), I find your “One Nation” argument interesting. Unfortunately it is the liberals who seem to want to separate the masses into pre-cut gender, racial, sexual, cultural groups instead of looking at people as individuals. These individuals perform at various levels in our society. Some good, some not so. They create the soup of society. Each bringing something unique to the whole, making it better than the sum. Over time the soup gets better and improves as the ingredients meld into one. It seems as though liberals, by trying always to identify the ingredients and keep their separate identities, never allow the soup to become one.

keith

Stephen,

Excellent piece of writing. I could not agree more.

Ron Brown,

I feel bad for you. Diversity is not a bad thing. Multicultural societies are vibrant and welcoming. Enjoy diversity. It’s something to celebrate, not fear.

Keith: Many republicans think the soup has to be tomato soup. We democrats believe the soup must be vegetable soup. All of the ingredients meld into one when we are threatened by outside forces. The soup used to meld into one ingredient when natural disasters would strike but since Katrina that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

Ron Brown:

Y’all liberals have divided it into political sections and made it multicultural. That’s what.
As far as us conservatives are concerned, it should still be one nation and one culture.

And I supposed your suggestion for that one nation, one culture is the southern bigotted one. Thankfully, history past and not-so-past shows Americans moving decisively away from that…. the days and numbers of uneducated, racist, irrational gay bashers are in increasing decline….

Keith: Excellent metaphor! However, I tend to think the GOP wants the country to be stone soup.

Stephen: Pure racism was and is the foundation of the Southern strategy. “God, guns, & gays” was the GOP’s pc code phrase for “n——-s”… I find your post very thoughtful as I have many Texan friends who are greatly offended by the GOPs painting of Texas as a state of ignorance and hatred, and are embarrassed when Dubya claims he’s a Texan (which he is not).

Keith, the origin of hte word “boonies” comes from the word Boondocks, which in turns comes from the Phillipines area. See this reference: http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19971204

So as you can see this is not some pseudo-intellectul liberal thing, just normal expansion of the language. And before you accuse me of being some east/west coast elite, I am from right here in goold old Missouri, born and rasied in the midwest.

Finally, I think all of you are somewhat incorrect in your analysis of last week’s election. The people who voted in the Democrats are simply looking for RESULTS. We want results, we want problems solved, concerns dealt with, etc. That was why the Republicans took over in 1994 because Gingrich promised and delivered results. From where I sit in the Midwest, people want results, most of us don’t care that much who delivers them, just get it done. For awhile Republicans did that and they stayed in the majority. Then they stopped delivering and they got booted. Beware Democrats because I think the people’s tolerance for not delivering is getting short every cycle.

Adrienne
Instead of what I am claiming?
For the past 3 years on here, I have been saying the Dems needed to move more to the center if they wanted to win. The “conservative Democrats” helped them do that and they won. As you said, the extreme liberal wing and the moderates need to work with each other if they want to keep winning.
Democrats now have the chance, again, to work for all of America. Personally, I think they will once again attempt to push urban type values, rules and lifestyle onto us and they will, once again be voted out. I truely hope that I am wrong.

Rural America and urban America are different and if the Democrats do not respect that, they will not keep their newly found power. You guys must listen to your new members and respect the people they represent.

Stephen
I do not criticize the Republicans as much because they do not attempt to take away individual rights as often as liberals do.
You guys have to understand that our lives ARE very different in just about every way. What you guys refer to as DINO’s, we call true Democrats. People like Ike Skelton and these new “conservative Democrats” better represent our values and who we are than people like pelosi or kennedy.
The liberals made room for these true Democrats so that they could win the election, lets hope they allow them to represent those who elected them.

I do agree that we didn’t really see Democrats struggling to much, but we did see liberals struggling didn’t we. IF a true Democrat would have run against Talent here in Missouri, there would have been no reason to wait for the KC and St. Louis votes to come in. A true Democrat would have won in a landslide. Instead, we had to choose between a candidate who will really only represent our 3 or 4 urban areas and a candidate who didn’t give us a reason to vote for or against him.

“Conservatives have asked for a whole lot of respect for the Boonies, and gotten much of it”

Really? The only thing we have gotten is that you guys finally saw that you need their vote to win and you ran “conservative Democrats” to get their vote.
Out here, you earn respect, it is not a given, and in order to earn it you are going to have to allow this “new” wing of your party to be heard.

jlw, Dr. Poshek

Are you sure you want to say Republicans want only tomato or stone soup? Are you really sure you understand what you said? Using my analogy you think Republicans want to eliminate all the ingredients but one (genocide) or that they can’t distinguish between ingredients. The first argument makes Republicans out to be genocidal murderers. The second argument makes them free from all predjudice (which is wildly inconsistent with your previous supposition). I think you may be better able to argue your point, with the analogy, by saying that Republicans wish to exclude some ingredients from the soup. Even then you would be hard pressed to convince me.

keith

keith: Republicans are genocidal. “Genocidal murderers” is a redundancy.

jlw,

Great analogy, I’m not surprised that the (r)wing didn’t get it.

Stephen, kc,

I don’t think the 50 state strategy worked because of “the kind of bold strategy that would reach out to centrists” I think nearly any strategy would have worked that tied (R) congressional candidates to the unrestrained and abject failures of Bush. In other words: the (R) defeats have nothing to do with percieved shifts in (D) politics (position or strategy) as much as it has to do with the (R) shift to radical incompetency.
Let’s just hope competency becomes a necessary component of politics.

Dave1-20-2009 -
Perhaps other approaches might have worked. However, there was an advantage to competing across the board: The Strength of Weak Ties (The link is to one of my older essays)

Regional approaches tend to consist mostly of preaching to the choir, trying to get them out on election day. The trouble with this approach is that the converted aren’t the people you have to worry about on on margins. It’s the skeptics.

You have to prove the quality of your positions to more than just party loyalists.

By making this a national campaign, moderating our message with pragmatism and realism, and choosing candidates to fit the districts, we were able to appeal to folks that were sympathetic to some of our beliefs, but who hadn’t seen a good choice from us in some time. It didn’t hurt that people had something to agree with us in this election, but that would have been of little use if we hadn’t expanded the fight beyond the safe battlegrounds of our strong regions.

As with any campaign, it’s important to take and hold ground, and with this election we set our sights high on what we were going to take. Most importantly, we now have a base from which to project party strength elsewhere. We may very well end up turning a number of red states blue, if we play our cards right.

As for Competence? Oh, I agree. It’s in fact more necessary than anything else. Most Americans aren’t asking, “Can we trust this person to be a liberal?”, they’re asking “Can we trust them to lead us well in this important time in history?” If we’re anything less than inspired in this respect, we do ourselves and the country harm.

Keith-
You seem to have less confidence in people from your region than I do. I don’t mind people from the boonies. I’m a Texan, remember? One of those people with those funny accents, who’s supposed to walk like he’s rode a horse all his life and spit tobacco all the time. I grew up able to ride twenty minutes in one direction and hit houston, and twenty minutes in the other and be out in the country. Even now, I bike to work past fields with Cows placidly munching grass. I was more suburban than country, but I wasn’t exactly big-city.

Truth is, the soup’s never meant to become one undifferentiated hodgepodge. The problem, across the board, is one of of avoiding both conformity and emnity. The point, ultimately, is to leave it up to people how they integrate. If you do that, you won’t get so many people awkwardly conformed into the system. As generations are born into things, they’ll have both the identity of their parents and the identity as an American to draw on, rather than the cold comfort of a narrow abstraction of both.

Comment #194999

Very good post Stephen.

“One of those people with those funny accents, who’s supposed to walk like he’s rode a horse all his life and spit tobacco all the time”

Um, no, that would be me :)

Stephen

I had to point out dozens of times the fallacy of red/blue state distinctions. It was not the conservatives here who kept on bringing them up.

kctim-

“I do not criticize the Republicans as much because they do not attempt to take away individual rights as often as liberals do.”

Liberals do not “take away” individual rights. The premise of liberalism in general is to focus on individual rights and the governmental protection thereof. I think you are confusing the ideological with the practical. Don’t blame the ideology when it gets distorted or corrupted in practice. Blame the implimentation policy.

Stephen D-

“The point, ultimately, is to leave it up to people how they integrate. If you do that, you won’t get so many people awkwardly conformed into the system. As generations are born into things, they’ll have both the identity of their parents and the identity as an American to draw on, rather than the cold comfort of a narrow abstraction of both.”

Well put. I agree.

SteveK-

“For awhile Republicans [produced results] and they stayed in the majority. Then they stopped delivering and they got booted. Beware Democrats because I think the people’s tolerance for not delivering is getting short every cycle.”

What exactly did this current republican government produce that has had ANY proven benefits whatsoever? The terror legislation was obviously fatally flawed because it didn’t conform to the constitution nor international law…plus it was unnecessary and was designed only to make it so the government could cut corners in intelligence gathering. They didn’t secure a damn thing at home except the passenger lines at airports (damn water bottles!). They didn’t do anything remotely helpful for the economy because they borrowed all their working capital. The tax cuts mostly went to the rich. They continued to try and regulate the American family structure. Etc. Etc. Etc. What a bunch of nonsense.

Truth is that Bush was re-elected because of the political climate after 9/11 and the fact that his opponent was viewed as even less competent on the issue of security. There was no mandate. Just mass shrugging. Then came the extreme and divisive rhetoric and the failures of policy, one after another. Now we have a new congress. Lets extend them the same timeframes to work with and take it from there. No one will prevent you from criticising specific results once they are in power, but how about we wait to see those results before we start assuming what they will look like.

The nation is more unified than the GOP would like us to believe. The GOP strategy has long been to divide the nation. The only reason that the country seem so blue/red is that the GOP, their “liberal” media operatives, along with the Christian rightwing worked very hard to vilianize part of the population and divide us as a nation using divisive wedge issues. One of their downfalls may have been that the scope of their vilianization machine may have grown out of control alienating some of their own voters. Besides, I think people have become fed up with that mentality and the Dems did the right thing with their 50-state strategy of reaching out. I think the Dems will do OK as long as they push hard for unity at the rejection of GOP division.

I do not criticize the Republicans as much because they do not attempt to take away individual rights as often as liberals do.

kctim,

SAY WHAT???? Maybe you should ask a few people who have wound up on the GOP vilian list about that. It is the Democrats who have been fighting for individual rights against the objections of the GOP. Maybe I should ask you who you think qualifies as an individual? Or how you define “rights”?

Kevin
I’m not confusing anything at all.
Those who strongly favor taking away individual rights, label themselves as liberals.
It makes no difference whether its the proper definition or not. If they are going to claim they are liberals then I’m going to blame them as liberals.

Those who strongly favor taking away individual rights, label themselves as liberals.

kctim,

Who wants to restrict individual rights when it comes to marriage? Not liberals. Who wants to restrict individual rights when it comes to making private and personal decisions about your own body? Not liberals. Who wants to restrict individual rights to protest the government? Not liberals. Who wants to invade the individual right of privacy of Americans? Not liberals. Who wants to shit on the individual right of habeus corpus? Not liberals. I think you need to go back and reevaluate who is attacking liberty in this country. It ain’t the liberals.

JayJay
It seems you view being a Democrat or Republican as being the same thing as being a liberal or Conservative. I do not.

We could play the “who wants to restrict” game all day long but I don’t think we would get anywhere.
Who wants to restrict decisions I make about my own body? Liberals!
Oh, but wait, Conservatives don’t like abortions do they and that is what you were talking about isn’t it. Well, the “controlling what a woman does with her body” argument is bogus. The main objection is that some people believe there are 2 lives at stake. Take away the human life factor and I would be willing to bet most Conservatives wouldn’t care too much if women wanted to have their insides sucked out.
Who wants to restrict the 2nd Amendment? Liberals!
Who wants to restrict religion? Liberals!
Who wants to restrict how individuals spend their own money? Liberals!
Who wants to restrict how individuals plan their own retirement? Liberals!

And the GOP divided the nation line is nothing but a talking point.
Life in LA is totally different than life in the midwest. You cannot take the culture, values and lifestyle of one and try and force the others to accept it. That is one reason why our nation was seriously hurt when we gave up states rights and that is the reason the Dem party was rejected in the 90’s.
The “wedge” issues were already there and will continue to be there. The Republicans and Conservatives were just smarter about using them to get votes. Support of Constitutional rights has that effect.

“It is the Democrats who have been fighting for individual rights against the objections of the GOP.”

No, it has been Demorats and Republicans who been the moderates.

“Maybe I should ask you who you think qualifies as an individual?”

Every breathing American.

“Or how you define “rights‎?”

The Constitution.

Many of us on this site were telling the Dems that they had to come back to center if they wanted to win. How did the liberals answer us on here? They said the problem was that the Dem party had moved to far to the center and that is why they kept loosing elections. That they needed to move further left. So what happens on election day? The Dems keep their extreme liberal wing hidden and run “Conservative Democrats” and win.

kctim,

There is only one problem, the numbers do not support your contention. When the new house majority takes effect in January the largest caucus will not be the DLC’s centrist “New Democrat Coalition,” it will be the “Congressional Progressive Caucus.” The caucus is up 14 members so far since the election bringing their total to 64 members. That number could go up to 70 since some progressive Democrats are locked in close battles in still undecided house races.

2 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, won seats in the new Senate. Also, two conservatives from the “Blue Dog Caucus,” Ed Case and Harold Ford lost.

Who wants to restrict the 2nd Amendment? Liberals!

kctim,

Liberals have all but dropped that as an issue.

Who wants to restrict religion? Liberals!

Liberals I know sure as hell don’t want that. In fact liberals fight for the right to worship as you see fit. We are talking about individual rights here and liberals have fought for individual rights of religious freedom or of no religioun is you so choose. The only time that liberals have barked about religioun is when it was sponsored by a governmental agency. There is a big difference between individual rights and the rights of the government (which should be restricted).

Who wants to restrict how individuals spend their own money? Liberals!

That is a piss poor argument. So you have to pay taxes to support the good of the country, boo hoo. Did I get a choice if my taxdollars would be spent on an immoral war? Hell no.

Who wants to restrict how individuals plan their own retirement? Liberals!

The governement is not planning my retirement, I am planning my own to be suplemented by SS. If you are letting the government plan your retirement through SS then you are going to be in big trouble.

And the GOP divided the nation line is nothing but a talking point.

Excuse me, but I just lived through the last 6 years, it is not a talking point, it is reality. Trying to dismiss what really happened by calling it a talking point is not reality based.

Life in LA is totally different than life in the midwest. You cannot take the culture, values and lifestyle of one and try and force the others to accept it. That is one reason why our nation was seriously hurt when we gave up states rights and that is the reason the Dem party was rejected in the 90’s.

I do not live in California, I live in the Midwest. My views are not out of place here. As far as taking the culture, values and lifestyle of one and trying to force others to accept it, just exactly do you think the Cons have been doing by acting like the “Morality Police?” The Dems got kicked out of the majority in the 90’s for the exact same reason that the GOP got kicked out last week.

The “wedge‎ issues were already there and will continue to be there. The Republicans and Conservatives were just smarter about using them to get votes. Support of Constitutional rights has that effect.

Well at least you can admit that the GOP used people’s personal lives for their own political gain. Sorry, Bud, but equality IS a constitutional right. Freedom from government religioun IS a Constitutional right. The government’s ability to collect taxes to ensure the “general welfare” of the nation IS a constitutional right. Protection from unwarrented searches and seizures IS a constitutional right. Individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness IS a Constitutional right.

No, it has been Demorats and Republicans who been the moderates.

WOW is all I can say about that one.

Every breathing American. The Constitution.

Me too. So why then do you think it is ok for conservatives to deny every breathing American their Constitutional right to equality, and freedom from a government to institute laws based on religious beliefs?

It seems you view being a Democrat or Republican as being the same thing as being a liberal or Conservative. I do not.

Actually you are the one who made the distinction between “Republicans” and “Liberals”:

“I do not criticize the Republicans as much because they do not attempt to take away individual rights as often as liberals do.”

Kctim-

“I’m not confusing anything at all.
Those who strongly favor taking away individual rights, label themselves as liberals.
It makes no difference whether its the proper definition or not. If they are going to claim they are liberals then I’m going to blame them as liberals.”

Charles Manson could call himself a good Christian too, but it doesn’t make it so. And bashing Christianity as a result would be a fool’s errand. Your logic is terrible.

And your perpetuating false information solely because someone else did it first does not help you make a clear point, but rather the exact opposite. You ARE confusing things…fundemental things.

JayJay
“Liberals have all but dropped that as an issue”

They have only dropped it because they know they lose with it. Once they are back on track again, they will get right back to their old tricks. I hope I am wrong though.

“There is a big difference between individual rights and the rights of the government (which should be restricted)”

There is also a big difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion but liberals do not see it that way.
Public places were not meant to be free from religion but Americans were meant to be able to have freedom of religion. There is nothing wrong with thanking God in public schools, offering prayer time or saying God in the pledge, if one so chooses to.

“That is a piss poor argument. So you have to pay taxes to support the good of the country, boo hoo.”

No, I have to pay taxes to support what others “believe” is for the good of the country. I thought forcing beliefs onto others was wrong?

“Did I get a choice if my taxdollars would be spent on an immoral war? Hell no.”

Of course not. But then again, I do believe the Constitution covers that one doesn’t it.

“The governement is not planning my retirement, I am planning my own to be suplemented by SS. If you are letting the government plan your retirement through SS then you are going to be in big trouble”

Too many people have become dependent on govt and SS to provide for their retirements.
And most people would benefit more if they were allowed to invest their own money as they see fit.

“Excuse me, but I just lived through the last 6 years, it is not a talking point, it is reality.”

And I lived through the previous 8 years.

“Trying to dismiss what really happened by calling it a talking point is not reality based.”

Neither is ignoring the previous 8 years.

“I do not live in California, I live in the Midwest.”

Cool. Anywhere near KC Missouri?

“As far as taking the culture, values and lifestyle of one and trying to force others to accept it, just exactly do you think the Cons have been doing by acting like the “Morality Police?‎”

I agree. We have had Conservative morals and liberals “morals” forced onto us.

“The Dems got kicked out of the majority in the 90’s for the exact same reason that the GOP got kicked out last week.”

Amen!

“Well at least you can admit that the GOP used people’s personal lives for their own political gain. Sorry, Bud, but equality IS a constitutional right.”

Which is why I am a strong supporter of gay marriage, religous freedom and Constitutional rights.

“Freedom from government religioun IS a Constitutional right.”

I agree. But nobody I know of has ever proposed a govt religion.

“The government’s ability to collect taxes to ensure the “general welfare‎ of the nation IS a constitutional right”

Yes it is. The problem lies in ones definition of general welfare. To some of you, it is a nanny state, to most of us, it is to be “general” in every aspect of govt.

“Protection from unwarrented searches and seizures IS a constitutional right.”

It used to be. No knock laws and wiretapping took care of that one.

“Individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness IS a Constitutional right.”

So why have we allowed govt the power to dictate what individual liberty’s we can have and how to pursue that happiness?

“WOW is all I can say about that one.”

Why? I told you before that I do not view Dems and Reps as being the same as libs and Conservatives.

“Me too. So why then do you think it is ok for conservatives to deny every breathing American their Constitutional right to equality,”

I don’t and I don’t believe I have ever defended that.

“and freedom from a government to institute laws based on religious beliefs?”

Most of our laws are based on some form of religious belief or moral or value.
Didn’t that Jesus guy say something about helping the poor? Funny how the left has no problem with that being forced as a belief onto others.

Aside from religious beliefs, shared by both the left and right, being the main reason behind the anti gay marriage charge, nothing else really can be related to govt forcing religion onto people.
This vote getting myth of how Conservatives and Republicans want to set up a theocracy is laughable and I’m a freakin atheist.

Its funny how the left would rather fear their own countrymen and their religious beliefs over that of terrorists, who on behalf of their religous beliefs have killed so many of our fellow Americans.

Ok Kevin, then how should we label people who claim to be liberals but don’t follow the dictionary definition of the word? What would be the proper name to call the extreme left wing (who call themselves liberals) of the Democratic party?
I suppose you get upset when people use the word “soccer” over that of “football” too.

JayJay
“Actually you are the one who made the distinction between “Republicans‎ and “Liberals‎”

Yes I did. I said Republicans and liberals, not Conservatives and liberals.

Its funny how the left would rather fear their own countrymen and their religious beliefs over that of terrorists, who on behalf of their religous beliefs have killed so many of our fellow Americans.

kctim,

You cannot seperate one from the other. Terrorism is based on religious extremism. It is not totally out of the question that what causes Islamic extremism in the Middle East could not cause a similar movement of Christian extremism here. Before anyone jumps in with the Islam is evil, Christianity is good line, there are plenty of passages in the Judeo-Christian Bible (esp the OT) that could be construed by extremist as an ok from their God to perpatrate violence on others. In fact, a large Christian group that supposedly supports “family values” (I cannot think of the name right now), has advocated the killing of homosexuals. Religion can be a force for peace, but it can also quickly turn into your worst nightmare.

The only way to ensure that does not happen is to embrace religious diversity and not give superiority status to one over another. The last few years have been anything but, with right wing Christianity demanding center stage.

What would be the proper name to call the extreme left wing (who call themselves liberals) of the Democratic party?

kctim,

Maybe we should try to stop lumping people together under labels and just talk about the individual issues at hand. When we lump people together under labels we wind up waging attacks against the people who carry that label, not the actual issue.

JayJay
“You cannot seperate one from the other”

Many of us can JayJay:
Followers of Islam declared war on us and then flew planes into US buildings and killed thousands of our fellow countrymen.
Christians want to be left alone.

And I’m going to guess that many of the lefts new “Conservative Democrats” can too.

“a large Christian group that supposedly supports “family values‎ (I cannot think of the name right now), has advocated the killing of homosexuals”

What will happen to these guys if they are caught and resist? They will die.
There will be no left talk about how we must understand where they are coming from or how the govt went too far either. The left will sit back and do and say nothing, just as they did in Waco.

“The last few years have been anything but, with right wing Christianity demanding center stage.”

Again, other than all the anti gay marriage stuff, which is supported by religious people on BOTH sides of the isle, where do you see a Christian takeover of America in the last 6 years?

Muslims declared war on us and attacked us. Christians have not, but the left fears them more.

Followers of Islam declared war on us and then flew planes into US buildings and killed thousands of our fellow countrymen.

kctim,

No, a small minority group of Islamic extremists declared war on us and attacked us. The majority of Islam is peaceful. Taking our revenge on all of Islam because of the action of a few extremists is bad policy at best. Which is my point about Fundamentalist Christianity demanding a bigger spotlight than it represents.

Christians want to be left alone.

And there are many people in this country who want Christians to leave them alone.

There will be no left talk about how we must understand where they are coming from or how the govt went too far either. The left will sit back and do and say nothing, just as they did in Waco.

There is a big difference between bringing the perpatrators of a crime to justice and finding ways to coexsist with people from different cultures. Nobody, has said that we should sypathize with those who carried out the attacks, they should all die and rot in hell. What we are saying is that we should find ways to make sure that we understand other cultures and find ways to prevent those attacks from happening in the future. We cannot get in this mode that all Muslims want to attack us, therefore we should attack them first. That is a recipe for disaster on a biblical scale.

Again, other than all the anti gay marriage stuff, which is supported by religious people on BOTH sides of the isle, where do you see a Christian takeover of America in the last 6 years?

Marriage equality and abortion have been big areas where Christian fundamentalists want to impose their will. But it doesn’t stop there. They have fought to keep the morning after pill out of Doctor’s hands, they have fought safe sex practice education that could save lives, they have fought the release of the HPV vaccine because it would remove a deterant to sex, even though doing so would sentance some to agonizing death by cancer. They have proposed a ban on birth control, and started a faith based inititive based in the federal Government. They have fought to put religion in the science class.

Muslims declared war on us and attacked us. Christians have not, but the left fears them more.

Again, Muslims as a whole DID NOT declare war on us, a small minority of extremists did. No Christians have not, and that is the way we want it to stay. The left absolutly does not fear them more, but they are a part of our culture and we do have to live with them and the concequences of their actions. If we don’t then we may wind up like Muslims who are being punished for not dealing with their own extremism issues.

JayJay
“and finding ways to coexsist with people from different cultures”

Well said!
Do American Christians not also qualify as a culture?

I totally agree about marriage equality, but it is Christian fundamentalists, not Republican or Conservative Christian fundamentalists.
And as I said, abortion, IMO, is more about saving a life than it is about religion.

Yes, we must live with Christians but their actions have not given us any reason to fear them. Treating them the same or worse, then those who do, is wrong.

But this all boils down to what Stephens topic spoke about in a way.
The majority of people try to live in geographical areas which reflect their beliefs.
Some people view Christians as no different than the terrorists and some people can distinguish between the two.
Some people worry about the govt listening to them on the phone and some worry about the govt taking their guns.
Some people want to depend on govt to survive and some want govt to leave them alone.
The Dems barely convinced the voters that they have moved towards the center but unless the Dems take that serious and respect their different views, they will be rejected again.

I am a liberal conservative. No, I am a conservative liberal. I don’t know, it’s one or the other I think. It is becoming so confusing. You have neoliberals, liberals, progressive liberals, neoconservatives, conservatives, moderates and independents. Then you also have socialists, libertarians, capitalists, communists, nazis, neonazis, nationalists and a few others that I haven’t even heard of. Throw religion into the mix and that will add a couple volumes to the list. How many political parties do we need? I think I will just stick with democrat for now.

Kctim-

“Ok Kevin, then how should we label people who claim to be liberals but don’t follow the dictionary definition of the word?”

Just off the top of my head? How about quasi-liberals, or neo-liberals, or supposed liberals? Whatever it is, it should be an honest description…not one that is intentionally unfocussed.

“What would be the proper name to call the extreme left wing (who call themselves liberals) of the Democratic party?”

I guess that depends on which extreme left wing you’re talking about. I’d be a tad more descriptive than “liberal” if I wanted to distinguish them for some reason though.

“I suppose you get upset when people use the word “soccer‎ over that of “football‎ too.”

No, because soccer is not football, and never will be in my eyes. There is only one football, and it involves high speed collisions and people getting knocked down in every single play. And I love saying things like: “My Trojans are going to pound on your Beavers all day long this Saturday!” And honestly, what red blooded American male doesn’t love a game that is just a huge analogy to war?

jlw
It would be great to just be able to stick with Democrat, but we can no longer do that.
A northeast or southern cali democrat is alot different than say somebody like Ike Skelton here in Missouri. How in the hell could I vote for a kerry or pelosi “Democrat,” when they do not want to represent my views?

That is where I disagree with Stephens post. I believe there is a huge difference between rual and urban America or the coasts and the rest of America.
And I believe a party who is willing to respect the differing views and different lifestyles of each, will eventually become the party of the people.

jlw-

I can appreciate your frustration with labels, but they do have meaning. All of them. And saying we don’t need labels is like saying we don’t need more words in the dictionary. Well, you know, if it carries unigue meaning, it needs to exist for its own sake. That is how humans have progressed from grunting to writing grand political philosophy…by adding words.

And what in the world does it mean to be a democrat? It is not an ideology at all, but rather a party made up of loose affiliations who sometimes have common interests…just like the republicans. If I say I’m a social libertarian, you know exactly where I stand on almost every social issue. If I say I’m a democrat, it could go either way most of the time. That doesn’t help anyone, nor describe anything of political relevence anymore. There are just too many issues, too much variance in lifestyle, and too many people to speak for.

Do American Christians not also qualify as a culture?

Yes they do, and we MUST coexist together. It is a two way street, which mean that I will respect their beliefs as long as they respect mine. But when they start to push beyond the line of respect then they should expect to be pushed back.

And as I said, abortion, IMO, is more about saving a life than it is about religion.

This is a highly charged issue on both sides. This may surprise you, but I am absolutly against abortion as a form of birth control. But I also believe that when an issue is this emotionally charged on both sides then it is best to allow the individual to make an informed choice that they will have to live with.

Yes, we must live with Christians but their actions have not given us any reason to fear them. Treating them the same or worse, then those who do, is wrong.

I am not advocating treating any group worse than any other. For me it is an issue of respect. I can respect individuals making religious choices for themselves. I have a harder time respecting religious choices pushed on other individuals against their will.

Some people view Christians as no different than the terrorists and some people can distinguish between the two.

Just like some people view Muslims as no different that the terrorists, and some people can distinguish between the two, huh?

And I believe a party who is willing to respect the differing views and different lifestyles of each, will eventually become the party of the people.

kctim,

I don’t think such a party can ever exist. Probably the closest that I can think of right now is the Libertarian Party which recently softened some of their hardline stances to become more mainstream.

First to the main post. Stephen, I grew up in suburban Tennessee, and I agreed with the sentiment of your post when I was there. Then I moved to the Northeast for college and found a whole different world. There are real differences in the culture, morals, and politics of the different regions.

These manifest themselves in a difference of opinions on political issues and are ultimately up for grabs in national races. When I lived in TN, I considered myself a Democrat. When I moved to the Northeast, I considered myself a Republican. My views didn’t change nearly as much as my surroundings did. Now I live in the Midwest, and I’m still a Republican, but willing to cross party lines more often than I would in either of the previous places I lived.

There is a fundamental difference between a MA Republican and a TN Republican and an Ohio Repubilcan. The opposite is also true. This matters.

To JJ,

Gay marriage ammendments were passed in more states again this cycle as repulsive as I find that. There is now gay marriage legislation or ammendments in more states than not, red and blue. In the 2004 races, it was Kerry voters that passed them not Bush voters. Take Ohio for example, Bush voters were less than 51% of the vote, the ammendment passed at over 60% (well over if I recall correctly). There was at least a small minority of Bush voters against (let’s say 2% for arguments sake, though my guess is it was more like 10%). That meant without the Kerry voters it didn’t make it, yet it did by a landslide. This is not just a FREC issue. They just got it on the ballot (something that I hold against them).

This was not helped by the fact that the Democratic standard bearer didn’t have the balls to stand up on the issue. Also, gentle reminder, Clinton signed the DOMA into law as well. This is a bi-partisan restriction of rights that we have going.

To Dr. Poshek,
I have to ask you politely to take that back. Republicans are not genocidal in any way.

Finally back to the main post. Stephen, don’t you think that David S’s response to Ron refutes your entire argument if he speaks for any substantial portion of the Democratic base? My disenchantment with the Democratic Party in the early 90’s was founded on this kind of pendantic approach to “red states” i.e. the South by NE liberals.

Rob: I shall politely decline to take back my statement of the truth. Republicans and their polities are by intent and effect genocidal.

Dr. Poshek,

The definition of genocide I’m working from is “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group”. Source: Dictionary.com.

Do you have a different one? Because if not, I’m naively unaware of the U.S.’s government’s intent to exterminate anything since the American Indians or actions that have resulted in such an event.

Can you provide substantive proof on the intent of any policy designed or enacted by any party in the United States in the last 30 years that were created with the explicit intent to result in the extermination of a group?

What happened with the Iraq War wasn’t so much that things were getting worse, but that the Republicans wouldn’t let people within a yard of the policy without them giving up the option or the initiative to change things. To be taken seriously, you had to be a team player. To be a team player, you had to maintain blind faith in the war, and not suggest alternatives.

I think the Democrats successfully demonstrated that you can be a critic of the war, even a proponent of withdrawal, without having to accept collapse or defeat in Iraq as inevitable. With the Democrats, you could at least have an honest conversation about the war.

I don’t think people want to feel like being part of a political party means having to bury their heads in the sand. I think that’s the uniting principle about the new Democratic party. It’s not that we’re angels, or that we don’t have folks on the fringe or even that everybody in the Democratic party likes their new company or their old adversaries.

No, what it is is that people have a broader opportunity for dialogue on the issues within the Democratic party. The direction is not party dogma to the exception of everything else.

America needs a rest from ruling dogma, a good long rest. America needs to feel again like it’s one country where people can discuss things, despite their differences. We need to be having debates more profound than who’s the bigger poopy-head. America needs a chance to mature into this new period in its history, regain some of its hope, its optimism, and its resolve to fight the evils of the world and the darkness within.

Stephen,

I’m confused; whom are you responding to? If it was to me, I have to admit that I’m too thick to get the point right now.

Rob-
Sorry. I was just expressing a general thought about how things went.

My basic answer to you is that people have common interests, even across party lines. The Bush administration and the last congress ignored this, and this current one ignores it at their peril. The real reason that the Republican failed is that they unified enough Americans in the impression that their policies were hurting America at home and abroad.

9/11 unites this country in more ways than one. If we heard Bin Laden was dead tomorrow, I think we’d both be dancing in the streets. I think had the president said “I’m not going to rest until I’ve got Bin Laden’s head on a platter.” Instead of “I’m not really that concerned about him anymore”, he would have kept far more Democratson his side.

I think Americans would just as soon do things by the rule of law. I don’t think they object to their being rules and oversight on surveillance and treatment of prisoners as long as something gets done.

I don’t think Americans mind the basic concept of deregulations, so long as it doesn’t come around to bite them in the butt. Neither do I think they mind regulation, kept moderate enough.

I think Americans were much more willing to sacrifice than Bush realized or even thought to take advantage. As much as some Republicans decry the lack of vision among Democrats, I distinctly remember feeling sad that my president’s big message to my generation was “go out and spend”.

What America needs are missions: Deficit reductions, restoration of checks and balances, the best possible end to Iraq, the cleansing of temple of government of the moneychangers. Hell, what better mission could you go for than going forward with the 9/11 commission recommendations? Protect the Country!

We cannot unite ourselves around grudges and fears. We can unite around these purposes.

KCTM et al

I live in a rural county. Admitably it is on the left coast but the economic base is largly agriculture with fishing and logging thrown in in the region. It is also overwhelmingly Democratic,followed by the Reps and then the Green Party. Separating blue-red by urban or boonies is not accurate. That is in most cases an oversimplification.There was a time in America when the cenral farm states were hotbeds of radical populism. Banks,trying to forclose on farms were run out of whole regions. The central states gave birth to the Grange Movement,originally farmers unions, and farm subsidies to stabilize whole communities. These were considered radical concepts at the time,even communist by some.
That being said,the issue of gun control does reflect a very real difference between urban and rural residents.If you live in the city,especially if you are white,middle class or well to do,and you call the police about a crime in progress they will be there in a matter of minutes.Also a civilian with a gun in the city is looked upon,often with good reason,as a threat. In the country,because of the usually small police dept. and the distances they must travel.the police cannot realible offer as much protection. They usually just fill out the forms after the crime has been committed.Guns are considered to be another tool in the country. They get used for protection,to put down injured stock,kill a predator,maybe even put a little meat on the table but they are not a threat.
The Dems have done a poor job understanding this difference when this issue comes up. This has been used skillfully by some on the right to move rural areas into the red column. This is one Dem that is happy to see some pro-gun Democrats in congress. Personally I am a 2nd amendment Democrat. There is not a lot of us but we are a growing faction. I hope we will be able to change the attitudes of our party. There are signs that is happening. In fairness many of our brethern seek to limit guns out of fears and helplessness about some of the horrific crimes that sometimes occur. I would submit that the best way to stop crime is not gun control but adopting policies that give hope,that convince people that they do have a future and it can be a good one. We will disagree on this one but I have concluded that the Dems have a better shot of doing this.

Bills: Who would of thunk it, two 2nd amendment democrats on one thread. I live in rural Ohio. the majority here is rep. but the dems are gaining ground fast as more and more people move out into the countryside. Here the sheriff’s dept. shows up well after the act is over. It isgetting to the point that when anyone gets robbed and call the sheriff, they get told that they can come into town and fill out a statement if they want to. Half the theives are on the informant list. They get caught theiving, they give the name of a drug dealer, they are back on the road theiving again. Once in a while a thief may have to wear a wire and actually purchase drugs. everytime the sheriff or the prosecuting attorney is up for reelection there is a big drug bust and or prosecution just in time for the election. Thieves are a greater problem in the country than the city. The sheriff’s Dept. gets federal money for busting pot growers and sellers but none for catching thieves. There is no doubt in my mind that if this continues, we will need our guns to protect ourselves and our property.

Stephen Daugherty,

Good post. I tend to think the country is becoming more conservative as evidenced by the large numbers of Democrats elected who are conservative. Several people commented about how regional differences are real. I believe this to be the case. I’ve served around the country and also met people from all walks of life in the Army. There are different mentalities in different regions. What might be acceptable in NYC is not acceptable in Pittsburgh, what’s acceptable in Pittsburgh might not be acceptable in Iowa.

That being said, the Democrats have already essentially given up on gun control as they know it won’t carry except in big cities. I also think that they’ll at least need to moderate their stance on abortion and allow some restrictions. Telling a parent that they have to be informed if their 14 year old daughter needs a tylenol from the school nurse but not if she wants an abortion fails the common sense test amongst many others. The Republican defeat was based largely on the fact that they were seen as abandoning the conservativism that gave them the majority in the first place. I would imagine that Pelosi and Company will be pragmatic and have the sense not to try and rock the boat too hard on various social issues. If they do, then this Democrat majority may be the shortest in history.

I too appreciate the second amendment in some cases moreso than any other. The second amendment is what keeps people like the chimp-in-chief from eroding every other amendment on the bill of rights.

Try being a gay man in the South and not supporting gun rights. Armed gays don’t get bashed, but stupid bigots who want to attack them do get shot.

But don’t worry Stephen, it seems these states can be united. All you have to do is unify them under the banner of hatred towards gay people. It worked for the Nazis, it works for the Republicans, and it works for most Democrats too.

Jacob in SC,

I’m sorry to hear that you find yourself in a position where you need to be armed based on your sexual orientation. That being said, there is a difference between objecting to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds and being a gay basher. Not saying that’s what you said, but it can be taken that way. Personally, I’d just as soon let what people do in their own bedrooms stay there, and I think the Christian right needs to address a lot of other issues before they worry about homosexuality. That being said, I also find it a shame that so often any objection to homosexuality is met with accusations of homophobia. Being a straight white male, I suppose I’m not in the realm of groups that face discrimination, but the gay rights movement will not win any followers by insults to everyone who disagrees.

BillS
I wasn’t trying to say that every rural area is a Republican or Conservative hotbed, but here in Missouri I would have to say they are probably around 60-70% so simply because of the individual rights, religion, guns and tax issues.

I don’t think we disagree as much as you may think concerning the 2nd Amendment. I know many pro 2nd Democrats and come from a family of former true Democrats. The Dem partys move to the extreme left is what causes them not to vote Dem anymore.

“The Dems have done a poor job understanding this difference when this issue comes up.”

The extreme left that controls the Dem party have done a poor job Bill. They did not believe they needed those votes so they ignored the Constitutional rights and concerns of the pro 2nd crowd. Hopefully, you are correct and they will now.

“This has been used skillfully by some on the right to move rural areas into the red column. This is one Dem that is happy to see some pro-gun Democrats in congress.”

I’m glad to see it too. Let’s just hope the controlling extreme left doesn’t start ignoring them now that they are in power again.

“Personally I am a 2nd amendment Democrat. There is not a lot of us but we are a growing faction.”

IMO, there are tons of pro 2nd Democrats, they just couldn’t vote for the Dem party anymore.

“I hope we will be able to change the attitudes of our party.”

You and me both.

“In fairness many of our brethern seek to limit guns out of fears and helplessness about some of the horrific crimes that sometimes occur”

Yes, they used fear to scare people into giving away guaranteed individual rights. Sounds alot like how the Reps were trying to handle terrorism doesn’t it.

1 LT B:

There’s a difference between objecting to something personally and using your objection to try to deny people jobs, housing, health care, a family, and basic happiness. While I have no trouble understanding and tolerating religious beliefs that tell people homosexuality is wrong, I do have serious problems when those religious beliefs are allowed to interfere in my life. You may not agree with interracial marriage, but that bias doesn’t make it okay to stick your spoon in that pot either. I think most will recall when Bob Jones Univ discriminated against blacks under the banner of religious freedom.

That said, telling me that you should be able to discriminate in a way that isn’t allowed with anyone else is absurd. If I were an employer and I turned away Christian rightists, they could sue me, yet they are (in most states) completely free to do that to us. Religious freedom is not the license to force your belief system on others, nor is it the guarantee that you’ll be able to use the law and social structures to effect social engineering programs to bolster your opinion.

I had no intention of insulting anyone, but I’m pretty sick and tired of people using their so-called beliefs as a mask for bigotry. Believe what you want, but leave me out of it.

Jacob in SC,

You are completely right that there is a difference between objecting to homosexuality and discrimination and I was not insulted by what you said, but there are people out there who would be as it seems you’re linking Republicans with Nazis. Like I said, what people do in their own homes is their own business. I think a large part of the hostility towards gay rights stems from the perception that it is being forced upon people against their will. The Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws, coupled with Massachuttes allowing gay marriage created a concern that gay marriage would be broadly allowed by the courts with no input from the people. You rightly don’t like the use of religious freedom to engage in social engineering, but that’s how many conservatives view homosexual attempts to “legalize” gay marriage through the court system. Again I was not insulted and I hope you don’t think me a bigot for having a different opinion.

KCTM: I have heard the term”extreme left” used to describe a wing of the Dems often but it is has never been made clear to me exactly what that means. Please define your terms if you have the time.

Although I believe in the right of law abiding citizens to have guns I have voted consistently for Dems,even holding my nose from time to time. The reason is economic. My guns will not help me if they are in the pawn shop. I am a working union carpenter. Most of my work is on public projects,bridges etc. The Reps here are always attacking prevailing wage,overtime pay,closed shops,reasonable job safety programs, unemployment insurance,workers comp and pretty much anything else that helps working people. I hope that this election also brings about some real changes in the Rep party also. I hope they get back to their roots.For example,prevailing rate laws were divised and passed by Reps to protect wage standards and provide stability. It does not look good with Lott regaining his post. Looks like more of the same anti-worker stuff.

You know BillS, I really think “extreme left” and “extreme right” can only be decided by individuals themselves.
For me, “extreme left” means people who believe in wealth redistribution and use it as a means to create and capitalize on envy to get votes. Those on the extreme left also believe in punishing success and treating Americans not as equals when it comes to taxes. They do not believe in individual choice for issues which do not support their agenda. They do not support banning late term abortions. They do not support and overtly violate the 2nd Amendment. They believe social programs are the answer to every problem and believe people should be forced by govt to support that belief. They do not believe in personal responsibility. They believe in “national healthcare.” They believe the US, its military and its people are second to the world, the UN and the world population. They believe saving a stupid fish or lizard is more important than allowing a farmer to raise crops to feed his family. etc…

I know it is human nature to maybe believe in a few of these things, but too many of our elected politicians believe in most if not all of them.

Basically, people like pelosi are “extreme leftists” and people like Ike Skelton are Democrats.

” Although I believe in the right of law abiding citizens to have guns I have voted consistently for Dems…..”

This is where we differ some. I believe in all of our rights and will not vote for somebody who I feel does not. I have and still do vote for Democrats but I have never voted for a liberal. (sorry Kevin) The reason is the Constitution.
I’m one of those people who knows that the 2nd was not designed to protect hunting or protection rights. It was put in there to protect us from our govt and from those who wish to use govt to oppress us.

While I will never work as part of a union, I respect the individual rights of people to create them. But I also respect the individual rights of business owners too.

kctim,

Good post and good thoughts. I worry somewhat about gun rights with someone like Pelosi in charge of the House, but I think she’ll be facing a revolt by a lot of her new freshman Dems if she tries anything regarding gun control. Just for her benefit, I want to buy a Barret .50 sniper rifle. The reason? California banned the rifle back in 02 or 03. Barret’s response was to announce that since Barret was legally not allowed to provide weapons or services to criminals that he would no longer sell or service Barret weapons sold to the State of California since they violated the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

Kctim-

“(sorry Kevin)”

For what?

Not voting for a “liberal”? What does that have to do with me, a traditional conservative libertarian? Or am I now a liberal simply because you personally found it more convenient?

I find your notion of personal definitions troubling. Maybe you should stop creating your own “personal” definitions of terms like “liberal” and “leftist”. You cannot change a definition unilaterally and then expect people to understand that new meaning while you use the term to disparage groups of people. Either stop using labels you don’t understand and say what you really mean, or go look up the meanings and use them properly. That is the only way to avoid overtly confusing people.

Just because someone calls themselves something does not mean that it is a universal truth. Words have specific meaning, and understanding those meanings is fundemental to using them. We do not let people re-make the English language as they go along. It defeats the whole purpose.

And your “personal” idea of what constitutes an “extreme leftist” is flawed when reconciled with the true meanings of the labels you attempt to use. Are you just calling any policy in which you personally dislike an “extreme left” policy?

1LT B-

Have you read the 9th and 2nd circuit reasoning regarding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? I personally find the most literal reading to be the best one (every individual has the right to own guns), but the reasoning is fairly convincing. I believe it was the 2nd circuit court that decided that the right to bear arms was really intended to apply to militias rather than individuals. If you get the chance, check it out. If not for the fact that I believe the language of the amendment to be clear enough, in and of itself, to justify a literal reading, I would find the new interpretations to be completely reasonable…especially when viewed through the lens of urban crime.

And I personally oppose any law that would require me to give up my 9mm Beretta…after having seen firsthand what it is like to go without power (NYC blackout, CA energy “crisis”, etc.) or law and order (LA Riots, Katrina, etc.), I’d want to be put in the position of not being able to defend my family.

Of course, one man’s idea of protecting his family may be another man’s idea of cold-blooded murder.

Man Kevin, you are in a mood today:)

“For what?”

Because we just had a little back on forth on the “proper” definition of the word liberal and I was trying to have a little fun.
It had nothing to do with not voting for a liberal or even saying you were one.

“I find your notion of personal definitions troubling. Maybe you should stop creating your own “personal‎ definitions of terms like “liberal‎ and “leftist‎.”

I’m not creating anything my friend. pelosi IS of the left wing mindset and you can find her positions on issues with a simple search.

“Just because someone calls themselves something does not mean that it is a universal truth.”

No it doesn’t. But when a group of people with the same agenda or ideology call themselves liberal, I will help them out and call them as they wish.

“Words have specific meaning, and understanding those meanings is fundemental to using them. We do not let people re-make the English language as they go along. It defeats the whole purpose.”

We do that everyday. Hip, cool, wingnut and in the 80’s, bad meant good.

“And your “personal‎ idea of what constitutes an “extreme leftist‎ is flawed when reconciled with the true meanings of the labels you attempt to use.”

To you, they are flawed. To myself and many others, they define todays “leftist” or “liberal.”

“Are you just calling any policy in which you personally dislike an “extreme left‎ policy?”

No. I am calling any policy, in which somebody who says they represent the left, a left type policy.
Abortion on demand is supported by self proclaimed lefties, so it is a left policy.
No abortion at all is supported by self proclaimed righties, so it is a right policy.

If the left starts supporting the 2nd Amendment and the right starts violating or trying to kill it, then I will start saying anti 2nd Amendment people are Conservatives, ok?

LT
Issues such as the 2nd Amendment are going to be the real test for the Dems. If they revert back to the 90’s, they will piss off their newest members and those who supported them. But they will also piss off the people who did not vote this year and that will not help them at the polls in future elections.

Kevin
“I would find the new interpretations to be completely reasonable…especially when viewed through the lens of urban crime”

Don’t you feel like we play with fire when we start finding new interpretations to support certain beliefs or agendas?
Many people found it completely reasonable to do that with the 4th….especially when viewed through the lens of terrorism.

I agree with interpretations of the Second Amendment that allow people to own guns, but I think there are reasonable limits to what weapons civilians should be allowed to possess. Our government already prohibits certain kinds, like automatic weapons for example.

To me, the argument some gun control opponents are using are self-destructive. Columbine is an example of the dangers of that approach. The horrors of seeing a high school shot up and blown up set back their cause years. I think the best way to ensure gun rights is to be reasonable about what constitutes gun rights. After all, the right to bear arms is not the right to own rocket-propelled grenades, nor is it the right for prisoners to keep their guns.

Posted too soon. Let me extend that argument a bit.

In this age of soundbites and TV News Soundbite Drama, we get all too many people refusing to compromise, because all to few people know how to do compromise with confidence. We’re taught to be competitive, to fight everything out, not to appear uncertain or vulnerable.

We’ve bought into this myth that folks can have total power, that we can just barge in and have our way if we just do so brazenly enough. The trouble is, it’s very difficult to argue people along those lines into becoming converts or into maintaining agreements.

All too often, we persuade in order to subvert, in order to trick people. Cigarette companies employed such approaches for years. Look where it got them! The end of such adversarial approaches is inevitably losing, and there are some kinds of losses that you can’t spring back from.

Moderate regulation of guns is better over the long run than absent regulation. An argument from fear only serves the true zealots on the issue by making those who oppose onerous restrictions on gun ownership appear like they’re paranoid.

The argument they present should not be a fever dream of government invading people’s houses and kicking down doors. Such notions make people afraid that the real target of gun advocates is the system itself, and that these people are closet insurrectionists. The way to successfuly defeat gun control is not to make it seem reassuring by one’s histrionics, it’s to make it a non-issue for the average person.

Kctim-

“Don’t you feel like we play with fire when we start finding new interpretations to support certain beliefs or agendas?”

What are you really asking? Of course we need to interpret laws to give them their intended meaning and effect in a constantly changing world. No one, not even Scalia, can claim to be a literalist or a textualist 100% of the time. Life is much too fluid, and we’d be stupid to assume that our legislators could pre-conceive of every possible scenario and circumstance when they write a law. They’re just not that smart. That’s why we need judges: to interpret a law and apply it to a unique set of facts in each case.

I’m not much for activism, but I’m not naive enough to believe that laws are written by omnipotent being in a timeless mannor.

So, what is it you are REALLY asking?

Kctim-

A few retorts:

“I’m not creating anything my friend. pelosi IS of the left wing mindset and you can find her positions on issues with a simple search.”

Huh? So what? My post to you didn’t have anything to do with Nancy Pelosi’s ideology. It’s totally irrelevant to what I said even if you stated her ideology perfectly.

“But when a group of people with the same agenda or ideology call themselves liberal, I will help them out and call them as they wish.”

You’d be wrong, but hey, its a free country. Since you seemed to be sensitive about being told you are wrong, I thought I’d help you out. But if you take pride in being wrong, then more power to you. I just don’t see why you even try to justify it to me then.

“We do that everyday. Hip, cool, wingnut and in the 80’s, bad meant good.”

Yeah, it was also confusing as hell for anyone who wasn’t a kid. You NEVER saw any intelligent person who wanted to be taken seriously go onto a public forum and discuss important issues using that slang, now did you? Context is everything. I’d think that when posting here, you might want to give the impression that your communicative abilities transende those of pre-teens and rock stars.

“To you, they are flawed. To myself and many others, they define todays “leftist‎ or “liberal.‎”

Look it up in any dictionary. Then instead of arguing with me, write a letter to Webster’s demanding a revision. If you succeeded in convincing them, THEN I’ll agree.

“No. I am calling any policy, in which somebody who says they represent the left, a left type policy.”

So let me get this straight…if I was to say I represented the left, and then said I advocate killing babies…then effectively the left believes in killing babies? Same pig logic, different lipstick. Bush and many “conservative Christians” call themselves “conservative” too…that doesn’t make it correct when liberals bash all conservatives for Bush’s policies.

“If the left starts supporting the 2nd Amendment and the right starts violating or trying to kill it, then I will start saying anti 2nd Amendment people are Conservatives, ok?”

Why don’t you just describe things accurately to begin with? Its not that difficult to find the words to say what you really mean. Isn’t it much more difficult to have to keep track of all the new definitions you make up?

And I’m in no “mood” … I’m just embarrassed for people who cannot express themselves. I really do feel that if you took the time to actually understand the underlying meaning behind some of the terms you haphazardly use, you’d address a lot of your own questions and complaints. Really, I’m dead serious.

KCTM: Thank you for your response.It should come as no surprise that I find you definitions somewhat baffleing. I was taught that’” leftist” was more of an economic philosophy. Examples of leftist individuals might be Castro,Trotsky etc. For example,if Nancy Pelosi advocated nationalizing the oil companies(not the worst idea in the world) that would make her a leftist.I would also point out that ascribeing “national healthcare”as “extreme left” you are saying that some of our staid allies like Cananda and Australia are examples of the extreme left,not to mention every other industrialized country in the world. As to abortion on demand being some how “extreme leftist” I will remind you that it is not some radical concept but the law of the land,decreed as such by the Supreme Court,hardly a hotbed of leftist thought. Perhaps it would be better for the sake of discussion to eschew labeling policy approaches and discuss them on their merits? Regards…Bill

Stephen D.: You brought up Colobine. That tragedy is one example of people reacting in horror and not necessarily logically. People caste about looking to place blame.The sociopaths that committed the act had broken an estimated 22 different federal and state gun laws before they even got to the school. Would it have mattered if they had broken 23 or 25.? I doubt it. What if the janitor or Gym coach had had a carry permit and managed to take them out before they could do so much damage? What if perpetrators had set off the propane bombs theyhad set up instead of shooting. Should we outlaw propane? Call for a waiting period and background check before one can fill up their BBQ tank? Right after the incident ,during this blame casting,video games were blamed as was poor parenting, bullying,a lack of school counselors etc. I have a good idea. Why don’t we blame the little assholes that did it?
I really just wanted to point out the seeming dis-connect with reality that many gun banning proponents have. Another is pointing out how many children are injured by accidental discharges. There are too many and these are indeed tragedies. More children drown in swimming pools. Should we outlaw swimming pools? Of course not. It is often pointed out that many firearms assaults happen among family members. Granted but how many of those are women protecting themselves from spousal abuse?My point is that much of the anti-gun retoric is hystericaland futile. Passing laws to limit 2nd amendment rights of law abiding people is as KCTM pointed out not much different that eroding the rights of privacy to magically fight terrorism.

FYI: The phrase “well regulated” in the parlance of the time meant well armed,no more,no less.

Just an aside: I found you term “closet insurrectionist” to be very Jeffersonian. I actually hope we are a nation of such.

Kevin
“So, what is it you are REALLY asking?”

I know what judges do and I’m not saying that is not their job.

What am I really asking?
Well, I wasn’t fishing for anything really. I was trying to use two very recent and controversial issues, 2nd Amendment (gun control) and 4th Amendment (wiretapping).
Govt used “interpretation” to throw away our 2nd Amendment rights and I feel they did the same thing with the wiretapping.
Just an honest question.

“Look it up in any dictionary. Then instead of arguing with me, write a letter to Webster’s demanding a revision. If you succeeded in convincing them, THEN I’ll agree”

Actually, I was never arguing with you. I am nothing but an average joe who uses the same, average, everyday language that most Americans use.

I am not here to try an impress anybody in order to make myself feel superior or better either. I am here to share, learn and have fun.

“You’d be wrong, but hey, its a free country.”

Ok! The majority of Americans are wrong for not using perfect dictionary definitions when we communicate.

“Why don’t you just describe things accurately to begin with?”

90 out of a hundred people have their own personal definitions of what a liberal or conservative are. Yes, I know you say we are all wrong, but I really doubt any of them will change for you, sorry.

“Isn’t it much more difficult to have to keep track of all the new definitions you make up?”

Thanks, but I’m afraid I cannot take credit for making up words the majority of people use.

Bill
Do you think the average American knows who Trotsky or the others are? What they stood for? No.
I did not get bored and just start saying the left supports this or the right supports that. Politicians and the majority of their supporters have used those labels to seperate themselves from their opponents for a very long time.

You asked how I defined extreme left and I gave you that answer. I could do the very same for the extreme right.

From Stephens post:
“quartering liberal Austin”
“To dilute urban liberalism with rural conservatism”
“This is what he diluted to get more Republicans elected to congress”
“The Democrats wisely”
“Republicans might speak of a Massachussetts Liberal”

I did not magically come up with these tags and I am not the only person who uses them to identify where people stand on issues.

This post was about how the difference between “urban liberalism and rural conservatism” was shrinking or non-existent. IMO, it would be hard to not use the authors very words to discuss his topic.

Rob: You ask,

Can you provide substantive proof on the intent of any policy designed or enacted by any party in the United States in the last 30 years that were created with the explicit intent to result in the extermination of a group?

Here are but six:

(1) Opposition to HPV vaccine — kills women

(2) The failure of the Reagan administration to fund AIDS research accounts for over 135,000 unnecessary AIDS deaths. But, as in the immortal words of former AG Ed Meese: “AIDS is the solution to the homosexual problem.” (Sounds an awful lot like Hitler’s “Endlösung der Judenfrage,” doesn’t it?!) The Ryan White Act, passed in 1990, was the program the CDC proposed in 1983. The Reagnites in the WH and the Congress refused to implement the proposal at a cost of over 7,000 new HIV infections each year. Again, the solution to the homosexual problem. In the words of Senator Jesse Helms, “We will not spend a dime on homosexuals.” Note: It was not until 1994 that the Federal government spent more on HIV/AIDS than it did on toe nail fungus (a real killer, that one).

(3) Opposition to universal access to health care — kills poor people. For example, the breast cancer 5-year mortality rate for lower middle class and poor women is twice that of upper middle class and wealthy women — kills poor women. Why the disparity? Lack of early detection, i.e., an annual mammogram. The same disparity applies to prostate cancer — kills poor men —- I don’t want the guys to feel left out. And while the cost of the status quo far exceeds the cost of universal access to health care, universal access to health care would allow the poor to live longer, more productive lives — not a good thing, that!

(4) Opposition to women’s health care — kills women.

(5) Opposition to environmental and workplace safety — kills poor people, especially women.

(6) Opposition to Social Security and Medicare — kills elderly poor people.

Interestingly, the GOP has never proffered a policy that would inconvenience or kill a wealthy white man.

BTW, I am a upper middle class, straight, white guy… but, I take my Christian faith seriously unlike GOPers who use the name of Christ to further their selfish, hate-filled agenda.

Dr. Poshek

Your examples make me think you live in fantasy land. If you actually think Republicans live to exterminate certain groups of people, and you will never change your mind, you have that right. But you still would be wrong.

keith

Keith: The proof is in the pudding. Facts triumph over fiction except for GOPers. Your inability to distinguish fact from fiction simply means you are wrong and morally culpable for your immoral behavior and that of your party. I am saddened you so hate the poor, women, and other minorities that you wish them ill. I have the right to state the truth. You, sir, have the right to live in your delusional world as miserable as it is. You do not have the right to force the rest of us to live in it with you.

Facts do triumph over fiction Doc.
They do not oppose those things, they just don’t believe the same as you so you equate that with supporting genocide.
Just more of the “we know whats best for you so think like us or you are wrong” mindset that we will have to deal with again for the next few years.

Kctim-

Once again, you come back at me with the same fool’s logic. Definitions of words are in the reference section of any library and there is zero variation from library to library. Just because you claim that “90%” of people do not go by the official definition does not mean that the official definition is wrong and they are now correct. Jesus man, its just not that hard to say what you really mean in a way that makes sense to everyone. And just what proof do you have of your statement that the majority of people share your definition as opposed to the correct and official one? You seem to be grasping at straws. I’d stick to facts that can actually be found somewhere other than your brain if you want to be taken seriously. That all I’m saying. Your speculation just isn’t good enough…especially when it clashes with actual truth.

Dr. Poshek-

I think you are REALLY reaching. Your first huge problem is lack of causation. The second is that even IF the lack of support for certain programs or policies did directly cause deaths, then you’ve got the problem of showing that those that originally backed the program or policy actually did so in bad faith to try and achieve a foreseeable result of killing. Both are utterly ridiculous.

With all of the serious and tangable problems that exist in government, why would you want to bring up something so speculative, unreasonable, impractical, and irresponsible? Demonizing tactics are revolting and unjustified regardless of what ideology they attack.

Kevin
Jesus dude, I really did not mean to get you all upset over my use of words. If you don’t know what somebody means, then do what I do and ask.
When you order a Number 1 at McDonalds, do you expect to literally get the number 1 or do you expect to get a burger, fries and coke?

“urban liberalism with rural conservatism”

That is taken directly from Stephens post. If you don’t like how people use the none dictionary meaning of words, fine. You can spend your time trying to decipher what people really mean, I’m going to take them at their word.

And I am not trying to say the dictionary is wrong. I am saying I prefer to communicate with people with the same language they use.

“You seem to be grasping at straws. I’d stick to facts that can actually be found somewhere other than your brain if you want to be taken seriously. That all I’m saying. Your speculation just isn’t good enough…especially when it clashes with actual truth”

Be taken seriously? You are the only one who seems to not know what people mean when they say liberal or conservative, except in Stephens case, you seem to magically know what he means when he refers to rural conservatives and urban liberals.
And again, it is not MY speculating that has associated liberal with left and conservative with right.

How about this? You use the dictionary to communicate with people and I’ll use the same language and expressions they use.
Its that simple and we both can be happy.
If you don’t like that, then I don’t know what else to tell you.

Dr. Poshek-
You’re reaching. Yes, we can argue that Republican actions can have lethal consequences. That’s reasonable, and you can demonstrate it. Use terms like murder, though, and even informally you add a problematic layer of meaning, the inscrutable issue of intent. As any lawyer knows, intent is difficult to prove.

Don’t focus on intent, focus on words and actions. For example, in many ways it doesn’t matter why Bush misrepresented the certainty and the quality of the case for war, because merely misrepresenting it was a moral action by itself. Saying things were getting better when the information showed to him indicated it getting worse is a moral action, all by itself.

Don’t let your words take your points prisoner.

BillS-
First, folks aren’t necessarily logical to begin with. We have