THIS I TOOK FROM THE A POST OF MINE IN ANOTHER THREAD

I really knew when I got into this that I wasn't going to convince really any of you leftists defact to the other side, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. So I'm not going to really waste much more of my very precious time debating this shit anymore I have a life. Instead I am going to be the bearer of bad news to you leftists out there.

Well lets see here first off you guys have a turf war going on in your party where various factions are blaming each other for their present situation. You have Moveon.org because of campaign finance reform has risen to the top of the party A list. Because of taxable donations to candidates and rnc and dnc, 527s have arose because they are still tax exempt because they don't verbally endorse a particular candidate or party. So Moveon.org has become a donation power house that is using there vast amounts of money to leverage against the party. They want the candidates to follow there orders or they will see to it that they wont get elected again. So your kook base are the ones in power now guys.

Due to population trends in the U.S. the South is on the verge of becoming more populous than the north. The southern Red States will have a larger population base than the Blue states by 2010 this doesn't include undecided states or still barely Red States. Several blue states will be loosing a rep seat withing the next to congressional elections. These states include California, New York, and I believe 2 or 3 more. The same number of red states will be picking up that amount of rep seats. This will mean a switch of 8-10 representative seats and electoral votes from blue state hands to red state by 2008. Now you may think you are just transmitting blue state voters into the Red states making them at least more blue, but when the democrat strategist and expert in population trends was asked about this he said, "I wish that was so, but after looking into it most of these movers aren't that much in the democrat party camp or they are undecided. They are seeming to basically switch sides when they get in to these red states where they are surrounded by conservative voters.

Major democrat black and latino politicians have been warning democrat politicians that there treatment of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez and comments like Howard Deans in the Black Caucus that they could see a backlash like they have never seen before from the minorities defacting to the Republican side. My prediction is that we will see a republican latino vote coming extremely close to 50 50, and a black vote from like 20-80 percent to 35-65 percent because of that and much of the black church community joining the Republican side. That is the case assuming Condi isn't on the ticket later. Personally I believe that Condi will hop on as vp to whoever is the next republican pres candidate. If that is the case I believe that for the first time in a very long time the Republicans will receive a majority percentage of 50-60 percent of Black voters.

Ammazingly Rush Limbaugh was treated to a suprise a couple of months ago when a prominant national scale democrat approached him asking for advice on how the democrats can get back in power. He was extremely nice and honest about it with his answer being, "Find a way to divorce yourselves from the media, they are going down the tubes and taking you guys with you. Stories like the Rathergate(national guard story) story aren't doing you guys any favors at all. Divorce yourselves from them and maybe not right away, but you might beable to regroup and come back in the spotlight in maybe 10 years." Rush wont disclose the democrats name because of the implications that would have on the guys career. Believe it or not, but as long as I have listened to Rush nobody has ever caught him in a lie.

Prominant Democrats have already come to the realization that the Democrat party AS WE KNOW IT AT LEAST will cease to exist in short time. The consensus of the new Democrat party will be a coalition of the anti war and protectionists. Basically a modern day isolationist party. They would be anti war, anti-immigration(to draw conservatives), anti-free trade, and severely protectionist society; harsh on Janet Jackson type stuff, and would try to put an end to all this sex in the media, porn on the net, even respectful of anti abortion, etc. This coalition of activist democrats and protectionist conservatives would then be the new left maybe 10 years down the road. This is the line Hillary is trying to tiptoe at the moment with her statements about abortion, and excessive pornography and premiscuis sex.

Because of Hillary releasing documents to the press with regards to Howard Dean trying to get Clinton to go to war in Iraq in the late 90s right before the primaries, Howard Dean doesn't like Hillary at all. Me and many others believe that probably one of Deans biggest goals is to prevent Hillary from winning the primaries. Why do you think McCauliffs last action as DNC chairman was to release Demzilla into the open? Demzilla being the list of millions on top of millions of numbers the liberals have for courdinating campaigns. Demzilla used to be the biggest thing the DNC had to leverage against the liberal candidates.

This came out several months before the election and it was better news to me than the elections results could have ever been. More people watch fox news right now than their top 8 competitors combined.

So liberals you have a lot going against you right now in this country, and slowly in the rest of the world, but a little farther down the road. My suggestion to you guys: move to Europe or Canada, they have all those programs that all you liberals want there waiting for you; you don't even have to try to get everybody to think like you anymore you can just move. Take you pick at any of those countries.

I think we should keep the discussion to the origional thread....which is..."Workers of the world wake up" because we dont want this discussion to go all over the place...now do we...(hint hint..denny_shibby)

The main problem is, the Democrats really aren't a liberal "party," per se.

It's all a joke.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin196.htm

I'm not going to read the whole damn articles, I have a life like I stated above. I did skim them and neither earmarked a spot that is the basis for your argument. Its funny that liberals wont even admit they are liberals anymore. Wow, hell will freeze over before conservatives no longer say they are conservatives. What do you guys prefer to be called progressives, hah. A liberal is a liberal, regardless what they prefer to be called. If you guys start calling yourselves progressives that term will go to shit too.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I'm not going to read the whole damn articles, I have a life like I stated above. I did skim them and neither earmarked a spot that is the basis for your argument. Its funny that liberals wont even admit they are liberals anymore. Wow, hell will freeze over before conservatives no longer say they are conservatives. What do you guys prefer to be called progressives, hah. A liberal is a liberal, regardless what they prefer to be called. If you guys start calling yourselves progressives that term will go to shit too.

Well, I guess that since I'm a proficient reader I must not have a life.

I shouldn't really claim to be a member of any single party since I was at one point registered as a Republican, then a Libertarian, but am now (by virtue of my state not recognizing the Lib. party) an independent. In all of the political quizzes/tests that I've taken I've scored pretty much dead center. If I HAD to choose a party which I feel is most closely aligned with my values, I would have to say either Libertarian or Constitutional. (our founding fathers were for the most part Libertarians, btw)

I really don't want, nor do I feel the need to pen myself within the boundaries of a synthetic affiliation based on how others would try to categorize my views.

I make it a point to put forth my best effort to look at all sides of the issues, and then I make my own decisions based on my own value system - a value system which apparently regards our country's Constitution and Bill of Rights in much higher esteem than does our currently governing, (seemingly traitorous, I would have to add) Neo-Conservative (Straussian, Trotskyist, Hegelian, Machiavellian) administration.

If that makes me a liberal, then so be it. I don't wear that title, I've simply been penned into it by the closed-minded, reactionary dolts that feel the need to create a label for anything and everything that they find incomprehensible. Many of my views regarding Capitalism and a free market society are more right-wing than the Socialist sympathizers and/or proponents who are currently being 'labeled' as Conservatives.

Anyway, I've said enough for now. I don't want you to have to skim over this post because of it's length.

Your a libertarian, me too, LOL. I thought when you meant that democrats are "progressives" not liberals. Yeah I have read the dict. thing on the word liberal and its pertaining to libertarianism. But what I don't get why are you so hostile to the Republican party when you are a libertarian. I would vote libertarian in future elections, but they simply wont win so you have to vote Republican, which under the direction of Bush has been coming towards Libertarians in a huge issue, Immigration(guest worker program).

Don't call me closed minded. Lets see here at all I listen, watch, and read. I watch CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, Fox network, NWI, C-Span 1, C-Span 2, the BBC, and even socialist LINK TV. I listen to NPR, WPR(WI), CBC(when in Canada), and Conservative Talk Radio. I read the St. Paul Pioneer Press(slightly liberal for unknowing), local newspaper, Milwaukee Journal, NYTs, Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and Drudge. Now considering the huge volume of the different media I expose myself to, most of these don't occupy more than an hour week average, but if you add all them up they constitute a good portion of time. Not bad for a 17 year old huh. I wonder what all our socialist friends watch.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Your a libertarian, me too, LOL. I thought when you meant that democrats are "progressives" not liberals. Yeah I have read the dict. thing on the word liberal and its pertaining to libertarianism. But what I don't get why are you so hostile to the Republican party when you are a libertarian. I would vote libertarian in future elections, but they simply wont win so you have to vote Republican, which under the direction of Bush has been coming towards Libertarians in a huge issue, Immigration(guest worker program).

Libertarians don't care whether other people get married, have abortions, do drugs, have their feeding tubes removed, or live under a repressive dictatorship. Voting republican as a self-proclaimed libertarian either means that you are stupid, or that you are just using the label to disguise your selfishness.

Okay don't proclaim for the entire libertarian party. But i don't care if people do drugs. I don't care if people get prostitutes. The libertarian party is not an official anti war party either. Many are, but just about the same # of libertarians that are anti war are also pro war, they just are like me and support the Republican party because the libertarian party can't win. Actually it is my belief that something like 30 percent of Republicans are Libertarians. Most Republicans don't give a rats ass if you pull a feeding tube either assuming IT IS STATED IN A WILL. Just so you understand according to you guys position on the Schiavo case, if you and your wife are fighting and are thinking about divorce, all that has to happen is for you to go into a comma and your wife can go to a court and claim that you asked to not be fed if you are in a comma. Your wife could have absolutely no evidence and she would legally murder you, and be able to take all not half, all of your assets. WE OPERATE ON EVIDENCE IN THIS COUNTRY SHE SAID, HE SAID ISN'T ENOUGH, EXCEPT IN THE SCHIAVO CASE apparantly. I am also pro choice from a legal standpoint. You see I'm not like liberals, when I see something is wrong I don't go around forcing my view via the government. So my and many others goal is to convince women to not get them. I would rather do that, then have women getting the abortions illegally with a fucking coat hanger in some ghetto. This is the way I see gay marriage. Marriage is a term that has roots from religion. You don't force religion to except a new definition of its damn term. Instead how about gays can go around and come up with there own damb ceremony and call it whatever the fuck they want, why is it that they have to force the religous community to except the marriage of the same sex. In terms of civil unions or whatever, I'm in support of those. Okay when it comes down to it, the government has provided certain priveledges and tax benefits to married people, and thats another reason why gays are pissed. Either A remove these priveledges and tax benefits from the married so there is no difference, or provide them to the gays, I personally prefer removing them. Heck you guys bitch constantly about the rich not getting taxed enough(they are getting taxed enough even to much, but sake of argument). What stops the 2 richest CEOs to just claim they are gay together so they can get a tax benefit promised under some civil union shit.

Last edited by denny_shibby on Apr-18-2005 at 04:44

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I don't get why are you so hostile to the Republican party when you are a libertarian.

Because the republican party has been infintesimaly more liberal than the democratic party has ever been in the past few years. Limited government, fiscal conservatism, and states' rights advocates my ass. I was a Republican in the 90's, I remember what value and principle meant when it came to the actual issues that defined republicans at the time. Sadly, they have become the most egregious examples of flip-flopping in this decade.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Most Republicans don't give a rats ass if you pull a feeding tube either assuming IT IS STATED IN A WILL. Just so you understand according to you guys position on the Schiavo case, if you and your wife are fighting and are thinking about divorce, all that has to happen is for you to go into a comma and your wife can go to a court and claim that you asked to not be fed if you are in a comma. Your wife could have absolutely no evidence and she would legally murder you, and be able to take all not half, all of your assets. WE OPERATE ON EVIDENCE IN THIS COUNTRY SHE SAID, HE SAID ISN'T ENOUGH, EXCEPT IN THE SCHIAVO CASE apparantly.

So this is another example of the Republican party embracing states' rights??? Some 19 justices in state appeals court after appeals court heard the actual issue at hand and summmarily decided that, on the basis of all evidence depicting what Terri would have wanted was to have her feeding tube removed, is null and void based on the personal, unfounded opinions of the federal legislature??? This case has far transcended "he said, she said" simplicity. If you actually READ the court testimony as many of us have, you would come to the understanding that the STATE courts adequetately and sufficietntly examined the case and that the FEDERAL intrusion in a state issue was completely unwarranted. Or is this the neo republican party where state's rights only matter when it doesn't cross a republican agenda???

quote:

Marriage is a term that has roots from religion. You don't force religion to except a new definition of its damn term. Instead how about gays can go around and come up with there own damb ceremony and call it whatever the fuck they want, why is it that they have to force the religous community to except the marriage of the same sex. In terms of civil unions or whatever, I'm in support of those. Okay when it comes down to it, the government has provided certain priveledges and tax benefits to married people, and thats another reason why gays are pissed. Either A remove these priveledges and tax benefits from the married so there is no difference, or provide them to the gays, I personally prefer removing them. Heck you guys bitch constantly about the rich not getting taxed enough(they are getting taxed enough even to much, but sake of argument). What stops the 2 richest CEOs to just claim they are gay together so they can get a tax benefit promised under some civil union shit.

Bingo. Any good libertarian would rule that the state should have NOTHING to do with an institution that bears roots to religion. The state should grant equal rights to both civil unions and marriages alike.

___________________
Retro ...

Because the republican party has been infintesimaly more liberal than the democratic party has ever been in the past few years. Limited government, fiscal conservatism, and states' rights advocates my ass. I was a Republican in the 90's, I remember what value and principle meant when it came to the actual issues that defined republicans at the time. Sadly, they have become the most egregious examples of flip-flopping in this decade. BACK THIS UP

Read your damn constitution. Article three, the congress has the duty to reign in an out of control judiciary(not supreme court, any other).

Bingo. Any good libertarian would rule that the state should have NOTHING to do with an institution that bears roots to religion. The state should grant equal rights to both civil unions and marriages alike. SORRY DON'T GET WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT HERE, ELABORATE MORE