Keep believing your own propaganda.

Please.

The Bush Lemming Juice is a hurteth You ehhhhhhh Zulu??

Larry Mohr

Keep believing your own propaganda.

Please.

Posted by zulu

Steve Fraser is right. We were a nation divided when Nixon was elected - generationally because of the Vietnam War, and then politically by the end of Reagan's term. George HW Bush's "the 'L' word' set the course.

It's time for America to come together for a greater good - for us to be American's again.

Obama and Huckabee are the two candidates who aren't appealing to the narrowist agendas. We need to get back to The New Frontier and start looking ahead with hope instead of feac, with unity instead of division. The politics of Newt and Rove haven't served us well no matter what your agenda for America is. Unless we're united again we'll split so far apart from each other and the world there may be no return to anything resembling the America we've been for over 200 years. We got together to solve the big problems. The time to do that again is now.

It's time for America to come together for a greater good - for us to be American's again.

~American Unity

Words of Wisdom, AU!

Time fer America to reject wot Spud calls the "51/49 per cent solution"

That aint the solution that's the problem.

Reject the politics of fear and know that we all have more that unites us than divides us.

Our commonalities exceed our differences by a large factor.

Hang together or hang seperately.

Life is choice.

Choose well.

Be Well.

If only the election were next month...

It makes me more than ill thinking of another 407 days, and with the sure knowledge that this "administration" will only look to it's own sick political ends.

My daughter and son-in-law are Republican and pretty well fixed... I hope to summon up the courage to ask them if they are still invested in Dollars.

"F" the Rebuflicans. We're sick of the crap, the lies, the stealing, the tapping your damn feet every time we have to use the restroom. Pick up and leave, ala the Puritans. Find another paradise to spoil.

I sick of crap,lies and stealing from both parties.

Conservatism in every country and every time is essentially reactionary and backward looking. My brother the "conservative" said it best, in response to a restaurant smoking ban - "why do we have to change?". He didn't understand that things are constantly changing, you can't just freeze the world at the point you were happiest, or turn back the clock to a mythical past where all the hard problems don't exist.

Liberalism is essentially forward looking and embraces change. It is no panacea, but the world IS changing, and that change is happening faster and faster. We need to embrace that change and master it - as America has always done.

Face it - this country was not founded by conservatives. The conservatives of 1776 believed all countries were governed by kings because God wanted it that way, that their parents and grandparents obeyed the King and they would too, and all this talk of independence and democracy was treason and heresy. The Founding Fathers were raving Liberals, as radical in their thinking as Marx and Lenin, perhaps even more so.

The pendulum swings back and forth from time to time, but the country moves on, despite the efforts of reactionaries who think the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" and that 51% of the vote once every 4 years is a mandate from God.

Argh,


Face it - this country was not founded by conservatives. The conservatives of 1776 believed all countries were governed by kings because God wanted it that way, that their parents and grandparents obeyed the King and they would too, and all this talk of independence and democracy was treason and heresy. The Founding Fathers were raving Liberals, as radical in their thinking as Marx and Lenin, perhaps even more so.


I hate to burst your bubble, but modern Conservatives have more in common with our liberal founding fathers than modern liberals.

As it stands now, Libertarians most closely resemble our founders, particularly the Jeffersonians.

PS - Milton Friedman considered himself to be a liberal.

I hate to burst your bubble, but modern Conservatives have more in common with our liberal founding fathers than modern liberals.

As it stands now, Libertarians most closely resemble our founders, particularly the Jeffersonians.


Who are you considering too be modern conservatives, Libertarians or Republicans?

Just curious, but I probably won't see your answer until late tomorrow. I have a long drive ahead, so I must go to bed.

I wasn't talking about specific political beliefs, my bubble is quite intact.

I was referring to the fundamental difference between conservative right and liberal left as a universal political phenomena. I think conservatives and liberals lean in their respective directions in part because of psychology and personality, and that anyone who claims to be a conservative now would not have supported the revolution in 1776.

Argh,


I think conservatives and liberals lean in their respective directions in part because of psychology and personality, and that anyone who claims to be a conservative now would not have supported the revolution in 1776.

OK. That may very well be true - I'll give you a point for that.

That said, my point was more of aligning political ideologies among the morphing labels.

Our founders were for small, de-cenralized government (yes, the federalists favored more central control than the Jeffersonians, but even the federalists would have staunchly opposed what constistutes the modern liberal's view of the role of government).

I still argue that our founders more closely resemble modern conservatives in terms of the view of the role of government than the view of modern liberals.

G'Nite

Argh,

"Liberalism is essentially forward looking and embraces change. It is no panacea, but the world IS changing, and that change is happening faster and faster. We need to embrace that change and master it - as America has always done."

I think your talking about social progressive vs social conservative.

I think Jeff is talking about classical liberal vs social liberal.

I seriously doubt the founders would approve of very much of modern government. Frankly I think they'd be stunned that we've lasted this long, most would be shocked that we're treating black as equals (or trying to) and all of them would be horrified that we were letting women vote. Some would be dismayed that we had a standing army at all, much less one that consumes so much of the Federal budget. I'm sure a few would welcome gay rights. Most importantly, once they'd grasped the changes that have taken place in the last 200 years, I'm sure they'd be just as divided about most issues as we are now.

I'll grant the large v. small government argument if you insist, but I really don't think that would be their biggest concern. Besides, that's just doubletalk anyway - what Republican voters think and what the leaders they elect do is very much at odds.

Time and time again, the constitution comes back to curbing the human tendency to authoritarianism. I think they would be unanimous in condemning the "Unitary Executive" and all the attempts that have been made to weaken checks and balances and to expand executive power. I think they all be Liberals when it came to that.

PS - Milton Friedman considered himself to be a liberal.

Friedman considered himself to be a Neo-Liberal.

Spud considers MF to be to economic theory wot Joseph Mengele was to medical theory.

In short, he was a cunt.

Responsible for death, terror, installing dictatorships, killing real democracies, rape, the invention of the hyper rich as a class and the dismemberment of the middle class around the world.

Spud thinks Stalin and Friedman shoulda gone bowling together.

Ahnold declared in Jan 2007 "Milton Friedman Day" in Caleefornya.

Ahnold Schwartzeneggar is an ignorant cunt too.

Be Well.

/Okay really really gone now

//stage left.

Let's evaluate "politics of fear"

1."Recession and Depression are coming ... !!!!"
We have been hearing this since the recovery of Bill's stock market bubble bursting.
Truth- The longest sustained US growth in history under Bush

2."The Iraq war can't be won!!!!"
We continue hearing this even when we are now winning
Truth Iraq is a mess, its getting much better

3."The whole world hates the US because of Bush!!!"
Truth-France and Germany are stronger allies now than before Bush came to office. Achmajihad, Chavez, and Castro still hate us- who cares.

4.My favorite "The world is coming to an end!!!"
Truth- this one is the mother of all" politics of fear"!!

The world has changed since our country was founded, but human nature being what it is politics hasn't changed much. The seven deadly sins are as appropriate today as they were thousands of years ago. The founder's believed in the right of personal property. In a belief that the money earned from the sweat of a mans brow was his and his alone. Any political party who believes otherwise should be cast out. To forcibly take from one who has earned to give to one who has not is wrong. It has been wrong from the beginning of time and is wrong now. Think truly about the values you hold. If you feel the need to give to someone in need, do so. But if you feel you should take from others to fill this need of yours count me out.

I guess chalk it up to being a Monday morning, but when I first glanced at the headline I thought it said, "Fallwell, Republican Majority" and thought I'd tuned into the Twilight Zone or something.

"Keep believing your own propaganda.

Please. Posted by zulu"

Perhaps now would be the time to bring out all of the many quotes by the right here on the DR about how the Democrats didn't stand a chance in '06, how they would be repudiated by the electorate, how the left would be eating crow after election day.

Never underestimate the power of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot.
Alwaysright: The economy is in serious trouble. Even the conservative business types are expecting a recession in 2008. You can't run record deficits and a housing collapse and expcet not to hac ve your dollar go in the dumper.
The war in Iraq-if you define "win" as handing 90% of the country over to various militias and creating an afghanistan warlord class to run the country, then maybe. Of course, a strong central government with democratic principles is gone, but you'll have "won".
Something.
France and Germany are stronger allies? How many French and German troops in Iraq? How many in the combat areas of afghanistan? How many served along side us in Gulf1 and Kosovo. Having governments that are less mildly anti-American than in 2005 isn't all that great when all they do ids feed you pig. Bush's iran lies are going to re-open fault lines as euro businesses (and their American branch plants) start lining up for contracts from the ayatollahs.

The world is coming to an end? Only for the neo-cons. Iran is laughing at them, al queda is laughing at them, China and Russia are laughing at them and November is only 11 months away.

what Republican voters think and what the leaders they elect do is very much at odds.

Posted by argh at 2007-12-10 02:22 AM | Reply

Argh,

You are making the error of thinking that Republicans and Conservatives are interchangeable. They are not the same thing.

Being a Conservative means adhering to a political philosophy of smaller government. Conservatives often hold their nose and vote for Republicans, knowing full well that they are not good choices. But the Democrat alternative is a worse choice.

Being a Conservative means you support the candidate who most closely represents what you believe, regardless of party affiliation. In the last election (state and local) I voted for mostly Democrats, because they were the best candidates.

The article is right, on both points, Nixon and what is happening now politically. But no one seems to understand these days that we are not guided by those old ways and means or documents (the constitution and Bill of Rights)anymore.

We are guided by actuary tables and profit margins and information control. And the strings are being pulled by some of our largest corporations. Watch the politicians dance when corporate interests are involved. Watch the war, which is a corporate interest.

Watch the newly elected, of both parties, become corrupt with power and money. In 4 years we will be having the same conversation only the names republican and democrat will be exchanged. and it will all happen under the watchful eye of the Federal reserve (a non-gov't corp) and the world bank (a non gov't corp).

Just lay back and relax you libs, the conservatives will never be a threat to you again.

Just lay back and relax you libs, the conservatives will never be a threat to you again.

Posted by Sniper at 2007-12-10 09:21 AM | Reply | Flag:


Noone's laying back or taking anything for granted Sniper. Howard of Australia (or Austria if you're GWB), Blair of Great Britain and several other so-called conservative pals of Bush have now been shown the door by their electorates due to thier close association with Bush. Your 15 minutes are nearly up and it's been about 12.5 minutes too long. The people are shaking the woolen mask from their eyes and it's gonna be wonderful to watch you squirm.

"Perhaps now would be the time to bring out all of the many quotes by the right here on the DR about how the Democrats didn't stand a chance in '06, how they would be repudiated by the electorate, how the left would be eating crow after election day."

Keep hating Bush... seems to really help you guys win elections. Soon Democrats will only have the occasional school board to run.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2005-09-19 02:07 PM

=====

It's all about spin and Reps are going to be spun to the ground in 06 and 08.

Just like in '00, '02 and '04 right?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2005-09-23 11:35 AM

=====

And if that's all you think of us... how does if feel to know that you've lost full control of the United States to us stupid hicks?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2005-09-13 01:40 PM

Keep hating Bush... seems to really help you guys win elections. Soon Democrats will only have the occasional school board to run.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2005-09-19 02:07 PM

Could I get the link to this? Google finds no hits for this exact phrase...

Just like in '00, '02 and '04 right?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

This is not a prediction of 2006, but a repudiation of DNC cockiness...

And if that's all you think of us... how does if feel to know that you've lost full control of the United States to us stupid hicks?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2005-09-13

At the time this was posted September 2005 we were in control of the entire country...

Nice try fatty...

It's time for America to come together for a greater good - for us to be American's again.
~American Unity

Politically/economically etc if you agree to this statement you are a liberal.

For social reasons-Christian right.

If you see how wrong this is--Libertarian.

"There is no GOP crisis that fearmongering and creative poll-watching cannot solve!" -- Karl Rove

Posted by a true Falwell supporter at 2007-12-10 10:47 AM

Posted by Hans


fat, bald and a liar...

When was the last time you had sex with a woman who wasn't crying or paid in advance?

Actually the above is merely attributed to Karl. Not sure if he ever officially "said" it. It's more how he practiced politics, not necessarily how he preached it.

"fat, bald and a liar..."

Lying about what, Rob_the_Falwell_supporter?

"When was the last time you had sex with a woman who wasn't crying or paid in advance?"

How's my little girl doing? Has she broken 7lbs yet?

Hans

"Just lay back and relax you libs, the conservatives will never be a threat to you again."'

Sniper, the Conservatives never have been a threat to us Democrats. Conservatives are just as opposed to the neocons who took over the Republican party as are us Democrats. Conservatism is not fascism.
The Republican Party has not represented conservatism for a long time now. REally started drifting away from conservatism with the Raygun Revolution.

"Nah... it was a major moment in American politics...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-12-10 10:21 AM"

Rob conveniently ignores the redistricting (gerrymandering) that occurred before his beloved GOP had its ass handed to it in 2006. But comparing apples and oranges is sometimes necessary to make a (non)point.

How's my little girl doing? Has she broken 7lbs yet?

Hans

Posted by Hans


yeah... um, fat, bald man riddled with type II diabetes...

fucking horse viagra wouldn't work on you...

Tell you what Hans, if she's 65 pounds by 3 months and has as much hair as a billiard ball, I'll come back and apologize...

Rob's a little ornery, isn't he? Perhaps it's the 2+ months of no sex with his wife? Vernon's handjobs ain't doin the trick, huh Rob?

I, like a lot of other voters vote for the dems in 06. And in the next I'll vote repub. In about 12 years we can change the lot of them. You libs talk about "changing the world". Keep voting the same people in. See where that gets you.

"And in the next I'll vote repub.

Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2007-12-10 12:52 PM"

What have they done to deserve your vote?

Rob's a little ornery, isn't he?

Hans, when was the last time someone called you a "little" anything?

What have they done to deserve your vote?

Not a damn thing. That's the point. None of them deserve to represent the people of this great country.

"Farewell, Republican Majority"

This would only be true if the Democrats could nominate conservative candidates.

"Rob's a little ornery, isn't he?"

Apparently so, Monte. You would think that the teachings of Falwell would impress upon him the Christia.... Oh, never mind. It already has.

Hans

Curious. What "change" does "liberalism" embrace?

Is it really "change," or just a wiping of the patina?

It seems that the politicos are merely after acquisition of political power, and they manipulate the plebians by trying to determine what benefits voting blocs want. They announce policies that cater to a particular voting bloc without alientating or polarizing too many other people with that initiative.

Pols also play to underlying prejudices if they exist. I met a political scientist, PhD, college prof now "gone to glory," who had been in the Navy in Florida during WWII. The sitting Senator was Claude Pepper, Democrat, and advocate for the elderly, very popular.

The prof reported watching the campaign, and he saw the next Senator, Senator Smathers, on a tree stump giving a speech exhorting the folks to support him. Sen. Smathers was one of the most sophisticated urbane people extant. He rolled up his shirt sleeves, and his call for support was based on the lines, "Ah want you to know that your Senator, Claude Pepper, was matriculated, yes matriculated, from a coed college. That's a college where girls attend. If you want him to represent you, that's okay. I ain't sayin' nothing more."

Quite naturally, the old matriculator lost. He later ran for and was elected to the House. But the people of Florida did avoid the ignominy and shame of having their state continuing to be represented by a person with such a background.

It seems that most politicians have private agendas which are of little importance to the general public. They have a good gig, a rewarding niche if they learn how to work it.

The abstract "change" if anything is a mechanism to enable the contenders to attain power. What do you want to hear? I'll say it.

You're a bunch of political junkies. What's does Ms Hillary hope to accomplish? What does Mr. Obama hope to accomplish? Mr. Edwards has enunciated his positions. but he has the chance of a ... what? Not good odds.

Curious. What "change" does "liberalism" embrace?

A return to a semblence of decency would be a nice start.

An end to Bushit "War Eternal is a good thing" rhetoric would be another.

An end to the over spending and under achieving corporate corruption of BushCo would be another.

The end of stacking the SCOTUS with cuntservative asswipes would be a good thing.

An end to Torture as State policy.

But most important a real chance to open the curtains and let the sun shine in at the ole WH. Maybe then real investigations can be started that find out wot illegal activities Cheney and Rove and their pet Chimp were up to asides from the ones we already know and/or suspect.

Anything that Cheney classified as Top Secret can be de-classified by the new guy (or gal) ya know.

Fer that reason alone the GOPhers should be shunned this next election cycle like Leprous Mormoms showing up on yer doorstep early in a Saturday morning when yer trying to sleep in.

There's a ton more but chew on that fer starters.

Remember to chew thouroughly before swallowing.

Thanx fer askin'.

Be Well.

Jesus was a 'liberal'

The end of stacking the SCOTUS with cuntservative asswipes would be a good thing.


What specifically is your beef with either Roberts or Alito?

So far all I have heard from the democratic party is "hate Bush". Doesn't sound like much of a platform when Bush isn't running.

I guess I could live with a republican president and a democratic congress as long as their majority wasn't too great.

I wouldn't want to see it the other way around and have a lib president promoting all the 9 circut judges to the supreme court.

What specifically is your beef with either Roberts or Alito?

The give Scalia and the whiner and seemingly uninterested Thomas a majority. I think Roberts is a sharp tack, we'll see how Alito turns out.

Jesus was a 'liberal'

Posted by AMERICANUNITY


Yes... but not a 2007 Liberal...

FDR was a liberal... but by today's liberal standards he would be impeached and imprisoned, maybe even killed...

Today's liberals would mock Jesus for believing in magic and chastise him for openly discussing his faith, while suing him to get him to stop preaching outside of churches/synagogues... Oh plus he was in in Israeli Jew, so you would hate him for that too...

Ok, so Liberals of today are not Liberals and Conservatives of today are not Conservatives. Jesus may or may not have been a Liberal. Conservatives look back at the founders who were most liberal for their time and "think those guys were pretty smart". Liberals look back and think " I can do better". Before you say that look at the larger picture. The things you do have a profound effect on the future.

The things you do have a profound effect on the future.

Posted by STIRSUMUP


No... in reality, for the vast majority of us, the things we do have little or no effect on the future.

Sounds like Jesus and Democrat platform principles to me:


liberal [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
[Origin: 132575; ME < L lberlis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to lber free + -lis -al1]

--Related forms
liberally, adverb
liberalness, noun

--Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
--Antonyms 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006.

OH...SO You voted for AL Gore?

13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

Does this sound like a Liberal of 2007?

Don't count your Diebold Voting Machine Eggs before
they Hatch...

If the current Rethuglican Party has proved anything (waves @ Karl Rove and Co.) it is that they are willing to try ANYTHING, ANYTHING mind you, to forward their political stranglehold on the Presidency, and their Neocon Agenda...

Just look at their recent efforts in trying to
split up the Electoral Vote in California...

Just look at Ohio 2004...at Florida 2000...

Just look at their Redistricting Efforts in Texas & Colorado...

Be Afraid, Be very Afraid...

Just look at Ann Coulter getting equitted for
Voter Fraud in Florida...via www.rawstory.com
column...

All I can say is GET OUT and VOTE if you want change Democrats, Progressives, and Independants...just remember to GO when its GO TIME...

You want to be Afraid, just look at Huckabee, and his stance on Evolution vs. Creation, on a Woman's Right to Choose, on Separation of Church and State...

If THAT Clown wins, your looking at an even worse Fundamentalist/Idealogue than Bush & Co. in the White House...

Sorry, No Overconfidence Here...seen too many idiots
voting in idiots at the polls for that...

I fully expect more Electoral Shenanigans in this next election...

"Danni -- Re: your 12:27. Do wish they'd bring back Goldwater. Or even Nixon. Hell, even Spiro Agnew looks like a radical genius compared to the neocons."

I'd definitely take either Goldwater or Nixon over Bush and his cronies.

In a Political Science class that I took last year my professor stated that by today's standards someone like Nixon would be considered way too liberal to get the republican party nomination. I would even vote for Nixon if the choice was between him and Bush.

"So far all I have heard from the democratic party is 'hate Bush'. Doesn't sound like much of a platform when Bush isn't running."

Snipe is having a bad day. Indeed, on a creationism thread he's being drawn, quartered and ground into turtle food. But that statement surely deserves the Not Listening Award for 2007. Snipe ... have you heard of Iraq, deficits, health care, eavesdropping, waterboarding, reproductive rights, the supreme court and just all around humungous stupidity? herm

"So far all I have heard from the democratic party is 'hate Bush'. Doesn't sound like much of a platform when Bush isn't running."

Snipe is having a bad day. Indeed, on a creationism thread he's being drawn, quartered and ground into turtle food. But that statement surely deserves the Not Listening Award for 2007. Snipe ... have you heard of Iraq, deficits, health care, eavesdropping, waterboarding, reproductive rights, the supreme court and just all around humongous stupidity? herm

Ok, Dems. I don't like much of what Bush has done either, other than cuting my taxes. He had a Prescription Drug Plan passed that I don't believe Hilary Clinton could have got passed. I can't buy gold bouillon without registering it with Homeland Security. Then there is the Aid to all the Tird World countries.

Tell me why I should think YOU would a better job?
I Know. You would be different. Kinder and Gentler and just as free to take money from me for my own good. Right? Cause I don't know the proper way to spend it.

Tell me why I should vote for a Dem?

Stirsumup,

It is people like you that the rethugs rely on to vote however they are told. There is no use trying to talk to you since you only believe what Billo and Flush tell you.

Enjoy your sad little life and try not to think too hard. You might sprain something. And you pay a far higher percentage of your income in taxes than any of your Rethug Gods. Not that that matters to you, of course.

Wow did you come up with that yourself?

It was less of answer than I was looking for but about what I expected.

Can anyone else do better?

It was less of answer than I was looking for but about what I expected.

Can anyone else do better?

Posted by STIRSUMUP

Sure. You pick your president based over a few hundred dollars in tax savings while he mortages your great grandchildren's future without a peep out from you and others who could care less he's spent money like a drunken sailor on things that don't help us one iota.

Medicare Prescription Drug Plan - the one where it is illegal to negotiate as low a rate as a company of 40 can.

I don't think you get me. I know he spends money like a drunken sailor. I know the Medicare plan sucks. It's totally unconstitutional. I know our economy is based on debt, although that is not entirely Bushes fault. That goes all the way back to Lincoln. I know our borders are as porous as Swiss cheese. The problems we have now didn't start the day Bush took office. If your best response is Bush and the repubs are bad and the Dems are the only thing good in the world, Oh yea, and that I'm Stupid, Don't bother trying to answer my question.

Can anyone else do better?

"Can anyone else do better?"

Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2007-12-11 05:40 AM

I'm afraid not, STIRSUMUP. That's all they know how to do anymore is sling mud. They can't argue in a friendly manner anymore without having to resort to name-calling. But, I can't blame them. It must be hell these days to be a liberal Democrat when you constantly have to defend the indefensable.

couple of days late, but props to Spud for this:

"Time fer America to reject wot Spud calls the '51/49 per cent solution';
That aint the solution that's the problem.

Reject the politics of fear and know that we all have more that unites us than divides us.

Our commonalities exceed our differences by a large factor.

Hang together or hang seperately."

Posted by dethspud at 2007-12-09 10:23 PM

Obama '08

Who better than a half white half black man with a Muslim middle name? While he's a Christian, he did attend an Islamic school as a young child. Muslims around the world will respond positively. He may not practice their religion, but at least he knows about it.

He knows about struggling with racial identity, he's spent his whole life in public service instead of going for the brass ring. He's been in the trenches working for $13,000 a year with his Ivy League education to help his fellow Americans - like the steel workers in Chicago who lost their jobs when the plant closed.

We have an opportunity to turn a new corner in America. Obama is the right man at the right time.

I'm fiscally conservative, but I think these definitions define a good mindset for America. On taxes, no one raised them more then the 1-2 combo of Reagan and Bush 41, so let's not go to the 'liberals raise taxes'. Bush 41 did America a great disservice with 'The 'L' Word". That's where the great divide started. Are we all Americans or what?

Jesus was a liberal. What can you find wrong with these definition? I'm a moderate, but looking at these definitions I see myself agreeing with all of them. So, paint me as you will. :

liberal [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
[Origin: 132575; ME < L lberlis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to lber free + -lis -al1]

--Related forms
liberally, adverb
liberalness, noun

--Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
--Antonyms 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006

"Can anyone else do better?"...

STIRSUMUP & REPUBLICAN FOREVER

Yes, I can...

I direct you to

http:www.cedarcomm.com/
~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Under the Section entitled Historical Perspective...

I quote: "If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman's term, the difference between the two parties' contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99[5]."

Further, I can expound: "Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties' debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

and even further..."Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party's presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending."

And finally..."At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in total charge of both elected branches of government have they reduced spending. They talk about it a lot, but they never deliver."

In summation: How many Republican Presidents have
EVER balanced the Federal Budget...Answer: 0
A BIG FAT Z-E-R-O !!!

How many Democratic Presidents have Balanced the Federal Budget? Not much better...Answer: 5
Only fricken F-I-V-E !!!

this is HARDLY a good showing by either party...

Yet in the end it would seem that the Democratic Party is actually more Fiscally Conservative than the Republican Party, which likes to wear Fiscal Conservatism like the Flag of Patriotism they so often like to wrap themselves in.

It's a good article and I could really go on and on and on and on....but I've got to do this little thing called work from time to time...so this is all I can get for you in a limited amount of time.

But really, instead of Rhetoric, the Republican Party ought to practice Action, because Actions speak far Louder than Words...

this is HARDLY a good showing by either party...

Posted by earthmuse

Agreed... So where do we go from here. At the risk of sounding like a Wacko... I'm thinking about Ron Paul. This is a constitutional republic and I think he is the only one up there that understands this. We have moved so far away from what the founders intended I'm not sure we can go back, but I sure don't like the direction we are heading.