|
|
Post by atomheart on Apr 7, 2004 14:02:57 GMT -5
I am well aware of that. Most Democrats from that era came from the south and the states that are now controlled my Republicans. The direction of both parties has changed, there is no denying that. The Democratic Party of today is what I am proud to belong to, not the party of 1964. Actually donkey, the Democrats of today are a lot worse. The Democratic party of today is not the same party of Humphrey or JFK. They have gone too far to the left that they're basically socialists. Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia, realised this and wrote a book about the extreme move to the far left by the Dems called "A National Party No More". And Miller is for the first time, voting for a Republican president in George W Bush. That right there should tell you something donkey. |
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Apr 7, 2004 14:40:51 GMT -5
Actually donkey, the Democrats of today are a lot worse. The Democratic party of today is not the same party of Humphrey or JFK. They have gone too far to the left that they're basically socialists. Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia, realised this and wrote a book about the extreme move to the far left by the Dems called "A National Party No More". And Miller is for the first time, voting for a Republican president in George W Bush. That right there should tell you something donkey. How should that tell me anything. I support the party moving to the "left" . Zell Miller is not a true Democrat if you look up his voting record he votes with the republicans 95% of the time. The man should just switch parties. He is only sticking around to be a thorn in the sides of the true Democrats fighting for what they believe in. Being the centrist party isn't the way to get things done anymore. Reagan ran to the "right" in the 80's and ran the country into the ground. Perphaps a trip to the "left" of the spectrum is what our country needs. I am a liberal Democrat and proud of that fact. Conservative doctrine is wrong plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Apr 7, 2004 17:16:24 GMT -5
How should that tell me anything. I support the party moving to the "left" . Zell Miller is not a true Democrat if you look up his voting record he votes with the republicans 95% of the time. The man should just switch parties. He is only sticking around to be a thorn in the sides of the true Democrats fighting for what they believe in. Being the centrist party isn't the way to get things done anymore. Reagan ran to the "right" in the 80's and ran the country into the ground. Perphaps a trip to the "left" of the spectrum is what our country needs. I am a liberal Democrat and proud of that fact. Conservative doctrine is wrong plain and simple. No way. A "trip to the left" would be bad for this country. It would mean bigger government. More government programs that do more harm than good. Sorry, but I don't want this country to go socialist like Canada and Im SURE most of the common American citizen would agree with me. One more thing donkey and I don't mean this as a slam towards you. You say your a liberal Democrat and proud of it. You are also a Christian correct?? Well, I don't see how a Christian can lean to the left politically, when the left has been so obviously anti-Christian. It was the left that wanted prayer out of school and succeded. It is the left that wants "under God" taken from the pledge (liberal, activist judges in the 8th circut called it "un-constitutional"). There is a book written about the left's dislike for Christianity by David Limbaugh (yes, he's Rush's brother so you'll probably dis-credit it right away as BS) called "Persecution". Im sorry if I have a hard time understanding how a devote Christian can call him/herself a liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Apr 7, 2004 17:57:35 GMT -5
No way. A "trip to the left" would be bad for this country. It would mean bigger government. More government programs that do more harm than good. Sorry, but I don't want this country to go socialist like Canada and Im SURE most of the common American citizen would agree with me. One more thing donkey and I don't mean this as a slam towards you. You say your a liberal Democrat and proud of it. You are also a Christian correct?? Well, I don't see how a Christian can lean to the left politically, when the left has been so obviously anti-Christian. It was the left that wanted prayer out of school and succeded. It is the left that wants "under God" taken from the pledge (liberal, activist judges in the 8th circut called it "un-constitutional"). There is a book written about the left's dislike for Christianity by David Limbaugh (yes, he's Rush's brother so you'll probably dis-credit it right away as BS) called "Persecution". Im sorry if I have a hard time understanding how a devote Christian can call him/herself a liberal. Just because you don't understand how something works it doesn't mean that it doesn't. My personal beliefs are my own and I don't have to answer to anyone's definition but my own. I made my decisons on my own and I believe everyone else can too. I don't believe religion of any type should be in public schools because it stands in the way of someone making his or her own decsion. Public schools are a place for children learn what they need to be sucessful in life, not a place to develop religious beliefs. My thoughts are the same concerning the words "Under God". Our nation is free for everyone to believe how they choose. I don't believe placing one religion over another is the right thing to do. Liberals don't hate Christians or any group. We just want the playing field to be even for everyone no matter what he or she chooses to do. Conservatives try to paint us God hating atheists, that is the farthest thing from the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Apr 7, 2004 18:14:15 GMT -5
Just because you don't understand how something works it doesn't mean that it doesn't. My personal beliefs are my own and I don't have to answer to anyone's definition but my own. I made my decisons on my own and I believe everyone else can too. I don't believe religion of any type should be in public schools because it stands in the way of someone making his or her own decsion. Public schools are a place for children learn what they need to be sucessful in life, not a place to develop religious beliefs. My thoughts are the same concerning the words "Under God". Our nation is free for everyone to believe how they choose. I don't believe placing one religion over another is the right thing to do. Liberals don't hate Christians or any group. We just want the playing field to be even for everyone no matter what he or she chooses to do. Conservatives try to paint us God hating atheists, that is the farthest thing from the truth. One nation under God was added into the pledge because this country was founded by Jedeo/Christian values. Under God in the pledge isn't placing one religion over another. The playing field is even. But if it means distrubution of wealth. If it means cpkmtyoll evny. If it means affirmative action which is really reverse racism. Then it leans towards marxist/socialist views which is the OPPOSITE of America and capitalism. Which is why liberals, like yourself, are really socialist. |
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Apr 7, 2004 18:28:22 GMT -5
One nation under God was added into the pledge because this country was founded by Jedeo/Christian values. Under God in the pledge isn't placing one religion over another. The playing field is even. But if it means distrubution of wealth. If it means cpkmtyoll evny. If it means affirmative action which is really reverse racism. Then it leans towards marxist/socialist views which is the OPPOSITE of America and capitalism. Which is why liberals, like yourself, are really socialist. One nation under God was added to separte "us" from the supposedably "Godless Communist" in the USSR. It had nothing to do with what our country was founded on it was simply a piece of cold war propaganda. No where is it written that the U.S. must run under an unrestricted capitalist system. Besides social programs aren't an attack the economic system of the country. They are way to help those who might not be on top of the world all of his or her life. Associtating things you don't agree with, with marxism is simply a cop out designed to scare people. It's very easy to be a fan of capitalism when it works for you. It isn't that way for everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Apr 7, 2004 18:52:53 GMT -5
One nation under God was added to separte "us" from the supposedably "Godless Communist" in the USSR. It had nothing to do with what our country was founded on it was simply a piece of cold war propaganda. No where is it written that the U.S. must run under an unrestricted capitalist system. Besides social programs aren't an attack the economic system of the country. They are way to help those who might not be on top of the world all of his or her life. Associtating things you don't agree with, with marxism is simply a cop out designed to scare people. It's very easy to be a fan of capitalism when it works for you. It isn't that way for everyone. Capitalism has done more to advance the human condition than any other system in world history. Socialism/marxism/communism has only resulted in poverty and deaths of 100,000,000 people in the last century. These aren't scare tatics, these are truths. Please explain, if the capitalist system does more harm than good what is your solution then? |
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 7, 2004 19:47:36 GMT -5
So basically your statement is unsubstantiated. It's good enough for me because I've heard the statistics and know what I heard.[/color][/quote] As donkeydude indicated, you must have been referring to the Dixie Democrats. Most switched to the Republican party which seem to fit with their ideaology better. [/color][/quote] Boy, you sure do like your labels, don't you? I'll be sure to ask a liberal when I run into one. [/color][/quote] It's called the political process!! [/color][/quote] Fair enough, but unfortunately for you he's still covered under the Freedom of Speech (unless you'd like to curtail that?) |
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 7, 2004 19:51:09 GMT -5
Democrats such as Strom Thurmond who switched to your beloved party. It was Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson who saw the pkmtyolpage of the most notable of the civil rights laws. Many that voted against the bill now regret it. The Senior Senator from my state Robert C. Byrd has said on many occasions that he only regrets two votes in his entire life. His vote on the civil rights bill and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Those who have realized their mistakes remained Democrats those who didn't switched to the GOP. LOL!! Right! Robert Byrd the former KKK member who wished for a revival of the KKK in his home state.
People switch parties, and all of thyem didn't switch. Sen. Dodd said Bryd would have been right if he were voting during the civil war. I wonder where the outcry is now like it came about when Sen. Lott lauded Strom Thurmond for his service in the Senate.
Those Democrats and their allies in the partisan press are such hipocrites.
Lott is forced to resign as Senate leader and the Democrat gets a pkmtyolp.
I believe you've been taken in by the double standard that exists today and can't see through it.
[/color][/quote] He didn't have to resign. Didn't the Republican leadership ask him to resign? And which Democrat are you saying is getting a pkmtyolp? Robert Byrd? |
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 7, 2004 20:14:38 GMT -5
Not hard for me at all. But I do guess it is hard for you to admit you made a mistake! I didn't make a mistake. I spoke generally, you got specific and now say that I'm backtracking even after I clarified what I meant.?[/color][/quote] As I said previously, that is the inherrant risk of making generalizations. In yoour zeal to discredit Sen Kerry, you wish to minimize/trivialize all Navy personnel serving on ships. Very sad if you ask me. [/color][/quote] As someone with 2 nephews on the ground with the Marines (and a third who just graduated from Quantico), I would certainly prefer to see them on a ship right now. But I would certainly not trivialize the duty of those serving on ships with the word "cushy". [/color][/quote] Navy corpsman who serve with Marine units are not considered "special ops". Also, since the Navy delivers supplies to the troops on the ground, I would imagine there are large numbers of cargo specialists on the ground around the port cities. That's to name a few. But I'm sure who and what units of the Navy are in combat zones is cpkmtyollified. [/color][/quote] Again, I do not know the man personally. Whether he is a wimp, is determined by whether you accept the "political" hay that is being made about his military record. You seem to be saying that his whole war record is fake. That is a pretty big indictment. You should refer it to the Pentagon for them to investigate. If true, he should be stripped of his awards. As far as a "gigilo", are you saying he does not love his wife? And finally, I just do not think it appropriate to denigrate the Navy with your generalization. |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 8, 2004 4:55:56 GMT -5
How should that tell me anything. I support the party moving to the "left" . Zell Miller is not a true Democrat if you look up his voting record he votes with the republicans 95% of the time. The man should just switch parties. He is only sticking around to be a thorn in the sides of the true Democrats fighting for what they believe in. Being the centrist party isn't the way to get things done anymore. Reagan ran to the "right" in the 80's and ran the country into the ground. Perphaps a trip to the "left" of the spectrum is what our country needs. I am a liberal Democrat and proud of that fact. Conservative doctrine is wrong plain and simple. The greatest peacetime expansion in the U.S. economy for all time was running the country into the ground?
You need to get the truth before you criticize a great president.
You're one of a few who are willing to admit they are a liberal Democrat. Your national leadership such as Kennedy, Daschle, and others runs as far from that word as possible.
Explain this, if liberalism is so great, why do liberal candidates try to run as conservatives?
Your Democratic party killed Dean because he was running around calling himself a proud liberal.
Kerry has started calling himself a "fiscal conservative". I wonder why?
[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 8, 2004 4:58:15 GMT -5
Just because you don't understand how something works it doesn't mean that it doesn't. My personal beliefs are my own and I don't have to answer to anyone's definition but my own. I made my decisons on my own and I believe everyone else can too. I don't believe religion of any type should be in public schools because it stands in the way of someone making his or her own decsion. Public schools are a place for children learn what they need to be sucessful in life, not a place to develop religious beliefs. My thoughts are the same concerning the words "Under God". Our nation is free for everyone to believe how they choose. I don't believe placing one religion over another is the right thing to do. Liberals don't hate Christians or any group. We just want the playing field to be even for everyone no matter what he or she chooses to do. Conservatives try to paint us God hating atheists, that is the farthest thing from the truth. I don't have a problem with this thought, but let's get the anti-Christian teachings such as evolution out of the school system too.
Do you have a problem with that? [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 8, 2004 4:59:34 GMT -5
One nation under God was added into the pledge because this country was founded by Jedeo/Christian values. Under God in the pledge isn't placing one religion over another. The playing field is even. But if it means distrubution of wealth. If it means cpkmtyoll evny. If it means affirmative action which is really reverse racism. Then it leans towards marxist/socialist views which is the OPPOSITE of America and capitalism. Which is why liberals, like yourself, are really socialist. Well said! [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 8, 2004 5:07:39 GMT -5
One nation under God was added to separte "us" from the supposedably "Godless Communist" in the USSR. It had nothing to do with what our country was founded on it was simply a piece of cold war propaganda. No where is it written that the U.S. must run under an unrestricted capitalist system. Besides social programs aren't an attack the economic system of the country. They are way to help those who might not be on top of the world all of his or her life. Associtating things you don't agree with, with marxism is simply a cop out designed to scare people. It's very easy to be a fan of capitalism when it works for you. It isn't that way for everyone. How old are you? Have you been taught under the revised history of today's education system?
Maybe a trip down history's lane would show you why the Pilgrams came here to begin with.
This country was founded on Christian values and this is what our Constitution is based on.
It is LIBERAL judges that are subverting the Constitution from the bench, acting as the legislative branch of government, that is the problem.
The progressive income tax system is taken straight from the communist manifesto. There was no tax on wages until recent history in this country. The tax was on income, which is really not wages, until the IRS came up with this false idea.
Congress never called wages, income.
Imigrants should assimilate into America. America isn't supposed to change to suit every culture that arrives here.
You need to develop a core value and realize what Amarica is ans what this country stands for, not what liberals say it stands for.
[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 8, 2004 5:13:18 GMT -5
As donkeydude indicated, you must have been referring to the Dixie Democrats. Most switched to the Republican party which seem to fit with their ideaology better. No, they realized what the Democratic party has become and vote Republican while hoping the Democratic party finds it's identity that has been lost. [/color] Boy, you sure do like your labels, don't you? I'll be sure to ask a liberal when I run into one. You seem to like them too by your first sentence above. [/color] It's called the political process!! No, it's Bill Clinton's tactic of "how can we fool 'em today". You forget how the press used to praise Clinton as to how he could twist an obvious lie into somethin other than he said.
" it all depends on what "is" is."
[/color] |
|
