Challenge for the Liberal-Minded Folks

[Mibrilane #56]

Ok, sportsfans, here's your chance to influence those who are "open minded".

I've recently read an article by Newt Gingrich called The American Eleven: A Values-Led Plan for Victory in November (http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=16863). This outlines a very well-reasoned conservative "plan" for addressing various concerns shaping our nation. Since I'm open minded and a registered Independent, I'd like to see the equally well-reasoned liberal plan for addressing the same concerns.

Really, just a web link or two will do the job. I can't find anything that isn't just anti-Bush squawking by myself, so I need your help. Show me and others the "Liberal Plan" for dealing with modern day issues - one that doesn't just point out perceived failures by the current administration, but actually goes into proffering liberal solutions to those "failures".

Also, please avoid "plans" that are just about withdrawing from Iraq - I've seen enough of that stuff already. What about everything else?

[NJCardFan]

Ok, sportsfans, here's your chance to influence those who are "open minded".

I've recently read an article by Newt Gingrich called The American Eleven: A Values-Led Plan for Victory in November (http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=16863). This outlines a very well-reasoned conservative "plan" for addressing various concerns shaping our nation. Since I'm open minded and a registered Independent, I'd like to see the equally well-reasoned liberal plan for addressing the same concerns.

Really, just a web link or two will do the job. I can't find anything that isn't just anti-Bush squawking by myself, so I need your help. Show me and others the "Liberal Plan" for dealing with modern day issues - one that doesn't just point out perceived failures by the current administration, but actually goes into proffering liberal solutions to those "failures".

Also, please avoid "plans" that are just about withdrawing from Iraq - I've seen enough of that stuff already. What about everything else?

Or something a little more original than taxing the "evil rich".

[82CardsGrad]

Hello... Hello... ello... lo....

The silence is deafening... but certainly not surprising... :thumbsup:

[Mibrilane #56]

Hello... Hello... ello... lo....

The silence is deafening... but certainly not surprising... :thumbsup:
I'd give them more than an hour, 82. Let's try to be fair.

Seriously, though, I'm curious to see "the plan" that the left has to win back the HoR and Senate. I hope it's something beyond:

Step 1. Call Bush an evil liar who led us into an unwinnable war to make Halliburton rich.

Step 2. Listen for cheers.

Step 3. If cheers not very loud - move to friendlier liberal neighborhood and repeat Step 1.

I'm looking for a responsible, serious liberal plan to address national concerns beyond the usual anti-war material. I'm hoping such a plan actually exists.

[82CardsGrad]

I'd give them more than an hour, 82. Let's try to be fair.

Seriously, though, I'm curious to see "the plan" that the left has to win back the HoR and Senate. I hope it's something beyond:

Step 1. Call Bush an evil liar who led us into an unwinnable war to make Halliburton rich.

Step 2. Listen for cheers.

Step 3. If cheers not very loud - move to friendlier liberal neighborhood and repeat Step 1.

I'm looking for a responsible, serious liberal plan to address national concerns beyond the usual anti-war material. I'm hoping such a plan actually exists.

Step 4. Play the "I'm not the incumbent" angle...

[Mibrilane #56]

Step 4. Play the "I'm not the incumbent" angle...
Yeah, that's along the line of Kerry's "I have a plan" strategy:

Forget what the actual plan is, just know that I have a plan, and it is not the one that the current guy is following.

Even though I voted to allow him to follow that plan.

And for $87 billion to support it's continuation.

Before voting against the $87 billion, that is.

By the way, did you know I won some medals in Vietnam?

I was going to throw them over the fence with everyone else, but then I realized that I might need the medals in my political campaigns in the future, so I threw some pretty ribbons instead.

Oh, and someone else's medals.

I believe that every problem has a nuanced solution to it. By "nuanced", I mean whatever solution the polls say the most people support on any given day.

Kerry failed to beat an incumbent that was polling at a 40% approval rate. That's really saying something: it's not enough to just say you "have a plan" - you actually have to have an actual plan, and you have to share it with people, who will then vote for you if they think it is a good plan.

As for my challenge, I was able to find this Six Point Plan for 2006 (http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html) at the DNC website. Only six points? Just kidding. Good reading, though.

If only they could state Democratic Party positions without whining so much about the Bush Administration. They'd get further if they were just "pro our position" and less "anti-Bush's position", even though it's essentially the same thing. All that negativity toward Bush really shrouds a lot of the good stuff they might be saying.

Also, a lot of the "plan" isn't goal specific, but really just a way of saying "we have a plan to achieve these lofty goals that no one can really argue with" - especially the "Real Security" section:

We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security.
Telling the truth to our troops, citizens, and allies? What "truth" might that be - that we're losing? That we can never possibly ever win ever and thus we should pull out our troops and return home in shame? Ok, I'm over-dramaticising that position, but really now - what "truth" needs to be told that isn't already told daily by the NY Times and CNN?

Perhaps they want to focus on all the good stuff that we're doing over in Iraq - building things, opening schools, making it so people who have been oppressed for 30+ years can actually vote for their leaders - good stuff you don't read about every day in the NY Times or see on CNN. If that's the case, more power to them.

I hear "tough and smart" coming out of the mouths of any "Democratic strategist" that I see on television these days. What does that really mean? Are they saying that current troop activities are neither tough nor smart? Our military is the toughest, smartest military on Earth.

It sounds like a good catch phrase, but it's kind of insulting to our military, isn't it?

Also, the "begins with hometown security" is essentially a clever way of saying "we don't think we should be fighting wars overseas".

Let's continue:

Democrats have a plan that is comprehensive-- from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq and freeing America of its dependence on foreign oil--and it will finally prepare America for the security needs of the 21st Century. And we honor the sacrifices our troops, their families and veterans by making sure we take care of them when they come home.
That must be some honkin' plan. Wow.

They want to "repair" the military. Is it broken?

The want to "win the war on terror" - don't we all? How are we to do such a thing? Ideas, people, I want to see ideas, not lofty goals. Everyone has the same lofty goals.

Aside from the "repairing the military" bit, everything else in this paragraph has been an oft-stated goal of the Bush Administration.

I'm amused at the "ensuring success in Iraq" phrase - is "complete withdrawal as soon as possible" now the definition of "success" - I guess so.

Democrats are unwavering in our commitment to keep our nation safe. For Democrats, homeland security begins with hometown security. That's why we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack and support increased funding for our first responders and programs like the COPS program so we keep our communities safe. We want to close the remaining gaps in our security by enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
Unwavering, eh? Perhaps you should tell your poster (http://www.dailykos.com/) children (http://nytimes.com/) to ixnay on the averingway.

For the positions to mean something, you have to have your people actually support them in their actions - just saying them is easy. There was wide-spread Democrat celebration (at least in the press) when LaMont beat Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, despite the fact that Lieberman has been one of the strongest moderate-liberal voices for the Democrats in the Senate. He was their VP candidate in 2000. Yet, because he actually supports action being taken to "ensure success in Iraq" (actual success, that is, not the withdrawal before the mission is complete kind of success), he was basically dismissed by the party, who threw all of their weight behind LaMont as their new boy. Never mind that Lieberman basically towed the party line with 99% of every other issue. They don't want him any more.

I think that's rather sad.

Elections shouldn't come down to just one issue, even if it is a big issue such as the Iraq War.

The real problem for Democrats this year is that Gingrich's list is full of things that a good 65% to 80% of Americans support, and they're all points that the Republicans can support as well without compromising their core set of platforms. I'm not seeing anything as equally compelling coming out of the left, beyond the usual anti-war screeching that has become rather banal of late.

Then again, I don't think the current Republican leadership (and a lot of this is Bush not going along with his party) really can implement Newt's ideas, or that they really want to do so. I don't see the whole "Contract With America" idea from 1994 being repeated by either party any time soon - it would require a commitment and tenacity that neither party seems to have these days.

I have a feeling, by the way, that Newt may run for POTUS in 2008. A race with both him and Rudy Guiliani on the GOP side is going to be mighty interesting indeed.

EDIT: Added an extra comment about the first part of the DNC "Real Security" prose.

[Mibrilane #56]

I just want to add, after that lengthy post, that I'm somewhat disappointed that the liberal contingent here didn't even try to take me up on my challenge today - as you can see, I was eventually able to rise to the challenge myself. I figured that certain folks were active enough on this board that they would have pitched something, anything, before 11:00 PM. I guess I was wrong.

Hopefully some of the liberal minded folks around here will point me toward other liberal plans for winning the election in 2006 - although I think restricting it to stuff that isn't all anti-war diatribe really narrows the field down considerably.

EDIT: Sometimes the fingers and the mind don't quite sync up.

[NJCardFan]

Maybe that's because they can't see beyond the "Bush sucks" mantra.

[Mibrilane #56]

Maybe that's because they can't see beyond the "Bush sucks" mantra.
It's going to be very important for the Democrats in 2008 to have some kind of position on things beyond hating Bush. It's hard to take the "plan" listed on the DNC site seriously when right below each of the points (if you click them) is a group of links to how horrible the Bush Administration is. If they can't frame their plan without linking it to being anti-Bush, whatever will they do when they don't have Bush around to oppose any more?

[Reckon]

This is all the liberals need to best serve their case: http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=16863

[ambushk]

I believe the plan is simple. Sit back and watch the republicans self-destruck. Both parties take turns doing the same after controling the congress for 4 to 8 years. I don't think either party is capable of "staying on message" for too long. Perhaps part of their plan should be to up the doses of ritalin.

[Oaken1]

Well I don't know that I am exactly a liberal, but I have a plan for the next election. If the Dems nominate Hilary, I plan to vote for her. Not only is she smarter than Mr Bush but I think she can also kick his ****.
That gal is by far the most intelligent individual to have their *** polish a seat in Washington over the past twenty years.
Do not get me wrong, I would never sit down for coffee with an ice queen like that, but the woman is sharp.

[NJCardFan]

Well I don't know that I am exactly a liberal, but I have a plan for the next election. If the Dems nominate Hilary, I plan to vote for her. Not only is she smarter than Mr Bush but I think she can also kick his ****.
That gal is by far the most intelligent individual to have their *** polish a seat in Washington over the past twenty years.
Do not get me wrong, I would never sit down for coffee with an ice queen like that, but the woman is sharp.

The woman is a socialist ***** but I certainly won't argue with you that she could kick Bush's *** in a fight. In fact, I think she'd beat Tyson's ***.

[Mibrilane #56]

I think Hilary would be a great candidate for the Dems in 2008, as long as she doesn't completely sell out to the far left to get nominated. I don't really see anyone else who has a strong national recognition factor. If someone is going to be the first female POTUS, it might as well be Clinton.

Plus - Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is just nifty for the history books. :ok:

I think the best candidates for the Republicans at this point are Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani.

I think both John Kerry and John McCain's Presidential aspiration ships have sailed - they should stay put in the Senate where they can do the most good for their current constituents with their seniority.

[TyPaige]

Clearly SHE has a plan for world terrorism!!! uh.. what was it again??


Well I don't know that I am exactly a liberal, but I have a plan for the next election. If the Dems nominate Hilary, I plan to vote for her. Not only is she smarter than Mr Bush but I think she can also kick his ****.
That gal is by far the most intelligent individual to have their *** polish a seat in Washington over the past twenty years.
.

[Cardsfan2000]

Ok, sportsfans, here's your chance to influence those who are "open minded".

I've recently read an article by Newt Gingrich called The American Eleven: A Values-Led Plan for Victory in November (http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=16863). This outlines a very well-reasoned conservative "plan" for addressing various concerns shaping our nation. Since I'm open minded and a registered Independent, I'd like to see the equally well-reasoned liberal plan for addressing the same concerns.

Really, just a web link or two will do the job. I can't find anything that isn't just anti-Bush squawking by myself, so I need your help. Show me and others the "Liberal Plan" for dealing with modern day issues - one that doesn't just point out perceived failures by the current administration, but actually goes into proffering liberal solutions to those "failures".

Also, please avoid "plans" that are just about withdrawing from Iraq - I've seen enough of that stuff already. What about everything else?

The only way to ensure your vote will go towards ideas rather than agenda is to vote third party. Also, Newt Gingrich is a joke and a wingnut, 56. He recently called it "fair game" to compare the majority of Americans who oppose The War in Iraq to individuals sympathetic towards the **** agenda.

[Avondale Red Rage]

Ok, sportsfans, here's your chance to influence those who are "open minded".

I've recently read an article by Newt Gingrich called The American Eleven: A Values-Led Plan for Victory in November (http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=16863). This outlines a very well-reasoned conservative "plan" for addressing various concerns shaping our nation. Since I'm open minded and a registered Independent, I'd like to see the equally well-reasoned liberal plan for addressing the same concerns.

Really, just a web link or two will do the job. I can't find anything that isn't just anti-Bush squawking by myself, so I need your help. Show me and others the "Liberal Plan" for dealing with modern day issues - one that doesn't just point out perceived failures by the current administration, but actually goes into proffering liberal solutions to those "failures".

Also, please avoid "plans" that are just about withdrawing from Iraq - I've seen enough of that stuff already. What about everything else?

I'm still trying to find the Liberal Party?

Since when is an article from what has become a talking head now considered a plan?

[LouDawg]

Clearly SHE has a plan for world terrorism!!! uh.. what was it again??

"Just Say No!"

[LouDawg]

Where is Saturn? I hate to admit it, but I sorta miss him.:iconrolf:

[KidStallyn]

Well I don't know that I am exactly a liberal, but I have a plan for the next election. If the Dems nominate Hilary, I plan to vote for her. Not only is she smarter than Mr Bush but I think she can also kick his ****.
That gal is by far the most intelligent individual to have their *** polish a seat in Washington over the past twenty years.
Do not get me wrong, I would never sit down for coffee with an ice queen like that, but the woman is sharp.

I think I may have to move to France if she gets voted into office.....

[ambushk]

Sorry I didn't follow the link to "bathe" in the glory of Newt's words.

:sarcasmalert: Any actual independent should agree... unless they are "closet" conservatives.

Seriously, we won't arrive at any acceptable solutions that face our country until we stop seeing things in terms of a Republican or Democratic plan. A good and even-handed plan should be acceptable, regardless of it's point of origin. Shouldn't it?

It just seems that the distinction between parties is as unproductive as is, the difference between "black" and "white". Problems need universal solutions. They shouldn't be "badges" politicians can pin on their party.

What is that saying, "A house devided must fall.". How much more devided can this country become before it does fall? No doubt the Romans couldn't answer that question either.

[Mibrilane #56]

Where is Saturn? I hate to admit it, but I sorta miss him.

Here's something to fill the void:

http://www.moonphasesoftware.com/saturn_3d_space_tour/Saturn3DSpaceTour1.jpg

Any actual independent should agree... unless they are "closet" conservatives.
Once again, "Independent" is not a political ideology, it is a voting registration. Independent does not mean "not conservative" or "not liberal", it means not registered with any political party.

[ambushk]

Here's something to fill the void:

http://www.moonphasesoftware.com/saturn_3d_space_tour/Saturn3DSpaceTour1.jpg


Once again, "Independent" is not a political ideology, it is a voting registration. Independent does not mean "not conservative" or "not liberal", it means not registered with any political party.

So the conservative lean in this thread is meaningless?

[Mibrilane #56]

So the conservative lean in this thread is meaningless?
No, it means your insinuation that my claiming to be Independent (true) somehow means I am claiming that I am not conservative (untrue). They are unrelated terms. One (Independent) is a political registration with the State of Arizona, the other (conservative) is a political ideology.

Why is it that liberals are the only ones who don't understand this? Saturn could never get it, CF2K doesn't seem to grasp it, and now you.

One can be conservative and not be a Republican, just as one can be a liberal and not be a Democrat.

[ambushk]

No, it means your insinuation that my claiming to be Independent (true) somehow means I am claiming that I am not conservative (untrue). They are unrelated terms. One (Independent) is a political registration with the State of Arizona, the other (conservative) is a political ideology.

Why is it that liberals are the only ones who don't understand this? Saturn could never get it, CF2K doesn't seem to grasp it, and now you.

One can be conservative and not be a Republican, just as one can be a liberal and not be a Democrat.



I said the position was conservative in it's slant. I never said you were either conservative or liberal. Why is it some people can't separate the two. Your responce indicates that you lean toward the conservative nature of society, or at least with this article.

I don't know about you, but I know noone that is completely conservative or liberal. Don't get so defensive about the labels. If you are indeed independent then perhaps you could write your own article, based completely on your own fact finding, including a complete bibliography.

Again, don't take it so seriously. It's only politics. My intention was not to attack you, but debate the issue.

P.S. Buy-the-way, politicians do run as Independents, therefore it must encompass some political idiology. How else could they form a platform on which to run?

[LouDawg]

P.S. Buy-the-way, politicians do run as Independents, therefore it must encompass some political idiology. How else could they form a platform on which to run?

I don't understand what you mean here? Joe Lieberman ran as an Independent because he lost the Democratic primary in CT. Bernie Sanders left the Republican Party in Vermont to run as an Independent because he thought he would do better politically if he weren't in the party. Sometimes Independent status is more of a practical than an ideological thing.

[TyPaige]

I think and vote republican... but live like a democrat..

[Liberals: Insert Unnecessary Assumptions Here]




One can be conservative and not be a Republican, just as one can be a liberal and not be a Democrat.

[Mibrilane #56]

I don't understand what you mean here? Joe Lieberman ran as an Independent because he lost the Democratic primary in CT. Bernie Sanders left the Republican Party in Vermont to run as an Independent because he thought he would do better politically if he weren't in the party. Sometimes Independent status is more of a practical than an ideological thing.
Running as an Independent has nothing to do with ideology, which is my point.

Saying that any "true independent" would agree, unless they are a "closet" conservative, is an asinine statement, as the two things are not mutually exclusive. The insinuation is that I'm full of **** for saying I'm a registered Independent because my views are mostly conservative. Liberals seem to think that one cannot be Independent (really, non-Republican) and also conservative - I say otherwise.

I still think it's fantastically lame for shawnbewly to have resurrected this thread from the dead after nearly a year - and with a comment that adds nothing to this discussion whatsoever. There should be a rule that if a thread has no responses for, say, a month, it should automatically be locked so no further posting can be done in said thread. That way, dead threads would stay dead and we wouldn't have to rehash stuff from many, many months ago.

[NJCardFan]

Wait a minute, I think I get it. Now follow me on this one, Mib. You are a registered Independent but your values are more Conservative. Similar to my being a registered Libertarian with conservative values. But for some reason the Liberals on these boards can't seem to correlate the fact that one can be a registered anything but have either conservative or liberal values but for some reason they believe that Conservatives are Republicans and Republicans only. This is similar to librals not liking being called liberals or left wingers and refer to themselves as progressives. You feel me?

[ambushk]

Running as an Independent has nothing to do with ideology, which is my point.

Saying that any "true independent" would agree, unless they are a "closet" conservative, is an asinine statement, as the two things are not mutually exclusive. The insinuation is that I'm full of **** for saying I'm a registered Independent because my views are mostly conservative. Liberals seem to think that one cannot be Independent (really, non-Republican) and also conservative - I say otherwise.

I don't get your ire over this. I never said you were full of anything. What I said, was said sarcastically.

Claiming any political preference, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or Micky Mouse Club isn't the point. Choice is. Do you choose a Liberal, or Conservative view, on a particular issue. That doesn't mean you're always Liberal or Conservative.

Liberals can be Independents too. There is nothing unique about any of us. Everyone comes down on one side or the other of any issue.

If someone is Independent and supports a Republican issue, then that makes them conservative on that issue. Claiming to be Independent and running from that Republican label, only means one is embarrassed to align themselves with that party. I would be too.

There are also things that embarrass me about the Democrats. The difference between you and I is, I can admit that and you won't.

[Mibrilane #56]

Wait a minute, I think I get it. Now follow me on this one, Mib. You are a registered Independent but your values are more Conservative. Similar to my being a registered Libertarian with conservative values. But for some reason the Liberals on these boards can't seem to correlate the fact that one can be a registered anything but have either conservative or liberal values but for some reason they believe that Conservatives are Republicans and Republicans only. This is similar to librals not liking being called liberals or left wingers and refer to themselves as progressives. You feel me?
Exactly.

There are also things that embarrass me about the Democrats. The difference between you and I is, I can admit that and you won't.
I'm quite embarrassed to be associated with either party, actually, that's why I'm registered as an Independent. I figured that much was obvious.

As for the subject of this thread, it was initially regarding the upcoming (at the time) election in 2006 and was long dead before a newbie decided to add some fatuous commentary. I had read Newt Gingrich's conservative plan for the future and was challenging liberals to show me the liberal plan for the future. Eventually I found a mostly-liberal plan on the DNC website, after no liberal could muster a response to my challenge. I probably should have waited longer - there are tons of liberal plans for addressing the world's problems, aren't there?

Let's all just move along now. :wink:

[Mibrilane #56]

Everyone comes down on one side or the other of any issue.
Except, of course, those who come down on both sides of any issue. :wink:

[ambushk]

Except, of course, those who come down on both sides of any issue. :wink:


Ooo! That almost sounds kinky:cool2:

[Avondale_Larry]

I hope I'm not to late to the party. Funny how you started declaring victory after only a couple hours elapsed. (Some of us have a life beyond posting in this forum.)

Let's start out by rolling back the radical elimination of civil rights under Bush. If you have probable cause to eavesdrop on a suspect, go tell it to a judge. He/she will give you the warrant. Don't trample on the founders of the Constitution because you don't think they anticipated 9/11. They didn't anticipate air travel either, but you seem to be okay with the FAA.

If probable cause is so shaky that you want to do it in secret, and call everyone who questions you a terrorist, you probably need to rethink your stance. Remember boys, this is America, not Afghanistan.

I'd realize there's more to my political party than the uber-wealthy who make contributions to my election/reelection. I'd eliminate the no-bid contracts so favored by the GOP. I'd recognize that open and unfettered competition made this country great. Not enriching my political buddies like the Republicans.

I'd openly admit that religion is simpy a money-making scheme for certain individuals to reap money from the unimaginative. I would proclaim publicly that while people can believe any myth they choose, they may no longer spread these views while milking at the public trough. All entities will pay their due taxes, based upon their net income. No longer will snake-oil salesmen be given the benefit of shouting their "truths" while driving Mercedes without paying taxes.

There. I didn't raise taxes on the wealthy, who certainly have benefited from several years of GOP leadership.

You'll of course say I didn't play within your juvenile rules.

Sorry I didn't affirm your preconceived notions.

[Mibrilane #56]

I hope I'm not to late to the party. Funny how you started declaring victory after only a couple hours elapsed. (Some of us have a life beyond posting in this forum.)
This was a thread from last fall, Larry. I didn't "declare victory" after only a couple of hours elapsed, I only said I was disappointed that not one of the usual liberal political posters, people who at the time were posting 15+ posts a day, didn't even try. Several (who aside from Saturn will remain nameless) had been posting that evening, so it wasn't as though they weren't around. I was just seeing if anyone would bother with it, as there was a lot of "Democrats will change things" talk at the time, but no one would put forth exactly what was going to change or how.

Now, the election bore out how prevalent this misguided belief in imminent change was at the time and the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. But, nearly a year later, how much has really changed?

I thought so.

Nice list of action points, though. I only the liberal leadership had the temerity to do half of what you say without caving in to politics as usual. I disagree with your assumptions and conclusions regarding "civil liberties" (specifically the FISA program), but I don't want to really get into discussing that in detail here, so I'll just leave it at that.

I've given up on both major parties. The Republicans don't have the testicular fortitude to follow the reasonable and likely to be well-supported action plan Gingrich laid forth in his article, and the Democrats only play lip service to most of the platitudes expressed on the DNC website.

As you know, I don't hate GWB, but I can recognize how his presidency has failed. I think if we have another failed presidency we'll be well on our way to breaking the 2 party system that is so sadly broken. I'm not sure if this makes me hope that the next presidency fails or not.

[NJCardFan]

Actually, there hasn't been a totally succesful presidency since Reagan. Bush 41 while strong on defense was weak on national affairs and the economy. Clinton was decent on the national front but extremely weak on defense, and Dubya has been up and down on the national front and had good intentions on foreign affairs but has failed tog arner alot of support from other nations but this may be more politically motivated than anything. To give G-Dub credit, he's faced unprecidented challenges during his term and has fought back nicely. I truely believe that the whole nonsense over the 2000 election has created a political climate never seen before. I wonder if a Republican wins in '08 what the Democratic excuse would be.

[Cardsfan2000]

Actually, there hasn't been a totally succesful presidency since Reagan. Bush 41 while strong on defense was weak on national affairs and the economy. Clinton was decent on the national front but extremely weak on defense, and Dubya has been up and down on the national front and had good intentions on foreign affairs but has failed tog arner alot of support from other nations but this may be more politically motivated than anything. To give G-Dub credit, he's faced unprecidented challenges during his term and has fought back nicely. I truely believe that the whole nonsense over the 2000 election has created a political climate never seen before. I wonder if a Republican wins in '08 what the Democratic excuse would be.

Sounds like someone who has never taken a single history class before.

National Disaster=rally around the flag effect=major political capital. Bush's pathetic leadership is legendary for blowing all of the 9/11 political capital in just a few years.

[ambushk]

Politics is so much fun. Tell me people, when was the last time any of us (including myself) espoused an objective point of view?

I can hardly wait for the honesty to hit the fan.:hurray:

[Mibrilane #56]

Politics is so much fun. Tell me people, when was the last time any of us (including myself) espoused an objective point of view?

I can hardly wait for the honesty to hit the fan.:hurray:
I'm not sure that's possible given the nature of politics, which is entirely subjective. There is no such thing as objective politics.

That said, I'll respect any political opinion that has a factual basis, even if I strongly disagree with it. I can't abide the stuff based on fictions that are easily disprovable, though.

This is often the sad truth of political discussion:

:poke:

[ambushk]

I'm not sure that's possible given the nature of politics, which is entirely subjective. There is no such thing as objective politics.

That said, I'll respect any political opinion that has a factual basis, even if I strongly disagree with it. I can't abide the stuff based on fictions that are easily disprovable, though.

This is often the sad truth of political discussion:

:poke:

Good clean response. Thanx Mib.

[Cardsfan2000]

I'm not sure that's possible given the nature of politics, which is entirely subjective. There is no such thing as objective politics.

That said, I'll respect any political opinion that has a factual basis, even if I strongly disagree with it. I can't abide the stuff based on fictions that are easily disprovable, though.

This is often the sad truth of political discussion:

:poke:

Then I assume that you agreed with Ron Paul's factual assertion in the FNC debate against Giuliani (as opposed to Giuliani's baseless talking points)

[Mibrilane #56]

Then I assume that you agreed with Ron Paul's factual assertion in the FNC debate against Giuliani (as opposed to Giuliani's baseless talking points)
Sorry, I didn't watch the FNC Republican debate. I generally don't comment on things I haven't seen. I'll start watching debates when it comes close to primary time.

You know what happens when you make an assumption, CF2K. That's right - you make an *** out of U and Mption. :wink:

[saldawyz]

Sorry, I didn't watch the FNC Republican debate. I generally don't comment on things I haven't seen. I'll start watching debates when it comes close to primary time.

You know what happens when you make an assumption, CF2K. That's right - you make an *** out of U and Mption. :wink:

:offtopic: The Long Kiss Goodnight is a great movie (esp. for one-liners). But Sam Jackson says it wrong and its still awesome!!

(and now back to conservatives vs. liberals...)

[JesterCST]

I am not a "lib" but, I seem to have like views. All I can say is that the lack of responce to this means that we do not have anything as of now to lean on. I know that the majority of this board are cons. Which may be an other reason for no links.