quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The fact that such a large portion of the population has radically shifted views without even acknowledging it says something powerful to me: it says that people are not basing their political views on sound philosophy, facts, or reason, but on blind faith in a political party. When democracy has reached that point, it's difficult for me to surmise how to view American democracy as anything but a failure. quote: Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You just nailed it on the head again Arbiter. Well said.

Opus, i'm glad you reminded me of Arbiter's comment. I must agree to disagree with both of you again.

No offense to either of you, because I know both of you aren't stupid. but where have you been? Have you been living in a cave since birth? The american people have not shifted views. There has been relatively little change in the american political psychology except for the possibility that there are more liberal extremists these days and they are getting more publicity and legitimacy from the media. The US majority are still centered. The majority also continue to hold onto christian moral foundations. You can both think whatever you will about US democracy but it makes no difference. The primary reason your candidate didn't win the election and the reason the democrats are losing power, is because of the fact they have lost their connection with the majority of americans. They have moved too far to the left and away from the center. If they continue, they are going to get even weaker until they move back again. And believe you me, with the strength of the republican party right now they are going to have to obtain a very strong and charismatic pres. candidate next time also. A candidate that will re-establish the democratic parties credibility and earn the respect of the american people again. Perhaps a JFK type leader. I really do want to see more balance in the two parties. I think it makes for the healthiest democracy. However, the gridlock and contentions of recent has to be overcome. If this cannot happen I would rather see a dominating power party that gets things accomplished.

Pres. Bush is in a unique position in history to do what presidents of recent times have not been able to do. He is an extremely powerful leader. The likes of which our nation hasn't seen in a long time. I think even you would have to agree with this even if you dislike him. He has chosen to tackle the hardest problems our nation has in his next four years. The problems that presidents of yesteryear were scared to even touch. Social security and tax reform being the main ones. You know these are huge problems in this country. Perhaps this powerful right wing is what was necessary for our country to have a shot at fixing these crippling problems. One thing is for sure, the bi partisan gridlock/contention of recent times was only going to further delay the problem for future generations of americans. Indeed, Bush has the opportunity and the motivation to do incredible things for our nation and I'm sure we can all agree on that. I hope so. If not, then i'm done conversing with you or any other opposing americans in this forum. I've seen too many of that kind on this forum already. The likes of whom can't see the positive aspects of the current situation because they can't look past their own hatred and political bias. peace.

quote:

Originally posted by UWM You did know that John Kerry is Christian, right? Idiot.

He is catholic not christian and those are 2 completely different things, about as defferent as republican and democrat.

quote:

Originally posted by Protege He is catholic not christian and those are 2 completely different things, about as defferent as republican and democrat.

Catholics believe in Christ, so they're Christians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Protege He is catholic not christian and those are 2 completely different things, about as defferent as republican and democrat.

All Catholics are Christian, though not all Christians are Catholic.

quote:

Originally posted by Protege He is catholic not christian and those are 2 completely different things, about as defferent as republican and democrat.

Wow...not seem rude but someone needs to learn some basic religious terms...this which is one of most basic even...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Opus, i'm glad you reminded me of Arbiter's comment. I must agree to disagree with both of you again.

Without going into too much detail, I think you missed Arbiter's point completely - the Republican party has undergone a major shift in a number of policies over the past 3 decades, and bear no resemblence to what they once were or professed in the past. Much of this has to do with Kristol and the neoconservative movement, which is to effectively dominate geopolitically at any and all costs, which of course include fiscal irresponsibility, but at the same time create MORE governmental influence both on foreign AND domestic soil.

This is in stark contrast to the old Republican Party. And with over 4 million tanking into poverty under Bush's watch, as well as the income gap between the upper and lower classes increasing steadily, the increasing millions of folks who can't afford health insurance, this is in sharp contrast to the real compassionate conservatism demonstrated by Nixon's Republicans. Just a few examples, but the point remains that this group of Republicans in office and in the legislature are very different than the Republicans of the past.

quote:

No offense to either of you, because I know both of you aren't stupid. but where have you been? Have you been living in a cave since birth? The american people have not shifted views.

I disagree. Historically Christians had not necessarily identified themselves with one particular party - the Democrats held equal amounts of Christians in the past. Thanks in great part to groups such as the Christian Coalition and devisive wedge issues coming to light such as abortion and gay rights, the Christian group has certainly shifted further to the Right.

quote:

There has been relatively little change in the american political psychology except for the possibility that there are more liberal extremists these days and they are getting more publicity and legitimacy from the media.

Are you implying that there are not equal Conservative extremists out there?

I grew up in Wichita, Kansas, sir. I remember quite vividly when Randall Terry had brought his fucked-up minions of extremist pro-lifers in the early 90's to town that essentially brought our town to it's knees at one point.

We can talk about extremists to live long day and fallaciously attempt to depict either side being influenced by them as a whole, but I think that wouldn't get us very far. For example, would it be fair to associate your side with individuals such as these?:

quote:

The US majority are still centered. The majority also continue to hold onto christian moral foundations.

Again with this "Christian moral foundations". You haven't explained such foundations very well with Occ in this thread, I don't think it would be prudent for you to bring such a fallacious argument over here either.

quote:

You can both think whatever you will about US democracy but it makes no difference.

Ahh yes, the "will" of the Christian "majority" tends to do that with dissenters, doesn't it?

quote:

The primary reason your candidate didn't win the election and the reason the democrats are losing power, is because of the fact they have lost their connection with the majority of americans.

Umm, 48% of the vote and the 2nd highest number of votes is not exactly "losing a connection".

quote:

They have moved too far to the left and away from the center. If they continue, they are going to get even weaker until they move back again.

Care to support the assertion that the left has moved too far from the center? What evidence do you have to support such a notion?

quote:

And believe you me, with the strength of the republican party right now they are going to have to obtain a very strong and charismatic pres. candidate next time also. A candidate that will re-establish the democratic parties credibility and earn the respect of the american people again.

Contrary to your beliefs, that respect was not lost towards Kerry, nor is it lost to our party leaders.

quote:

Perhaps a JFK type leader. I really do want to see more balance in the two parties.

Your statements up to this point tend to say otherwise.

quote:

I think it makes for the healthiest democracy. However, the gridlock and contentions of recent has to be overcome. If this cannot happen I would rather see a dominating power party that gets things accomplished.

See what I mean? You label Democratic party as somewhat unprincipled, scattered, and helpless, yet you want to see more balance IF the Democrats were more powerful.

I tend to wonder if you would truly continue to feel this way IF Ohio had gone to Kerry. Would you feel this way about Democrats?

In fact, I tend to wonder if you would truly feel this way if the Democrats were in power right now in general. For some reason, I think you wouldn't.

quote:

Pres. Bush is in a unique position in history to do what presidents of recent times have not been able to do. He is an extremely powerful leader. The likes of which our nation hasn't seen in a long time.

You know the saying - the bigger they are, the harder they fall. If Iraq goes to shit, and if our King continues to sign every spending bill coming out of Congress with no intention of actually reducing the deficit, well then it'll be easy pickins for the Dems. in '06 and '08.

quote:

I think even you would have to agree with this even if you dislike him. He has chosen to tackle the hardest problems our nation has in his next four years. The problems that presidents of yesteryear were scared to even touch. Social security and tax reform being the main ones.

Ahh yes, good 'ol SS - say, you know where Bush is gonna borrow about $1 trillion or so to pay for all that money that won't be going into the Treasury? Or are we just gonna gentle-fuck that generation before us who won't receive any SS benefits at all, "compassionate conservative" style?

And boy oh boy I sure hope Bush does throw in some tax-reform on top of all that. Let me give you a little hint - NO one is going to talk tax reform until we do something about YOUR party's reckless spending spree. No way in hell.

quote:

You know these are huge problems in this country.

There's a time and place to address problems. How 'bout we handle the problems that are about to blow up in our faces RIGHT NOW first, and THEN handle those future problems a bit later?

quote:

Perhaps this powerful right wing is what was necessary for our country to have a shot at fixing these crippling problems. One thing is for sure, the bi partisan gridlock/contention of recent times was only going to further delay the problem for future generations of americans.

There is wisdom in those gridlocks and the checks 'n balances that has occurred in our government over those years. I know a good logical discussion and willingness to understand someone else's stance on policies may be somewhat missing in your party at times, especially now that Bush and his minions feel they have a "mandate" (51% constitutes a "mandate"?), but it has helped significantly in the past in understanding one another and coming to compromising, effective solutions.

Of course, you wouldn't be able to tell that with your party. Here's Bob Dole after the Republicans lost in '92:

quote:

57 percent of the Americans who voted in the presidential election voted against Bill Clinton, and I intend to represent that majority on the floor of the US Senate. ...I think [Clinton] got some good news and some bad news last night... ...The good news is that he's getting a honeymoon in Washington. The bad news is that Bob Dole is going to be chaperone.

With that, the Republicans effectively pissed all over the centerpiece of Clinton's agenda at that time, healthcare, and took over Congress in 2 years.

Contrast that to what Barack Obama stated on NBC's Meet the Press on Nov. 7th last Sunday:

quote:

...one of the things I told the president was that we all have a stake in seeing him have a successful presidency. I don't think that the Democrats succeed by rooting against the president in office. But we have to be honest where we disagree with him and he's got to make his case where he's presenting issues that we're skeptical about. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6430019/

Or how 'bout Pelosi's weekly radio address:

quote:

I hope that in this term President Bush will fulfill his promise to be a uniter, not a divider. A new term is indeed a new opportunity to bring America together. House Democrats stand ready to work with the President. Despite our divisions, there are many places where we should be able to agree. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137825,00.html

Granted, both Obama and Pelosi went on to explain areas and policy differences where they see potential arguments, but the overall messages between the two parties when they lost the election couldn't be any more clear.

quote:

Indeed, Bush has the opportunity and the motivation to do incredible things for our nation and I'm sure we can all agree on that. I hope so.

As do I, but I have sincere doubts that he will, given his track record over the past 4 years. Keep in mind that unless they change the 60 vote filibuster rule in the Senate, those few devisive issues will continue to be gridlocked by the Democrats. And why shouldn't they? You honestly expect the other party to compromise their core values and beliefs on central issues? Have the Dems. ever expected the Republicans to do the same? Have the Republicans ever indicated they would compromise their core values in the past?

quote:

If not, then i'm done conversing with you or any other opposing americans in this forum. I've seen too many of that kind on this forum already. The likes of whom can't see the positive aspects of the current situation because they can't look past their own hatred and political bias. peace.

I think it's fair to say that many here, including those few that may agree with your views, tend to think you are quite the biased fellow in your own right. Again I wonder if you would really feel any different about things had Ohio gone to Kerry - I have my sincere doubts.

Your answers and opinion up to this point leave much to be desired. I hope you stick around and clarify yourself better.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Opus

In response to one of your other threads summarizing why Kerry and the dems lost...

I believe you said something to the effect that they need to play rougher and attack character more? I completely disagree. Negative campaigning is something that really has got out of hand lately. I think most people including myself were sick of hearing all the character attacks by each candidate. It makes the other candidate look very desperate and as if they have no firm ground to stand on. A very ugly and self-weakening tactic. Pres. Bush ran a friendlier campaign than Kerry and this helped Bush a bit more in the end. Remember, Bush was not the one attacking Kerry's vietnam record, the swifties were. Kerry verbally attacked Bush with every other word out of his mouth and people were sick of it. His constant argument was that he should be pres. because Bush was screwing everything up. This is a very weak argument. This kind of negative lecturing doesn't sit well with many people. What on earth was Kerry's campaign team thinking?! No one wants to hear someone constantly criticizing our president. What we want to hear is how to fix a problem and the hard details. Kerry offered close to none.

Kerry lost because...
1. Himself and his party were not centered. Too far left. This is possibly the biggest of all and encompasses the most.
2. His negative campaigning got the best of him
3. He made too many promises.
4. He never defended himself against the swift boat vets claims, which in the eyes of myself and most americans imo suggested that he couldn't because it was the truth. This was a biggie for character credibility. Kerry needed to clear this immediately but instead his campaign retaliated by attacking the character of the vets. Bad move.
5. Character concerns in the minds of many american voters due to Kerry's innability to properly handle no. 4 above.
6. He never established his political position well with the american people. I don't feel the american people really knew what he did/did not support.
7. Mrs. Kerry pissed off a lot of women by her idiotic remarks and women are very sensitive voters. J. Kerry should have kept her out of the campaigning as much as possible. I think many despised the thought of her being the first lady by her attitude and mannerisms.
8. Most americans didn't know where he stood on religious faith and family values. The assumption was likely made that they weren't very important to him. Hence he didn't stress them. This was another biggie.
9. The catholic authority opposed him
10. A large population of small business owners opposed him because of his unfriendly tax proposals.
11. Corporate america opposed him and certainly they have a lot of money, power and influence.

well those are the biggest ones. im sure there are a few more.

All in all, my assesment of voter turnout and the politcal pulse of american's currently would be: the moderate majority of americans don't vote. On average less than half of americans even vote. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html However, in recent elections the left has had very strong turnout at the polls. And the lefts voter strength continues to come from the same key states mainly New York and California. All of that accounts for why Bush's lead wasn't even greater and why the 2000 election was by popular vote essentially even. Obviously voter turn out was greater this election across the board with 60%- the highest since 1968.http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldl...on/10113862.htm My point here is that currently the USA isn't split as much as everyone believes it is. When you have a moderate majority who's voter turnout is less than half and a liberal minority whos voters turnout in great strength and who's strength lies in the two most populated US cities it creates an illusion and skews the real picture. Interestingly the majority of liberals lie in states with high immigrant numbers and a strong want and need for more social welfare because they mostly comprise of lower class americans but thats another discussion altogether.

the dems really needed a strong candidate to beat out a war time president. Instead they chose possibly one of the worst. It's astonishing to me that they couldn't do better. I almost wonder sometimes if it wasn't a setup to get Bush re-elected. Hmm...that would imply our two party system is really just one. Howz that for conspiracy? Oh well, that another discussion. peace.

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Kerry lost because... 1. Himself and his party were not centered. Too far left. This is possibly the biggest of all and encompasses the most. 6. He never established his political position well with the american people. I don't feel the american people really knew what he did/did not support.

sorry for pointing this logical flaw out:
How can you say that he is "too far left", yet never made his political standpoint clear? It's either or, since you wouldn't know that he was too far left, in which case you know where he stands on certain issues, or he did not make his standpoint clear, in which case you should not be able to say that he is too far left, since you do not know what his standpoint is.

___________________

get font

I see your 4 Crushs and raise you 3 As The Rush Comes. - Yan from PvD's first summerstage event in '03

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 sorry for pointing this logical flaw out: How can you say that he is "too far left", yet never made his political standpoint clear? It's either or, since you wouldn't know that he was too far left, in which case you know where he stands on certain issues, or he did not make his standpoint clear, in which case you should not be able to say that he is too far left, since you do not know what his standpoint is.

I don't know about your beef with the aforementioned argument, but based on Kerry's senate record alone, he is the #1 most liberal congressman in the Senate--moreso than Ted Kennedy.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Relax The State of Denial has no electoral votes

Nice one

___________________

insignificant cor member alliance

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't know about your beef with the aforementioned argument, but based on Kerry's senate record alone, he is the #1 most liberal congressman in the Senate--moreso than Ted Kennedy.

http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

___________________
Retro ...