 |
| |
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I love to see centrist talk about how powerful they are and how they need to be courted, thats the way to victory- when in fact you people don;t become activists, don;t give money, so forth and so on. Bush owes his precidency to the nice religious right folks - not any of you "sensible centrists", and his policies shall reflect that.
Until "centrists" actually become a politically acitve group (which you are not), who gives a ****? The question is how to reframe the debate- that is what needs to happen.
The republicans only won a mayority in congress after they gave up on the center and moved right- that passion is what drove them into power. Centrists have no passion. And as long as you don't, pandering to you won't win elections either. |
Given your love affair with hard left and disdain for centrists, I assume you were then completely opposed to the proposition that Kerry fight the labeling of himself as a liberal. Naah that kind of branding and framing doesn't mean anything, right?
Face it liberal connotations have been accepted as inherently misguided and wrong in the majority of American's views. Playing to that base alienates most, and if this elections is a referendum moreso than the religious rightwing views do.
Deal with it move on and find a way to be less offensive. (Maybe a bath, deodorant, or some mouthwash might help)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Given your love affair with hard left and disdain for centrists, I assume you were then completely opposed to the proposition that Kerry fight the labeling of himself as a liberal. Naah that kind of branding and framing doesn't mean anything, right? |
 He needs to make the label be a positive one- liberal, as in, seeking liberty. And if he can't do it, then get a new brand, such as progressive.
quote:
Face it liberal connotations have been accepted as inherently misguided and wrong in the majority of American's views. Playing to that base alienates most, and if this elections is a referendum moreso than the religious rightwing views do. |
And liberals need to change that- not to accept it, becuase if the right-wingers were able to make it a negative brand, we can make it a positive one.
quote:
Deal with it move on and find a way to be less offensive. (Maybe a bath, deodorant, or some mouthwash might help) |
You forget we liberals are cosmopolitan urbane metorsexuals- if anything, the lower masses, neaderthals and rednecks are offended by our regular bathing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
I agree with Gepap after extensive pondering of this issue.
While I think there need to be numerous steps to ensure honesty and truthful statements in the election, the Democrats also need to simplify their message. We Democrats can no longer afford to list all the issues and our policies on them. We need to share the vision of the future we want to make, how we want America to look like in the future, what role we want it to have in the world, etc.
As I said though, equally critical is ensuring decently honest advertisements and helping to make sure the media starts to report on facts and pointing out lies.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Oh, and lastly, I want to state that I do not believe there is anything wrong with liberal values.
Wanting to let everyone follow their own moral guides so long as they hurt no one is not the wrong moral judgement.
Wanting the Government to support those who can't support themselves is not the wrong moral judgement.
Wanting a Government that helps people get back on their feet is not the wrong moral judgement.
Wanting a Government that let's women control their own bodies under trying times is not the wrong moral judgement.
Wanting a Government that promotes national unity *and* individual diversity is not the wrong moral judgement, nor is it contradictory.
Wanting a government that *celebrates* national unity *and* our strength in diversity is not the wrong moral judgement.
Wanting a Government that tries to help keep families together, but doesn't denounce them if they can't is not the wrong moral judgement.
In short, wanting a government that supports the people in doing what they want to do, and bringing them together while maintaining their diversity is right, and it is those that preach intolerance, those that don't let people express themselves, those that have their own moral preachings and demand all others to follow them through law that have the problem of immorality.
-Drachasor
PS. And the Democratic Party needs to be saying (something like that).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
Here is a little simple branding:
What is a Liberal?
A Liberal is a person who carries forth the basic values of our founding fathers- we are out there fighting to ensure that every american has the right to live their life, to enjoy their liberty, and have the ability to persue happiness.
We fight for the ability of all Americans to have the basics they need to create a sound foundation for their families' future. We are the ones who seek to free the potential of all individuals- a child who is hungry, or can't get the medicines he needs is a child denied the opportunity to fully develop their potential- how much does our nation lose by stiffling the opportunity of the common man?
A true free market is a wonderful tool, a great means, but not an end. Liberals must fight to ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few private interests- People have a voice in their own government- if they chose not to voice it, that is a lack of personal responsiblity. But you have no way to fight the powers of amassed wealth. Liberals yearn for a day when, for example, the quality of justice you recieve has nothing to do with the size of you checkbook. We seek not to stifle the abilities of people- far from it- we seek to liberate them- to make sure everyone starts at the same point, so that the victor is decided trully by ability, and NOT privilage.
Our society has the chance to allow everyone the chance to succeed, regardless of race, sex, or sexual preference- we must fight to make that dream true once and for all
|
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
What a Second Bush Term Will Mean
Posted by Ian Welsh at November 3, 2004 02:19 PM in Elections (USA) . | Other weblogs commenting on this post
(Note: I wrote this this morning before going to sleep, since then Kerry has conceded the election, which he should not have done. But here it is anyway, because I suspected Kerry wouldn't go to the wall with the popular vote totals coming out the way they did.)
It's worth taking a second to think through what a second Bush term will involve.
Economics.
On the economic front there are two possibilities. The first is a continuation of current policies. The second is a huge entitlements cut followed by taxation "reform". What that would mean is that privatized social security accounts - which will lead to a huge boom in the stock market, but which will have the effect of both increasing the deficit and debt and, in the long term, ensuring that most Americans won't be able to count on Social Security. Meanwhile taxes would either move to a flat tax or to a universal sales tax, or something similiar (and regressive, bank on it.)
More of the same would mean continued deficits as far as the eye can see, more pork for donors and so on.
In either scenario a few things are very likely to happen. The first is a full fledged rout of the dollar. The Bank of Japan can only hold the Treaury's head above water for about a year and a half more - they simply can't afford it much longer than that. When they fail (or possibly before, as people realize it's coming) there will be a decline in the US dollar, combined with a huge rise in treasury yields. Even before then continued worse trade and balance of trade figures are going to make the dollar a bad bet.
Oil nations will move off the dollar unless the US pulls out of Iraq or goes on a draft. As the dollar goes down in cost they just aren't getting the money they should for it - they'll move to the Euro. Why if the US gets out of Iraq? Because then the US will have a strike force they can threaten other oil producing nations with - same with a draft. Otherwise the US is too overextended to credibly threaten oil producing nations with invasions meant to overthrow the current ruling parties.
It should go without saying that things aren't going to get better on the oil front - there will be ebbs and flows, but the trend will continue upwards - and it will be even more upwards for the US as the dollar drops - when the dollar stops being the oil standard, then it will be even worse.
On the domestic front there will continue to be little reason to create jobs in the US except in protected sectors - jobs will be created overseas, not in the US unless they simply can't be done elsewhere. Healthcare, defense and high end retailers will all remain good bets, assuming there isn't a full fledged meltdown.
Which there will be, in either 2005 or 2006 it's going to hit the fan and there'll be a new recession. Given, as Stirling notes, that this has been the recovery - you can imagine how much worse the next recession will be than the last one. The combination of oil shock, devaluing dollar and a likely collapse in the housing bubble mean all you're going to have is the stock market (if they manage to get privatized SS, if not, you won't even have that.)
Domestic Affairs
Kiss your civil rights goodbye. If you're gay, forget it - you're not getting civil unions, let alone gay marriage and gay adoption will be under constant attack. If you're a liberal or left winger of any variety get used to having Ashcroft have the right to monitor anything you say and do - and having the right to confine you without habeas corpus - no lawyer, no right to face accuser, no nothing (well, at least untill you've spent a couple years in solitary.) Patriot II will either pass wholesale or will continue its' piecemeal adoption in closed door sessions. In effect the US will have secret laws on the books which you won't know about, don't have the right to know about - but under which you can and will be charged.Economics.
On the election front "electoral reform" will continue. What this will mean is the continued installation of touch screen voting machines and other machines without verifiable audit trails. By the time 2008 comes by the thumb will be heavy on so many scales that a Democratic victory will be impossible - but the thumb will be so well concealed that people who point out the thumb exists will be derided as conspiracy nuts.
In the Supreme Court Bush will push through three conservative justices, making the court reliably partisanly conservative for at least a decade and perhaps as much as a generation. It is very likely that Roe vs. Wade will be repealed. The rich, of course, will still be able to come to Canada to get their abortions but the poor will need to go back to coathangers.
Foreign Affairs
Better get out your maple leaf badge and sew it on your clothes or your backpack. If this election stands and is taken by the world as being legitimate, then US citizens will be seen, as Matt has noted, to have given an endorsement not only to the Iraq invasion - but all the consequences thereof - including torturing people. You're going to be hung with Abu Ghraib. It won't be entirely fair, but it's going to happen.
On a larger front, a lot of nations have been holding their nose and doing business with the US - that's going to stop if they have the power to stop it. Howard and Blair are already sleeping with Bush, their beds are made. Canada's Martin will come online because he has no spine and knows what the US could do to Canada's economy with very little effort.
But most of old Europe will have nothing to do with it and new Europe will be more and more reluctant as US money dries up. Muslim nations will take this as the slap in the face that it is. China will continue to take US jobs and get ready for the day when they can kick the US's feet out - because all that will be left is a hollow facade.
And Al-Q'aeda, despite the rhetoric, is happy tonight. Al-Q'aeda's not so much a movement in many ways, though it exists as one - rather it's an idea. An ideology. It needs an enemy - an evil - and Bush is ideal. Bush's invasion of Iraq saved bin Laden from the dustbin of history and if there are further invasions (which I'm inclined to doubt, but it never pays to underestimate the policy idiocy or rigidity of Bush or the NeoCons) then he'll get even more recruits.
Islamic terrorism and insurgencies will spread. Iraq, one way or the other will be lost - the only question is how long it will take. Once it is lost it will be used as a source of men, money and supplies to destabilize other states. At a guess we're looking at five to ten years before Saudi Arabia falls. The other question mark will be Pakistan - it's unclear what will happen there, but certainly the current American ally is not safe on his throne.
When Bush won the first time the Onion said his plan was to end prosperity and start a war, any war. He accomplished that - now, time for more of the same.
And remember, if this vote stands, he won by 3 million votes. That's a popular mandate. Given how he ruled when he didn't have a mandate imagine how he'll rule with one.
This is the likely future if we don't make sure Bush doesn't take the White House. Get out there and fight - because your lives, your jobs and your civil liberties all depend on George Bush not having another four years to finish what he started. |
Uh, bad stuff.
I feel rather impotent at this point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I Am Jeff
|
|
New Jersey
Feb 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
I think the only solution is to get another southern democrat, like a clinton. Who appeals to what the dems stand for, but because he is southern, people in the south support him. Look at the map, Clinton spilt the south up between the dems and gop. Plus he would get key states of california and the North East and that would win the election.
Bottom line is the Dems need a candidate that will divide the south.
Now for a personal rant on these values issue. These religeous right people think their values are right. And want to push their values on us. They do not understand that everybody has different "values". I can respect that these people want to impose certain values on themselves, but do not make them a federal issue because I DO NOT WANT YOUR VAULES.
This site really pisses me off:
http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/
Doesn't the picture of that guy there look like a plastic mask?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's how you say it. Which is what I said  
Saying "I believe in American values" is different from saying "reactionary Puritan values", even if the speaker means the same thing. I can see many ways that the liberals could portray their values as American. |
quote:
Here is a little simple branding:
What is a Liberal?
A Liberal is a person who carries forth the basic values of our founding fathers- we are out there fighting to ensure that every american has the right to live their life, to enjoy their liberty, and have the ability to persue happiness.
We fight for the ability of all Americans to have the basics they need to create a sound foundation for their families' future. We are the ones who seek to free the potential of all individuals- a child who is hungry, or can't get the medicines he needs is a child denied the opportunity to fully develop their potential- how much does our nation lose by stiffling the opportunity of the common man?
A true free market is a wonderful tool, a great means, but not an end. Liberals must fight to ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few private interests- People have a voice in their own government- if they chose not to voice it, that is a lack of personal responsiblity. But you have no way to fight the powers of amassed wealth. Liberals yearn for a day when, for example, the quality of justice you recieve has nothing to do with the size of you checkbook. We seek not to stifle the abilities of people- far from it- we seek to liberate them- to make sure everyone starts at the same point, so that the victor is decided trully by ability, and NOT privilage.
Our society has the chance to allow everyone the chance to succeed, regardless of race, sex, or sexual preference- we must fight to make that dream true once and for all |
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2004 22:49
|