Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Neither are significantly completely right or wrong, but both are often wrong.
There is an easy way to improve the transparency and accountability of government.
But, too many people are too fond of the petty bickering and partisan politics to
see how to create a more honest, transparent,
and accountable government.

I couldn’t have said it better. What I am really wishing for now is that the liberals would just let the congress act in the way it was set up to. It really burns me up that they are so small that they won’t let the senate vote on the judges that the president sends up to them. At least, a up or down vote and be done with it. If they were voted down, as they are suppose to be, then that is that. I lived though Bort and I can live though others. I lived though Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, it was hard but I made it. Now lets give President Bush a chance.

Ken

Ken,
Spare me. The Democrats have shot down four judges while the Republicans shot down about forty from Clinton. Bush has his chance to do a lot of good but the retard has proven to his constituents that he is not a man of his word. Let’s look at how he is treated the anti tax crowd, the anti-gay crowd, religious right, etcetera. Dawn is right about one thing. The public is very stupid. She didn’t say that as her opinion but the liberals opinion. The liberals are right on that. The public needs to get a brain. If they had one, Bush wouldn’t be president. The little that his party dominated congress does do is harmful to the middle class. That is the case.

Actually, I find the whole subject and discussion completely divisive and amazingly nieve.

What makes you think that the liberals OR conservatives have it right at all? There is such a minute tiny difference between the two parties now that the ‘wedge issues’ are exploited for all they are worth while real issues are winked at and ignored because they don’t affect the polling places since both parties agree on them.

So, my answer to which party between the liberals and the conservatives has the right idea?

Neither.

Excellent article Dawn.

Mr. Goodman,

The Democrats have shot down four judges while the Republicans shot down about forty from Clinton.

The question here is WHY. The Bush-appointed judges have been fairly decent and have “cut the mustard” for the most part. Former President Clinton’s nominees had many issues that no one wanted to bring into a court. I for one am glad I didn’t have a convicted felon sign my retirement certificate that I received yesterday, yet I will always snap to attention and salute smartly when I’m in uniform and Former President Clinton walks by.

Bush has his chance to do a lot of good but the retard has proven to his constituents that he is not a man of his word.

Why must one attack with name calling? What good does this do? Absolutely none. Dawn was very correct when she spoke of bashing instead of actually suggesting something positive.

Dawn is right about one thing. The public is very stupid. She didn’t say that as her opinion but the liberals opinion. The liberals are right on that. The public needs to get a brain. If they had one, Bush wouldn’t be president.

What a horribly narrow-minded, extremely negative and, needless to say, completely false statement! If I may, Dawn was using sarcasm. Liberals seem to constantly blame the poor misguided public for being so ridiculously ignorant instaed of realizing that their agenda is actually nothing except attack this nominee or this program, spread lies about the President, etc. It’s 99% negative. What conservatives say is black, the liberals will say is white.

Our President has worked with Congress the best any one man can.

A very, very long time ago, our country had to fairly similar parties. Now these parties are at opposite ends as far away from each other is east is from west.

Please stop the trashing and name-calling. It doesn’t work; it only reflects poorly on the writer

John,
Please don’t piss on my salad here. This is absolutely insane.

The question here is WHY. The Bush-appointed judges have been fairly decent and have “cut the mustard” for the most part. Former President Clinton’s nominees had many issues that no one wanted to bring into a court. I for one am glad I didn’t have a convicted felon sign my retirement certificate that I received yesterday, yet I will always snap to attention and salute smartly when I’m in uniform and Former President Clinton walks by.

Yeah and the hardcore Republicans voted against more armor on the hummers while in war. It is plain and simple. They claim one thing but do another.

Why must one attack with name calling? What good does this do? Absolutely none. Dawn was very correct when she spoke of bashing instead of actually suggesting something positive.

Spare me from your blantant bias or blind eye. Dawn’s article was practically calling liberals names. Would it surprise her that only 37% of this country trust the UN but we have more liberals than that.

What a horribly narrow-minded, extremely negative and, needless to say, completely false statement! If I may, Dawn was using sarcasm. Liberals seem to constantly blame the poor misguided public for being so ridiculously ignorant instaed of realizing that their agenda is actually nothing except attack this nominee or this program, spread lies about the President, etc. It’s 99% negative. What conservatives say is black, the liberals will say is white.

The public is misinformed and stupid. Bush is not supposed to raise taxes but will by 87% on your gas tax. He is supposed to be the anti-tax man. How ironic huh? This will affect the middle class. He stabbed his voters in the back but way too many of them are still on their hands and knees. It is not that ignorant when you think about it. The parties are not that much different. I am sorry but the American political state sucks. Both parties are reactionaries, both parties are practically for the same thing; just have a different rhetoric behind it. The differences are very small. The difference is that the Democrats tend to be more informed than Republicans. The Democrats tend to have sharper critical thinking skills. I invite you to debate a Democrat over a Republican and I’d like to see you be honest with yourself and see who has a better grasp on the issues.

Our President has worked with Congress the best any one man can.

Oh really? He has a majority house. It’s not like he has a whole lot to stress over. The fact is that he hasn’t worked with the Democrats; when they would work with him if he wasn’t so damn partisan. When you use your spinmiester’s to call the liberals a bunch of evil people (deliver us from evil and liberalism); I have more than the right to be pissed off.

A very, very long time ago, our country had to fairly similar parties. Now these parties are at opposite ends as far away from each other is east is from west.

We are much more similar than what you think. You act like we have a bunch of staunch capitalists whom will defend this country on one end and a bunch of socialist wimps on the other; atleast in your POV is my impression. That is not the case. A true Democrat is a capitalist. If the parties were so different, Bush would do everything he could to ban welfare. They are remarkably similar.

Please stop the trashing and name-calling. It doesn’t work; it only reflects poorly on the writer

Please get your facts right. You are doing the trash talking yourself by implying that Clinton, as a draft dodger doesn’t deserve your salute. You are going with these partisan distortions in this article while you chastise me for being a little pissed off. I don’t get it. The cognitive dissonance is striking.

Dawn:

That is a remarkably one-sided post. Ranks up there with Limbugh and Coulter. Congratulations.

The Face of Republicans

Medicare Change Will Limit Access to Claim Hearing
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: April 24, 2005

ASHINGTON, April 23 - A new federal policy will make it significantly more difficult for Medicare beneficiaries to obtain hearings in person before a judge when the government denies their claims for home care, nursing home services, prescription drugs and other treatments.

Advertisement


For years, hearings have been held at more than 140 Social Security offices around the country. In July, the Department of Health and Human Services will take over the responsibility, and department officials said all judges would then be located at just four sites - in Cleveland; Miami; Irvine, Calif.; and Arlington, Va.

Under the new policy, Medicare officials said, most hearings will be held with videoconference equipment or by telephone. A beneficiary who wants to appear in person before a judge must show that “special or extraordinary circumstances exist,” the rules say.

Mr. Goodman,

Former President Clinton DOES deserve my salute because he was my Commander-in-Chief at one time. Sorry if I came across as implying something else. I’m just glad he didn’t sign any of my paperwork. I dislike him personally, but can put that aside and give him due respect.

You say Dawn’s article “practically” called liberals names yet you go right for removing the “practically” from anything you’ve written.

I support this President. I supported the previous President when we was doing the right thing, although I don’t believe that was that much of the time. I think this president is doing better than the last one. No blind eye here, just trying to see things in the light.

Yeah and the hardcore Republicans voted against more armor on the hummers while in war.

Did you know the bill was turned down because of the non-related issues attached to it? It was not merely a cancellation of the armor.

Enjoy your day, Sir.

Aldous,

What is the point of the NYT article? I don’t understand it. Why is this a bad (or good) thing?

Dawn,

I don’t think that either Dems or Reps have a monopoly on common sense.
You state that Mr. Bush has created programs like “no child left behind” yet he refuses to fund them properly. What good is an education program for children that has no money?
The right are so proud of cutting taxes yet they haven’t cut the wastefull spending.
Why are these two groups of Bozos fighting? Neither is right.
You cannot blame the UN for the agendas of the countries that make up the membership, including the US.
BTW, how many years did America go without paying it’s dues?
The right bitches about the problems with the UN but attempts to send a pitbull for an ambasador.
This is supposed to be a diplomatic position. Mr. Bolton appears to be a bull in a china shop.

Mr Bush wouldn’t know diplomacy if it bit him on the ass.

Guys it’s time to wake up and smell the pavement. What happened to walk softly and carry a big stick?

Contrary to popular belief, the world ain’t that different.
We just have a bigger stick than anyone else.

Good morning Dawn. Since you began this discussion thread, I would like to respond directly to your post.

To answer your initial question - “who is right?” - I say no one. No one person, party, jurisprudential school of thought or special interest group is right. Our Founding Fathers realized this, but that is because they were purer of heart and truly cared about this country. Today’s political establishment, democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, is primarily focused on its collective inertia and wallets, but that is a discussion for another post.

I simply do not understand why I must be right and you must be wrong. To believe in the “all or nothing” maxim seems to run counter to all democratic principles. If one person or party had it right then where is the need for any other person’s or party’s voice. Two heads are better than one, three better than two and so on.

Now to deal with the meat of your post - God, the military and American dominion over all, the UN, and concern for the less fortunate.
You’re right, I just as many people who subscribe to the “liberal” ideology do not see the need for God to enter the realm of politics. With that said, I am not averse to it happenning. I think you posit that God + Politics = the black death for liberals. It just isn’t so. Religion provides many people with the moral paintbrush with which, they color the world around them, but religion is not he only source of such values. My faith in God is marginal at best, but I consider myself a good person, able to make morally sound decisions regarding my welfare and that of those around me. Religion in politics rub me the wrong way, when a singular person’s or group’s beliefs are forced on all. An example is the state of sex education and awareness in this country. President Bush because of his abstinence at all times mantra, has taken the teeth out of our sex education and STD prevention programs. The benefits of condoms are not discussed in government funded programs because abstinence is the cornerstone of the current program. The human cost of such a program that disillusions its participants is causing higher pregnancy, abortion and STD rates among our teenagers. That is an example of why religion in politics bothers me and other “liberals”. Obviously, abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of STD’s and teenage pregnancy, but our government policies, especially those that deal with life and death issues must be rooted in the reality on the ground not the utopia found in scriptures.

I am not quite sure I follow the logic of your military argument. I will say this, although I did not agree with the Iraq war, if a stable Democracy is created because of US intervention -the end will justify the means. But that does not meanwe should repeat the cycle elsewhere. The US military can be used for good. One place I can think of its utility is in Sudan. US military power or prowess is not the issue in my mind, the issue rests on how our power is applied. Our number one goal for military intervention should always be humanitarian intervention to save the shackled from tyranny, it should not be the back-up justification after possession of nuclear weapons is claimed (falsely) and ties to terrorist organizations are touted (falsely) as well. The United States should be bold, we should lead and help those in need. I have no problem with power. My problem is with misused power and as you may be wondering, this applies to the current, future and all past presidents.

I don’t think there is one person who believes the UN is fine as is, not even Mr. Annan. It must be more transparent and efficacious. There is a problem when the UN can sanction Serbia, in its attempt to corral Slobodan Milosevic, to no avail, but as soon as the IMF threatened to withhold an aid package, the accused war criminal appeared quite quickly. But, I do not feel the best way to go about getting that change is to send someone like Mr. Bolton to New York. He is one of the high level bureaucrat who silenced dissent in the march to war in Iraq, not because it was wrong, but because it was subversive to his agenda. Whomever we send to the UN should possess a tremendous amount of strength and resolve to hold the American position, but he/she should not be someone who is allergic to debate and dissent.

I cannot comment on “No Child Left Behind” except that, by all accounts, it is terribly under-funded. I am not naive enough to think that any party responsible for the stewardship of this nation does not care for minorities, education or the poor. Republicans and Democrats just take different routes to achieving the uplifting of minorities and educational standards, while eliminating poverty. Clearly, neither side’s approach has worked, but both possess great ideological platforms. I truly believe it is the state’s responsibility to assist those less fortunate than you or me, but there is a limit. People must be held accountable and take responsibility for their actions at some point. People should pick themselves by their boot-straps, but first, they must have boot-straps to grab a hold of.
Dawn, I am glad you wrote this post because, it got me thinking about the ideological differences of the parties more than I had done previously. I am not quite sure I understand why you chose this format to express yourself - attacking in a attempt to stop attacks. It’s like getting drunk to show an alcoholic he shouldn’t get drunk. It may work, but chances are he will see how good the drink tastes and take one himself.

Finally, neither party is perfect. Neither is party is correct all the time. Neither party lets the other talk. The Democrats lost control of the Congress in 1994 because they over-stepped their boundaries and began to force their singular ideals down the plurality that is the United States of America. These days it’s the Republicans repeating those deadly political sins by declaring the “courts have begun a war against faith”. I hope one day we will finally learn and really begin conversations with calm words of debate and not angry fireballs used “only to begin conversation”.

Sorry for the length, but this is an issue of great import to me. I see my beloved country stumbling over mini-hurdles, keeping us off balance when a big one comes up.

All the best,

Ahmed A. Abonamah

“The Democrats lost control of the Congress in 1994 because they over-stepped their boundaries and began to force their singular ideals down the plurality that is the United States of America.”

Ahmed,

I would respectfully disagree. The Republicans won because they learned to put a better spin on their policies.
There is no “right” direction for this country. We can only move forward the best way we can.

Dawn, why must you scare yourself so much about us? You’ve bought into the propaganda, the common slanders made against the Democrats, Slander that is born of these folk’s complete lack of any wish to understand our motivations in anything less than a negative light.

We are religious, we just don’t want our government telling us how to worship or whether we worship. One can spin the tale that this country was founded for Christian government, but the fact is, religion was explicitly cut out of government. If the founding fathers wanted a Christian government, they could have easily written it up that way, instead of taking authority over religious matters, and the ability to create a state church out of government hands. There was nothing odd about an established church in that day and age. Why didn’t we take that path?

Simple: Because faith is power. The Founding fathers chose to give the power to the people, to decide the questions of worship or lack of same, and our country hasn’t looked back since. To endanger that separation is to put religious authority in the hands of politicians. While I don’t believe that religion inherently causes strife and violence in the world, I do believe that when religious authority and corrupt political authority get together, the results can be horrifying.

We also believe in a stronger army, even if that means a potential draft. It is not us, but the Republican party that has tried unsuccessfully to fight larger wars with fewer soldiers in this time of war. True, we made reductions after the cold war, but then we thought we had peace. And you did too. One of the things that angered me about Zell Millers keynote address at your convention was that he mentions the defense cuts Kerry made…

…and totally forgot to mention the VP’s role in those.

Truth is, the Republican leadership has gotten too arrogant about it’s policy positions, and that fear and loathing of the Democrats, that extended, painful and counterproductive culture war has created a situation where you are criticizing us just by kneejerk principle. We have to be wrong for you to be right, you think. We can’t have so much in common with you, because that would make winning by demonizng us not only more difficult, but wrong in itself. And the folks who have been winning elections wouldn’t want that, would they?

Mr. Abonamah,

Just one quick comment:

…sex education and STD prevention programs.

It’s my understanding that handing out condoms, the teaching of “alternate lifestyles” and the once-proposed teaching of masturbation (almost) summed up the program.

…possession of nuclear weapons is claimed (falsely)…

I believe this statement of yours is not entirely accurate. I think the accusation at the time was access to nuclear materials. And now, who knows what could have happened to the material. There was so much time waiting on countless failed UN warnings that the materials could have been sent out of the country.

and ties to terrorist organizations are touted (falsely) as well.

Here, I believe, you are incorrect. Several training camps have been discovered and destroyed.

People should pick themselves by their boot-straps, but first, they must have boot-straps to grab a hold of.

Agreed. This then comes to (in my opinion) a good education and parents who care to bring up “good” children.

Dawn,

Good article.

I don’t really see it as liberal bashing, not in the context you put it in.

You could exchange “liberal” with “neocon” and write a very simular article.

I often wish that the extream of both groups could debate honestly the issues, that seldom happens because some things for both groups are nondebatable.

The so called “wedge issues” are very real and couldn’t be used if they wern’t in someones ajenda.
If Rep.’s said they wanted to ban all unions, but just ignore that and vote for us anyway because of other issues you might like, it would be quite silly to expect to get the teachers vote.

In the red states banning guns goes over like a turd in the punch bowl but some on the far left just don’t understand why.

My ‘bashing’ of Liberals was to try and show how I hear them when they talk.
I don’t recall any reds telling blues that their whole party is stupid and doesn’t care about a particular issue, until they find themselves backed into a corner. That is not productive, and I find myself and others caught up in it.
I was hoping by ‘bashing’ - which I really don’t do as well as some - I would get some answers instead of ‘your party is stupid and we know better’. I was hoping that the point I was trying to make would carry over into all the other threads.
I never said either side was right. Some who have responded have pointed out what I already believed. That both parties pretty much have the same agenda.
It is the claiming that the ‘other’ party doesn’t care because they have a different way of fixing a problem. It is the pointing out what someone thinks is wrong without offering a solution - and it is calling our President a ‘retard’.
Being a little more ‘diplomatic’ would be nice from the people so concerned about Bolton not being ‘diplomatic’ enough for the U.N.
Diplomacy only matters when dealing with another country? It isn’t needed when discussing issues of our own?

****
Thanks for the compliment Aldous.
Though I really don’t believe I rank up there with Coulter - I was trying my best.
I will never be as good as Moore and Franken though. They are the masters.

America needs both left and right. The positions of the parties have changed many times in the past.

I have confidence in the wisdom of the people expressed within our republican (small r) free market system. There are excesses and mistakes, but they are caught by the system and they are generally a lot less damaging than in other possible systems.

You can fool all of the people some of time and you can fools some of the people all of time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

The people are not stupid. Each person doing what he thinks is right is mistaken in some details, but together they make very good decisions. Our pluralistic system allows many ideas to compete, mix, match and create synergy. I don’t know what the future will hold, but I look back at an unparalleled track record.

It is natural for Democrats to question the wisdom of the people at this time. Republicans did the same when the Democrats were winning most of the elections. It won’t last forever.

I observe that people voting take their responsibility very seriously. The system makes many mistakes, but it is self-correcting. You guys who say that the people are stupid or victims of spin should reconsider your lack of respect for representative democracy.

Either we believe in representative democracy or we don’t. I do.

Dawn,

“Do Liberals really believe that Conservatives don’t care about the poor?”

Meh, I’m a fiscal conservative and I don’t give a damn about the poor.

“Do they think that the rest of the World will ‘calm down’ and live more peacefully if the U.S. wasn’t such a powerful Nation?”

See, here’s the thing, we are like the world’s police force. Like any police force, there is corruption and injustice, but we do do our part to make the world a better place. Whether or not our misdeeds justify a stepping-down of armament is debatable, not black-and-white.

Jack,

“The people are not stupid. Each person doing what he thinks is right is mistaken in some details, but together they make very good decisions.”

I would say “stupid” is both relative and subject to interpretation. Stupid in what regard? If someone is not highly skilled in the field of academia does that make them stupid? And what is the standard for normalcy?

Despite these uncertainties, I can say confidently that people often do NOT make good decisions. I do not speak of an initial and uninformed decision, I’m talking about what comes after the screw-up. You’d think that after the astronomical failures at home and abroad the Bush administration would have been booted in the ‘04 elections.

“I don’t know what the future will hold, but I look back at an unparalleled track record.”

This is true. We have had our screw-ups but just about every other country in the world has done worse (many FAR more so). Still, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the areas we could improve (and they are many).

John,

“This then comes to (in my opinion) a good education and parents who care to bring up “good” children.”

Agreed. So then can we agree that the Bush administration is not helping in this particular respect? (To cite an example, my own school had massive cuts of classes and teachers and had to pass several referendums for extra cash).

Jack, I find your comments to contain an inherent inconsistency. On the one hand you propound individual responsibility. On the other your propound representative form of government via a republic.

It seems to me the very arguments you use against those who propose that government solve social problems should be used against your own arguments for a representative form of government. If folks should be responsible for their own retirement and not depend on SS, why then should they also not be responsible for their government by direct democracy? It would seem that if you argue that social programs diminish personal responsibility, initiative and motivation, then a representative form of government would diminish public responsibility, initiative and motivation in taking responsibility for their government’s decisions (which seems to amply supported by evidence).

This inconsistence appears to be embedded in the Republican party saying people should be free to make their own choices and be responsible for them yet, the party insists that the public should not have a direct voice in government. That in fact, they as representatives of the people should make the people’s decisions for them.

Which is it? Should the people be responsible or not?

“(To cite an example, my own school had massive cuts of classes and teachers and had to pass several referendums for extra cash).”

I was going to say in another post that our school system has not run into money problems due to this ‘lack of funding’.
Maybe it is because our schools were already making sure our kids can read - first.
We have had less money for the extra things but that is usually made up with fundraisers - like always.
Why were the teachers and classes cut? Did they simply not need that many? Was there too much money going out in salaries for various reasons? Were they blowing money on non-essential things?
Please explain.

What liberals and conservatives and independents don’t understand is that it’s not as important
who they elect to office, as what happens after they get elected.

The proof of this is the countless blogs debating the nuances of this or that bill,
this or that politician, this or that law, this or that tax, this or that policy, etc.,
but NEVER addressing the CORE problem that is
causing all of the problems: simply a lack of transparency and accountability.

Almost all politicians are influenced by big money; NOT voters. They say one thing to the
voters, and do something different after being elected.

Perhaps we all deserve each other, as long as politicians continue to be parasites,
and voters continue to allow it and continually get suckered into the petty bickering partisan politics (the great American distraction).

However, voters are victims more so than the
politicians. Voters’ crime is apathy.
Politicians’ crime is fraud, corruption, theft, and dreaming up new taxes.

But, the voters could change the entire system with One Simple Idea to make government much
more transparent and accountable …

dawn,

“Why were the teachers and classes cut? Did they simply not need that many? Was there too much money going out in salaries for various reasons? Were they blowing money on non-essential things?
Please explain.”

Classes and teachers were cut because we couldn’t afford to keep them. Seeing as many classes in my high school are now pushing past 40 students, I’d say that is a bad thing. See, before, when the legislature actually had money to spend, we could afford a wider variety of classes. Now, with the national burden fostered onto states, they cannot afford to give ANY money to the schools. We are more or less running on referendum money right now.

BTW, I have just taken one of the new standardized tests that the “No Child Left Behind Act” created, and let me tell you, it is a joke and a waste of money. In my class alone, there were 12 people who got fives or higher. The necessary grade to pass is a two, and believe me when I say you have to try REALLY hard to get a two. Just why the heck we’re spending money on crap like that is beyond me.

OSI,

“Almost all politicians are influenced by big money; NOT voters.”

You see, the tricky part is that many voters believe the candidate they vote for is the exception to this rule. Sadly, they are often mistaken.

“Liberals tend to believe that they can do just fine without the fear of God.”

Where do you get this. Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. Kerry, and others to me seem to have a fear of God. OK so there is a large group of Dem’s who are Psycho’s, that isn’t the norm. Those aren’t the people we are electing. One or two wacko’s end up getting elected but it’s the same on the red side.

“Do the Liberals really believe that we are safer with a smaller military?”

I recall John Kerry saying that he wanted to increase the size of the military.

“Do the liberals really believe that the conservatives don’t care about the poor?”

No, I don’t think that the liberals think that the conservatives just don’t care about the poor. I think the conservatives are doing what they feel will help the poor the best. The approach is just different. Liberals want to make health care and college affordable. I think that the conservatives feel that being more business friendly will help the economy create more jobs. The conservatives want people to become more self-reliant. All of these ideas are great in my opinion, it’s just a different approach. The real solution is found by balancing both ideas.

Do the Liberals really believe that the U.N. is fine the way that it is?

They don’t. The dem’s know the U.N. isn’t really working. The Bush administration just wants to give them a big middle finger. The liberals think that we would be off with a much more humble approach. There just needs to be a little bit of both. We aren’t liked very much by the world, and if they saw a little humility in our country, I think they would work with us. When the U.N. tries to make decisions that threaten our security, we should pull out the middle finger and do what is necessary.

Dawn, you know there are a lot of generalizations in your article, and I know you did that to get us to read your article and post comments. Which by the way, worked. But hey, don’t start this stuff about how you just want to talk about the issues. Because from this article, obviously you don’t.

“But hey, don’t start this stuff about how you just want to talk about the issues. Because from this article, obviously you don’t.”

Yes. I do.
This is an issue.
The lack of Diplomacy amongst ourselves.
Why I wrote this to begin with is the way some treat those who they do not agree with.
We holler about our Politicians that make personal attacks (if it’s against our side). Some also cheer when this is happening (against the other side).
Some responses have absolutely nothing to do with the thread and are basically attacks on those who have responded in a genuine way.
We have a manager here that removes certain comments for specific reasons yet some stay because they are ‘borderline’.
It’s too bad we have to be ‘policed’.

Since I ‘bashed’ the Liberals you claim I don’t want to talk about the issues.

Beagle had it right -
“You could exchange “liberal” with “neocon” and write a very simular article.”

“Where do you get this. Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. Kerry, and others to me seem to have a fear of God. OK so there is a large group of Dem’s who are Psycho’s”

So Ivan, in your opinion one would automatically be psycho for not living in fear of a God who cannot be seen or proven in any way, shape, or form?
If so, that’s truly hilarious!

Ivan,

“OK so there is a large group of Dem’s who are Psycho’s, that isn’t the norm.”

Wait… isn’t the “norm” defined by the largest group? And isn’t the atheist/agnostic group the largest in the Democratic party? -_-

“I think the conservatives are doing what they feel will help the poor the best.”

That depends on what type of “conservatives” you are referring to. Laissez-faire capitalists don’t care about helping the poor really… Perhaps “compassionate conservatives” do, but they aren’t as conservative as all that… just religious…

“The dem’s know the U.N. isn’t really working. The Bush administration just wants to give them a big middle finger.”

“Wants?” I’d say they ARE. Just look at Bolton :P

Adrienne,

“one would automatically be psycho for not living in fear of a God who cannot be seen or proven in any way, shape, or form?
If so, that’s truly hilarious!”

Yeah… Adrienne, it stops being funny after you realize how many people feel that way. Even the best jokes stop being funny once you hear ‘em enough 8/

Dawn,
I think both Democrats and Republican’s are completely capable of being right at various times. Both are needed to be a check on each other, and I think most people would agree that a balance of power is good thing for the country.
But when I speak of this administration, I do not consider them Republican in the traditional sense, and I certainly don’t consider them conservatives.
This is why I almost always refer to them as NEOCONS — because I feel they are a whole new phenomenon that has taken over the GOP. I also feel they are totally misguided, very wrong, and very extreme in their policies.
The question I believe is no longer “who has the right idea?”, but “why can’t Republican’s admit that the politicians in charge of their party have been hurting the middle class and making really Giant Mistakes when it comes to domestic issues, war, and foreign policy in general?”
I’m so tired of listening to the Bush apologists, and would love to see a little more honest questioning of this administrations policies. After all, I myself questioned the policies of the Democrats enough to recently leave them after voting for them my entire life — so I know it can be done.
I am waiting hopefully for the day when the real Republican’s wake up and admit to themselves that having Neocon’s in charge has been a total disaster in almost every way possible — and begin working to take back their party.

Adrienne,

“I am waiting hopefully for the day when the real Republican’s wake up and admit to themselves that having Neocon’s in charge has been a total disaster in almost every way possible — and begin working to take back their party.”

With all due respect, if republicans control everything, how could it be a “total disaster” ?

You might wish to look at some issues promoted by the far left to see why so many left the Dem party.

Adrienne,

You can prove beyond a doubt that the neo-cons are hurting the American middle/low-class, as well as screwing up international affairs, but there will still be people that doubt you (it’s paradoxical, I know).

So I say, screw them. If they want to be jobless, uninsured, and unable to file bankruptcy, let ‘em keep voting for Bush and the neo-cons. It’s kind of like this one video-clip I saw on TV where a duck they had taken off the highway ran out of its cage, and instead of going straight forward into the woods, it turned around and ran back into the road where it was promptly smooshed by a car. See what I’m saying? People are like ducks. You can point them in the right direction and show them the way, but if they’re going to be idiots, well that’s just the way it’s going to be.

The moral of this story is: don’t help ducks.

Dawn,

To answer your questions:

Do Liberals really believe that the World would be a much better place if the U.S. cut back on their military?

To put this question in the proper context, of all of the Democratic primary candidates I believe only one (Dennis Kucinich) wanted to cut military spending, and only by 20%. Kerry wanted to enlarge the armed forces. So actually cutting the military is a far left position these days.

Personally, I think we could stand to have a leaner, more efficient military. I don’t have the numbers offhand, but we basically spend as much as the rest of the world. That money could be spent on many other things such as healthcare, or used for tax breaks or deficit reduction.

Do they think that the rest of the World will ‘calm down’ and live more peacefully if the U.S. wasn’t such a powerful Nation?

To answer this really simplistic question: no. There will always been ethnic and religious squabbles.

Our government is having a hard enough time controlling our own trade issues - actually they are doing a fine job not controlling them, and this did not begin with Bush. Just how do we stop being walked on without offending?

If you are looking for protectionism, welcome to the Kucinich left.

Do Liberals really believe that the U.N. is fine the way it is?

I think we can find some middle ground between a suckup and John Bolton.

Do Liberals really believe that Conservatives don’t care about the poor? the minorities? education?

Many do. Many don’t. I think most people mean well.

Didn’t the Democrats attempt ‘Welfare Reform’? I’ve heard of more people being hurt by that than helped.

I agree, but it is rather perverse to pin that one on liberals.

Bush has placed more minorities in higher positions than any Democrat ever did.

His cabinet has about the same composition as Clinton’s. It is true that Clinton never had a Black Secretary of State, but he did have a female. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

If being a Liberal is the right thing to be - why aren’t there more of them in the highest positions of power? Oh. That’s right … still too many stupid or uninformed voters.

I didn’t hear a lot of conservatives toasting the genius of the American people when they re-elected Clinton by a huge margin. Come to think of it, I believe he was regarded as a shyster who duped people.

But to answer your rather loaded question about whether people are “stupid” or “uninformed”… I think the average person has, surprise!, average intelligence. And most people are pretty uninformed. That was true when the Dems were winning, and it’s true now. Just a fact of life.

“With all due respect, if republicans control everything, how could it be a “total disaster” ?”

Republican’s don’t control everything. Neocon’s control everything, and things for We the People aren’t getting any better for anyone but the wealthiest of American’s. The Iraq war has been a giant mistake, and our reputation around the world is in the toilet. Hide your head in the sand if you like, but Bush with his majority in Congress has been a total disaster for America.

“You might wish to look at some issues promoted by the far left to see why so many left the Dem party. “

I can only speak for myself. I would never have left the party if Democrats had continued to act like Democrat’s, rather than Republican Lite.

Adrienne,

I do owe you an apology. I don’t think that every person who does not live in fear of God is Psycho. That was a very bad choice of words. I do think that it is very interesting for people to think that there is no God because he can’t be proven or seen in any way shape or form. It seems to me that everything resembles the necessity of there being a creator. It is hard for me to listen to someone with this idea if this person has studied basic biology, human anatomy, chemistry, and astrology. Every building has a builder.
Ivan

Ivan:
“I do owe you an apology.”

Not me, Ivan. I wasn’t offended in the least. I was just curious — and I thought it was rather funny — because since God cannot be proven, there’s a case that could easily be made for those who believe in He/She/It to be worshipping something that possibly doesn’t, and never has, existed.

“I do think that it is very interesting for people to think that there is no God because he can’t be proven or seen in any way shape or form.”

I’m agnostic. I reserve judgement over whether the answer to that particular question is yes, definitely, or no, definitely not.

“It seems to me that everything resembles the necessity of there being a creator.”

In my opinion, if God indeed exists, He/She/It is unknowable to us. And I believe that morality, decency, sympathy, empathy, pity, etc. are the products of correctly functioning human brains with the ability to think deeply and to reason intelligently.
I also believe that the human brain is wildly and wonderfully creative and that we often will create myths, folklore and fantasies that can help us to deal with our fear of the unknown, and to comfort us in our times of crisis.

“It is hard for me to listen to someone with this idea if this person has studied basic biology, human anatomy, chemistry, and astrology. Every building has a builder.”

And it is equally hard for me to take seriously the idea that an entity who appeared as a Burning Bush, and who was by turns kind or harshly cruel toward the beings of his creation was/is, in fact, that builder of everything in the universe.
That being said, I feel we should each be free to believe in anything and everything we wish — as long as we don’t try to force those beliefs upon our friends, neighbors and fellow countrymen.

David

Re your question.

Democracy works because it aggregates decision-making and idea generation. Each person makes decision based on whatthey are close and know or care about. Together they have more information and better judgement than any expert. It is statistical. It is the same reason that free markets beat socialism. It is important that each person make up his own mind and does what he thinks is right.

Representative democracy works because smoothes the excesses of democracy and allows people to choose those who they think make the best decisions. The will of the people is right, but only over time. Our checks and balances and representative institutions slow the process and require we consider our decision over several different sets of events or political cycles. They also have the effect of allowing past generations (through our institutions) a say in today’s politics, so it smoothes events even over generations.

Over time, most individuals will probably be members of several different socio-economic classes and in several different life situations. A penniless student grows up into a well-off professional and maybe into a retiree living off savings and a pension.

The fact that we have so many possibilities and don’t have a strong class structure is the main reason socialism has never been very popular in the U.S. We can all picture ourselves making more money, so we don’t hate the rich. We can remember when we were poor, so we understand that feeling too.

I don’t see how that any of that contradicts personal responsibility. On the contrary, our system gives people choices. Different choices produce different outcomes. The decision maker benefits or not by the decision he makes. Otherwise we really don’t have free choice.

Ivan,

I find it hard to belive that a person could look around at the Earth, the sky, the animals, in fact, the whole universe, and take it on faith that it was created by one, all knowing, all seeing, yet vengefull being, that I should fear, but at the same time know that he/she/it, loves me.
That doesn’t make a bit of sense.

Zeek,

Agreed. So then can we agree that the Bush administration is not helping in this particular respect? (To cite an example, my own school had massive cuts of classes and teachers and had to pass several referendums for extra cash).

It sounds like the current administration is receiving a “5” (being the lowest grade) in this area…

Hey John, for the sake of comparison, just how are things in your district? As in, how are the schools faring?

Dawn,

Your post has succeeded in making me very angry, however you’ve given me plenty of opportunities to show how disingenuous your proposal really is!

When I think of verbal ‘bashing’, I think of the use of ad hominem attacks, pointed vulgarity, profanity, disrespectful slights, and maybe even threats. Of course, nothing like that would be tolerated for long on WatchBlog, therefore your version of ‘bashing’ you claim to have been the victim of here, is something altogether different.

When the Right cries it’s being ‘bashed’, it’s your debate response of first resort, usually! You cry victim, because you cannot mount an effective, credible defense of this administration’s failures. So, you take offense at personal attacks, where none exist.

Now that I am finished bashing Liberals… maybe we can have an honest discussion about the issues. I do doubt it though since every time there is a post in the Red column it attracts those who hate Conservatives like flies to …. (Which I am attempting to do right now and shouldn’t have any trouble doing it.)

Which makes this post an attempt to justify future behavior (or non-participation), in case things don’t turn around for Bush and the Republicans.

I take personal offense, when you describe commenters that come here as those who ‘hate’ Conservatives. Again, anything that comes close to expressing hate here, will not be tolerated. Opposing views expressed here like mine have been emphatic and sometimes angry, but never disrespectful. I counter, that it has been the substantive and effective arguments of many from the Blue Column and others, that you object to.

If you take an account of recent posts in the Red Column, one can conclude a desire to avoid discussions on pressing issues. When you read the comment thread posts in other columns on ‘the nuclear option’, the bankruptcy bill, Terri Schiavo or Tom DeLay, one will find very few Conservatives willing to participate there either.

This victim hood defense is similar to the manufactured outrage I’m seeing from Right bloggers, everytime Howard Dean says something ‘mean’ about the Republicans.

I don’t hate Liberals - I have a hard time understanding them because they don’t give me the chance.
They are good at turning a discussion into an argument.
I have a hard time understanding how they get away with some of the things they say while at the same time not letting others talk.

I don’t hate Conservatives. In fact, I respect and enjoy those willing to articulate their ideological principles, without having to defend their leaders everytime they fail them - without exception. I’ve found that, such debaters from the Right do not back down from a fight, let alone make excuses for not showing up.

Jack, this same argument against direct demcracy then will work to support a stand against privatizing SS. Since, folks are not experts in financial and market ins and outs, never will be, and if as you argue, they should trust the politicians to make their decisions for them, then certainly Congress with the aid of experts can manage the social safety net for working Americans, right.

Sorry, you just can’t have it both ways as I see it. It is inherently contradictory, to say trust politicians with representative government but, don’t trust them with a social safety net against economic down cycles or global recessions with a guarantee to aid and assist the nation’s citizen’s who could be driven into poverty but such events. It certainly looks contradictory to me.

The schools here (I’ve lived on Okinawa for 3 years) are all DoDDS (Department of Defense Dependent Schools), so I don’t think I could give you a fair comparison. Class size is 20 or less and there is funding for band, dance, choir, art, drama, etc. From what I understand, some schools across the country have cut extra curricular activities like band (near and dear to my heart), and even team sports. It’s disgraceful when we want to bring up well-rounded, educated kids.

David

Your argument could be made to support any part of the paternalistic state. I just don’t agree. I don’t trust politicians; I trust the representative democracy that they work in and that keeps them from excess. I also usually (and did in my original post) talk about free market democracy. Limited government and the free market are important correctives to democracy. We allow people to opt out or in to many decisions. Democracy without a free market (and I am not going to fight about details. Euro countries have free markets too. It is a matter of degree) is a tyrannous as any system yet conceived in the mind of man.

Serving on a home owners association board makes you question direct democracy.

Re Social Security it will be decided in any case by a democratic procedure. That is why President Bush and his opponents are so active in trying to sway public opinion. If the verdict goes against private accounts, I will accept it with the option of trying to change people’s minds. I am sure people on the other side will do the same if their point doesn’t win through.

In the SS debate, however, there is a bottom line. SS cannot survive in its current form. Of that I am convinced. Of course I could by wrong, but I believe our representatives will have to deal with the problem sooner or later (within the decade). One constrain on democracy is reality and we can’t do anything about that.

Dawn,

Separation of Church and State is very important to me because I am taoist and drift towards eastern philosophy. This right wing religious administration and congress/senate are not speaking to me. In my estimation they actually hate Americans who are not christian, white and probably rich although they will surely sucker the poor chritians vote. This last election taught me that since they and their talking heads took the we are the moral party and their opponents (liberal democrats) are the amoral party.

Please don’t be ignornant and make blanket statements like liberals hate America, because a) you know its not true and b) it shows your ignorance towards a real debate. Leave the blanket statements to Limbaugh and Coulter. They have a much broader audience.

Here is another idea. If republicans would get back to their platform of fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and keeping the church and state seperate, I would be on board in a heartbeat (look at old speaches of Barry Goldwater to see the conservative stance on church and state). But since they seem to think that they are messengers of GOD and know whats best for me, I will gladly do my part to vote them out of office….. or in your perfect world, I shouldn’t get a vote since I don’t perscribe to the right wing religious ideals.

Think about what you are preaching and what it means to most Americans.

I am a social worker in rural West Virginia. I am NEITHER Republican NOR Democrat. I DO consider myself a bleeding heart liberal.

John,

…Parents who care bring up good children…

Even the most “dysfunctional” families with which I work, care. They want what is best for their families. Often, the dilemma is just that; “what is best?” What I see as the problem is that our government (Today AND in the past) fails to see the whole picture. There is a cycle of poverty. The families I see are the 3rd, 4th, and 5th generations that have been raised in Poverty. It has become their “culture.” Although most have at least a high school education, (but not all, I assure you) they can’t see a mental picture of themselves achieving much more than their parents, or their grandparents. I try to empower families to be able to envision themselves reaching their maximum potential. It is not feasible to say, “accept personal responsibility.” These folks believe they are accepting personal responsibility. Often they simply don’t know how. Unfortunately, Resources I used to rely on such as funding for vocational training programs, community colleges, GEDs Parenting, money management etc. are just gone. The present administration has drastically slashed the funding for programs that teach these sort of skills to families needing them. Believe me when I tell you that the vast majority of the families I serve simply need a hand up and not a hand-out.

One Simple Idea,

…make govt. much more transparent and accountable

Hear Hear!!!! Unfortunately, the present administration finds it perfectly acceptable to refuse to provide info to the public and press. They “thumb their noses” at the very notion of the Freedom of Information Act. I find this reprehensible from this or ANY administration. The people (All of us) have a right and even stronger a responsibility to keep an eye on our elected officials. Checks and balances keeps everyone honest. This should be NOTHING new to us as a nation, because,in fact it has been charged to us as our duty by our founding fathers:
>blockquote>?We hold these truths to be self-evident… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…? http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html

It scares the daylights out of me when some of my close friends and family upon hearing of a serious violation of civil rights by this administration either refuse to believe it at all, or cheer and applaud it. Can’t everyone realize that if it is ok today when your opinion is supported, that tomnorrow it could be you or more likely, your children.

Zeek,
Although I am not quite as radical or synicalas you, I do agree with most of your responses!!!

Adrienne,
WOW!! I see eye to eye with you! I love reading your posts. I appreciate how well thought out and worded your postings are. Thanks.

Dawn,
As far as “party-bashing” goes it is definitely on bothe sides.
I have been bombarded with being called “anti-American”, “unpatriotic” and worse because I do not support the war in Iraq. I DO support our troops! I say don’t leave them to be sitting ducks in the middle of the desert. Whether I believe in the reason we went there or not, (and I DO NOT) I appreciate that we have the US Military and definitely feel safer knowing they are here, risking their lives for your right and mine to 1. express my opinion no matter what it is, and 2. my right to practice the religion of my choice or to practice NO RELIGION at all!

just my opinion! sassyliberal

Reed

Of the best rulers,
The people only know that they exist;
The next best they love and praise
The next they fear;
And the next they revile.
When they do not command the people’s faith,
Some will lose faith in them,
And then they resort to oaths!
But of the best when their task is accomplished,
their work done,
The people all remark, “We have done it ourselves.”

Both Republicans and Democrats can find what they are looking for is that. I think it is a call for very limited government.

Jack,

That was very eloquent and well said. I do enjoy reading thought out and rational responses.

Although I’m not quite sure how that relates to my issues with separation of church and state but here is a link to some of Barry Goldwaters “conservative” comments on church and state.

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_legacy

I was not alive back in 1964 and cannot first hand guarantee that this was the official conservative platform but I do know that in 2005, these conservatives are 180 degrees from his stance.

I would enjoy any further commentary and/or explanation of your statement.

Not my statement. It is Lao Tzu.

I have long taken that as the model for what government should do. I don’t think we can achieve it, but it is a worthy goal.

I agree with you about religion. It should be left out of politics overtly. However, ones religion or philosophical beliefs will shape his behavior, as that one passage in the book of the Tao has influenced my political philosophy since I read it thirty years ago.

People of faith worry that they may be stigmatized BECAUSE of their faith. Chuck Schumer has been quoted saying that a strongly believing Catholic might be unqualified to sit on the Federal bench because his faith would lead him in certain directions (i.e. against abortion).

Of course everyone makes moral decisions based on their own moral judgment. Whether it comes from religion, a thoughtful philosophy or random chance, it is impossible to keep this out of politics.

Jack,

I am humbled. Very good reference.

I agree that everyones morals are their own. I just have a problem with elected officials whom can’t keep their own house in order attempting to proliferate their morals upon those who don’t agree with and/or don’t want them.

Here is question.
Why is it that conservatives and liberals tend to want the same things but are polar opposites on the best way to achieve them?

Let’s discuss it up top with a new entry.

Sassyliberal,

“Zeek,
Although I am not quite as radical or synicalas you, I do agree with most of your responses!!!”

WHAT? Cynical maybe, but me? radical? And here I was thinking I was a moderate…

BTW, Radical in what way(s) leaning to what side?

I ask you … who is right? Is it the Liberals who ‘appear’ to dislike everything about this country or is it the Conservatives who appear to like most things and can admit that many things need adjustment?

YEEHAWWW!!

Dawn, I need someone like you in the White House press corps. Your credentials and an endless supply of day passes are in the mail.

Oh, Man! I can’t even spoof under an assumed name!!? Admittedly, I screwed up in a couple other articles by forgetting to reset my name, but still…

This one doesn’t even make any sense if you know it’s me. :D

Who is Right and Who is Wrong? What is Best and Which is correct?

No one and nothing. The best we can hope for is to do what we think is right at the time we do it. Our last thought before we do it should be “How long before it needs to be redone”. Strange the DNC interprets the constitution one way, but turns around and says Social Security is fine just the way it is.

The DNC believes the Constitution is a Living Document and can be changed at need and at will, the other party believe it should be as written with change permitted as the document allows for. One interpretation gives as much power as possible to one party while deny it to the other.

You can not separate Church and State, you can only try. Religion is everywhere and in everything. No matter how we try to get it out it will be there.

The right to bear arms. I will be armed, Zip guns are not that hard to put together and can kill just as fast. A knife is easy to make and hide; a sword is a little harder but provides much more protection. A nice 2 pound rock will do just fine. You can read it as “The Right to Bear Arms”. I read it as I will be armed. Its not a matter of what you want, it’s a matter of what I am going to do and that is arm myself. Now stop me if you can, along with the Millions of others who are doing the same.

Freedom of Speech has now been declared Freedom of Spin. As simple speech can no longer get people to believe in what is being said we will now say anything to spin the subject to our own advantage. Now go get #%&* , ^%!@ cause you know my side is right. What ever side that is?

Zeek,

I stand corrected, sir. I take back the word, “radical.” I meant it only in the most positive way. I guess I am simply referring to the wit and humor you provide to your posts and that you take no #$%&.

I laud you. sassyliberal

Paw Paw,

You can not separate Church and State, you can only try. Religion is everywhere and in everything. No matter how we try to get it out it will be there.

Why can’t you separate Church and State? We may live in a country where the majority prescribe to christianity but not wholely. Do you think the right wingers included muslims or hindus or budhists in there daily prayers. SPARE ME. The day I believe that a scummy politician is going to save my heathen sole by giving me a tax break is the day pigs fly and cows will talk.

The fact that I can vote an evangelical out of office is a case in point that Church and State are inherently separated.

I just like how Paw Paw assumes Democrats aren’t well armed. :)

Sassyliberal:
“WOW!! I see eye to eye with you!
I love reading your posts. I appreciate how well thought out and worded your postings are. Thanks.”

:^) No, thank you! I enjoy reading your posts, too.
Stick around, won’t you? Watchblog desperately needs more sassy liberals, IMHO.

Lol, sassy, since when has “radical” ever had positive connotation? Maybe when hippies talk, but that’s about it…

like flies to ….

At least we are in agreement about what you’re peddling here. Nice steaming pile of it too, Coulter would indeed be proud.