Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
To regain the re: line.

Karl, come closer so I can hear you please. No? Ok, I'm coming out there than. Boy did I miss you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't disagree with you, but it's on the other side as well. Those that want everyone to have basically unlimited social freedoms do not want all to have commensurate economic freedoms. That is what I meant by saying that your definition doesn't adequately describe people accross all issues.

And I agree with you. It seems that the Democrats can't divorce themselves from the arm of their party which demands that the govt retain a babysitting role. That's too bad. I think if the liberals got rid of that vehement minority in their camp, they'd discover most of the country agrees with them. Most people are "liberal republicans" (less govt/taxes + as much social freedom as possible).

Here's a hypthetical for you... What would happen if the Dems suddenly dropped the plank of their platform which supports govt regulation/babysitting? What if suddenly they became the party of less govt and more social freedom? How would the traditional GOP deal with all the liberal republicans who've only voted GOP for tax reasons suddenly switching to a liberal republican alternative party? I think at a minimum, such a move would create a more honest debate in this country. It would force the alleged "copnservatives" to admit they're actually not for freedom and liberty at all, but for freedom and liberty for people to act as they see fit.

The real crux of the difference between the Right and Left in this country is that the Right wants to regulate people's social lives and the Left wants to regulate their pocketbooks. I lean left a lot more these days because I can always ,make more money if the Left's in charge, but I don't know how to go about creating liberties once they're taken away from me. I'm beginning to understand why some people see this election as so important. Maybe Bush's ideologues will never get to regulate our lives as they'd like, but why even give them an inch?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
There is nothing wrong with SCOUS overturning a state court when the state supreme court acts unconstutionally. I didn't see you crying about SCOTUS overturning the TX SC in Lawrence v. TX.

You didn't? You must have had your tv off that day.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
To regain the re: line.

Ooooh Yeah, Honey! That's nice.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct19.html

'The film features 17 former prisoners of war criticizing Kerry's 1971 allegations of U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. Asked whether the political uproar prompted Sinclair to change its plans, Faber said: "We did not and do not make programming decisions because of political pressure." Sinclair also generated headlines after firing its Washington bureau chief, Jon Leiberman, on Monday, for criticizing plans to air the movie.'

TM

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And I agree with you. It seems that the Democrats can't divorce themselves from the arm of their party which demands that the govt retain a babysitting role. That's too bad. I think if the liberals got rid of that vehement minority in their camp, they'd discover most of the country agrees with them.

That vehement minority is the one headed by Hillary Clinton, the next leader of the Dems.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Most people are "populists" (less govt/taxes + as much social freedom as possible).

That is not what a populist is.

[Not Me]

Can someone post that picture of the fat, bloated, drunk ted kennedy that penzke used to regularly post? I am going through withdrawal. If I don't see it soon, I am going to have to start talking about Rosemary's lobotomy again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Practice the Love. Ya, Baby, Practice the Love.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I think it might better than one would suspect.
Currently, you are correct, there isn't a correlation between applying "leaving people alone / telling people what to do" and political parties. That's why many people have to weigh their stances on these issues. I think you and I (and SD) weigh toward the leave people alone side. But you find yourself a Republican disappointed with their stands on social issues (because the economic ones are more important to you) and I find myself a Democrat disappointed with my party's traditional (but as an aside, I think getting much better) stands on economic questions, because of how I rank the relative importance of my values. I'm okay with pandering to unions, because the alternative is to throw my hat in with people who hate gays, which I will NOT do. You tolerate aspects of the Republican platform because you will NEVER support raising taxes. It's just priorities (I'm genuinely trying to be neutral here: I understand your priorities even while I may disagree as to their relative importance).

I think the next ten years will show a reflection of a trend from the last ten years: periodically, the two parties have some big realignments in their philosophies to more accurately reflect the biggest masses of public opinion. It'll take another 10-15 years for party loyalists to realize they are in parties that don't reflect their interests (much like the defections of Southern Democrats to the Republican party in the 70s and early 80s), but I suspect you and I will find ourselves in the same party in 20 years.

A better assessment of the sad state of our choices would be hard to find. "Damned if you do..."

But lemme ask you this... Why is it that we can't have a party that demands fiscal responsibility and is also socially liberal? Why do social conservativism and fiscal conservativism have to walk hand in hand? If the majority of the country is really liberal republican (and from what I read about dicontent with the parties, I believe it is) why can't we have a liberal repiublican party? Why can't we dredge up Nelson Rockefeller's plank and run with it? Why in today's world shouild it be such a sin to stand up and say "I'm a socially liberal Rockefeller Republican." Isn't that kind of the platform this country was built upon? The idea, as I recall, was that we'd be free from both taxes and govt - state and fed - interfering in our lives. I should not be taken to task by some self-centered moralizing states righter when I say I'm a Liberal Republican (I guess that's Libertarian). He should be explaining to me where he derives his platform, because I see nothing in 200+ years of this country to support what either party desires as truly "American" goals. I see a lot of false patriots and people trying to force other people to live under their unreasonable and unwanted rules. That is not "conservative", its un-American.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
To regain the re: line.

"Whether or not to blow the whistle in the first place is a judgement call. Depends on if it was hand-to-ball or ball-to-hand and which team has the advantage after the alleged hand ball."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Me
That vehement minority is the one headed by Hillary Clinton, the next leader of the Dems.

That is not what a populist is.

Well then tell me, what is the majority? What does the majority of this country want?

And if a "populist" isn't in favor of low taxes/govt intrusion and greater social liberties, then what do you call someone who is? And what is the definition of a "populist"?

ETA: You got me. I was using the term wrong. I should have been using :liberal republican" in its place.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

YOU'RE NOT MY DADDY!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well then tell me, what is the majority? What does the majority of this country want?

And if a "populist" isn't in favor of low taxes/govt intrusion and greater social liberties, then what do you call someone who is? And what is the definition of a "populist"?

I'm not engaging in substantive discussion until someone posts the picture of the fat Teddy Kennedy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
I'm not engaging in substantive discussion until someone posts the picture of the fat Teddy Kennedy.

Just for you dear.