For Democrats: What does all this "I'm the change candidate" mean?

[JuanCarlos]

Gay Marriage- Pure fiction. The two words don't mix. Marriage is a human, not legal, status. It is the joining of two families and the foundation of a NEW family. That foundation is built upon by the children born and growing into adults that have adult men and Women modeled for them throughout their childhood and are prepared the be productive and sound contributers to society. It is NOT just monogamous sex. FAMILY is what life is ALL ABOUT, not politics, money, careers, but FAMILY. Monogamous sodomy is NOT a family value. And marriage is an INSTITUTION in humanity (all cultures) because of it's foundation of families, not because of a tax deduction. But emotive thought goes to FAIR and the twisting begins. Be gay, I don't care, write a will and leave all your assets to your dog, PBS, your gay lover, or whomever, but to raise monogamous sodomy to the status of marriage demotes marriage from a human institution to merely a tax deduction.

Yes, and there was absolutely no emotion involved in that argument.

And as soon as the government starts legally recognizing marriages, and as soon as that recognition grants specific legal privileges, then I'd say it very much becomes a legal status.

Also, what Vermont said about sterility (voluntary or medically caused).

Bruxley, your assertion that liberals only use emotions to make decisions is so arrogant, as if conservatives somehow had a monopoly on facts. That kind of stereotyping will get us nowhere. It sure makes it easy to dismiss their views though, doesn't it?

Pretty much.

 

[nobody_special]

I think Vermont's post pretty much nailed some of the specifics. To generalize, though, I think liberals would like a return to the rule of law in the executive branch.

And in case someone suggests that they don't follow the rule of law with regard to the 2A, Democrats mostly do -- proper legal procedure is generally followed, with the notable exception of the confiscations after Katrina, which occurred in a notoriously corrupt locale. If the courts would simply interpret the 2A properly, it would be okay... the problem is that the checks & balances failed, circa 1934.

They dislike things like (for example) the now-common signing statements which suggest that the executive will ignore the law, or the attack on Habeas Corpus, or the encroachment of politics on government-funded science

And I'd think that conservatives should be angry and upset about those same things.

Of course, the "change" could also refer to Iraq.

Finally: I hope this doesn't continue into a flame-fest, but...

Where are the statistics that letting gays get married will be harmful to our society? Conservative Christians do not vote on that issue based on facts.

I agree, but... religious conservatives pretty much define homosexuality as being harmful to society, and it's difficult to make emotion listen to logic-based arguments.

Now, whether or not any particular Democratic candidate will deliver on the promise of "change" is another question entirely...

 

[The Tourist]

It doesn't mean anything.

For example, look at how much heat Bush43 has taken for The Patriot Act. My guess is that many of the GOP who supported him are going to pay for it during the next election.

Even Clinton recognized that many lefties lost their seats over gun control.

If Obama or Hillary get in--and I feel they will--they will inherit an angry public, a recession, a war and the backlash of a GOP citizenry.

In short, a leftist will be lucky to keep his job, and he/she will be criticized at every turn. The best thing in the long run is to left the lefties have The White House on this next election.

 

[JaserST4]

In the past, I would have agreed with you, but taking the last 8 years into consideration I have to disagree. I'm unfortunate in that I haven't been alive to see what a real conservative president looks like. I would imagine he would at least run a balanced budget.

You weren't alive in the 80s? You are a youngun then. FYI, the executive branch doesn't allocate the budget.

 

[Bruxley]

Also by your reasoning sterile men and women should not be allowed to get married. Do you believe that?

A man and a woman make a family. An INDIVIDUAL'S inability to do so doesn't change the HUMAN compulsion that leads to that. Same sex is IMPOSSIBLE to create a family in and of themselves hence the misnomer 'gay marriage'. This isn't an exception, it is a rule. You have fabricated an assertion where there was none made. What is that called?

The honoring and recognition of marriage by supporting it via laws doesn't change it's status, it recognizes that status. Family is the paramount HUMAN priority regardless of the INDIVIDUAL ability to reproduce. Point was FAMILY, not monogamous sex, not law, is what makes marriage an institution.

Bruxley, your assertion that liberals only use emotions to make decisions is so arrogant, as if conservatives somehow had a monopoly on facts. That kind of stereotyping will get us nowhere. It sure makes it easy to dismiss their views though, doesn't it?

First, I didn't say ONLY use emotion, I said they LEAD with emotion. Liberals are defined by this so if it offends or appears arrogant then evaluate the political ideology you identify with. I didn't call you a liberal, you self-identified as one. And if leading by emotion causes liberal ideology to be dismissed easily then that would explain why liberal ideology consistently loses elections. Conservative ideals consistently prevail. I didn't make dismissive the liberal platform. Perhaps I have a misconception of liberalism. I'm open an alternative one should you be so inclined.

The sooner one gets a firm hold on the difference between what one KNOWS, what one THINKS, and what one FEELS about something it is far less contentious about how to handle things. Often feeling or thinking are treated like knowing. Knowing is the tough one and that grip is the one that counts.

The 'Change' mantra being an emotive phrase hasn't been rebutted. Perhaps you have a factual one to offer as Hillary is today literally yelling her Bush Bashing as a prelude to her 'Change' slogan in Iowa but leaving out HOW she would do that. An emotional tactic? Anyone elected will be changing the Executive Branch. But as I predicted, the Democrats will work to label WHOEVER the republican nominee as another incarnation of Bush and run against BUSH.

 

[BigG]

Liberals are defined by this so if it offends or appears arrogant then evaluate the political ideology you identify with. I didn't call you a liberal, you self-identified as one.

Vermont: I am wondering if you are so naive that you think you can re-invent the word liberal to mean what Adam Smith meant when he used the term 200 years ago (you can't) - or if you truly believe in the things espoused by avowed "liberals" i.e., leftists today. ??

 

[Vermont]

Same sex is IMPOSSIBLE to create a family in and of themselves.

I guess this is where we disagree. Even without kids I believe they can form a family, but they could also adopt, or have kids from a previous relationship.

Most children of gay parents would disagree with your beliefs.

Liberals are defined by this

Says who? I have never heard this before.

The 'Change' mantra being an emotive phrase hasn't been rebutted.

Uh, yes it has. Liberals believe there are significant changes that need to be made. I addressed those in my first post. Whether or not you believe these changes need to be made is irrelevant to whether the phrase has substantial meaning or not because, to the people listening, real, specific changes need to be made.



Have you seen Guilani's latest ad? It plays on peoples fears of a terrorist attack and says he's the only one who can prevent it, which is certainly not supported by facts since he was at the helm NYC during the last major terrorist attack in this country. That's emotional motivation for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iF...-rudy-the-next-crisis-is-a-moment-away?play=1

 

[miboso]

If the majority think the Patriot Act is cool then I have to live with it

Not if it violates the Constitution, if we followed the Constitution. The problem is that today's liberals keep trying to reformat the Constitution to get what they want, mostly so they can gain power. And just to be clear, "today's liberals" applies to most Democrats and Republicans. (or at least the vociferous ones)

 

[miboso]

Yes, Rudy plays on emotion. No surprise for he is a Republican liberal

 

[Vermont]

liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties - Merriam Webster Dictionary


I would never be so naive as to assume that I could change the meaning of a word by myself. However, language evolves over time and it turns out that different schools of liberalism have emerged since the term was originally used, similar to how different branches of Christianity have emerged since the original churches started by Paul.

 

[Vermont]

The problem is that today's liberals keep trying to reformat the Constitution to get what they want, mostly so they can gain power. And just to be clear, "today's liberals" applies to most Democrats and Republicans.

As long as you are willing to call Bush and his ilk one of "today's liberals" then I have no problem with that statement.

 

[longrifleman]

I'm glad you posted the defination of liberalism you want to discuss. To many times we all end up using different meanings, which corrupts our communication.

belief in progress

Change isn't necessarily progress. Before destroying the existing order, we should have a pretty good idea that what comes next won't be worse. The history of collectivism isn't encouraging.

the essential goodness of the human race

Here is where moderm liberalism fails. Even if you don't buy into the whole original sin concept, a little experience with humanity will quickly show that the default position is selfishness. That's why systems that harness that, such as free market capitalism, work better. Not perfect, but better.

autonomy of the individual

What liberals are these? All I see from modern liberals is identity politics and demands for the collective to rule everything.

political and civil liberties

Except for RKBA, freedom of speech, freedom of association, private property rights.........



And Bush ain't no conservative.

 

[Bruxley]

Same sex is IMPOSSIBLE to create a family in and of themselves.

Note the bold. The adoption approach answers your infertile couple question however. And asking a CHILD if he is being raised well is nuts. A child not only needs love but also nurturing. Two men or two women can't model being an adult man and an adult women. There is a huge difference between a masculine female and a man or a feminine male and a woman. The examples of how these are complimentary contrasts, and what the nature of each is, prepares a child for dealing with each in society and their own success in interpersonal relationships. Treating a man like a woman because he saw it modeled his entire childhood won't go over well and will take some time to reallixe why the problems keep re-occuring, same in the oppoite scenario.

The issue isn't exclusion, it's rather one of not being. Bringing a basketball to a baseball diamond and hitting it with another basketball then running the bases isn't baseball. Even is you think that's not fair. Play it your way if you like, I won't scorn you, but it's simply not baseball.

I don't think liberalism needs to be ended BTW. Don't get me wrong. I also don't think the Democrat Party should be ended. I think they are both complimentary contrasts to conservatism and the Republican Party. Either one left to it's own means fails to complete the final objective of a fair and strong government. Femininity and liberalism share allot of attributes, as does masculinity and conservatism. Unless you feel that either femininity or masculinity lesser qualities then no insinuation of insult need be fabricated. They balance and compliment each other as they do in a marriage. But there are areas where each is inappropriate. The analogy can be taken to wide and diverse areas and has multiple lines of truthful intersection. When such conditions exist it is called a 'truism'. Something that sheds a light on the whole array and is referable to as a measure.

Neither is evil by nature, only in miss-application do they take on that stigma. As for me, I prefer leaders to be pragmatic as a rule and emotive as a restraint on abuse. Others prefer they be emotive a a rule and pragmatic to restrain being abused.

That said, I hold that the 'Change Candidate' slogan is being used to appeal to those that prefer leaders that lead with emotion. I believe that the Federal Government should be that most conservative and that more local the government the more liberal with local communities being the most liberal but no absolutes at ether end.

 

[Vermont]

And asking a CHILD if he is being raised well is nuts.

Ask adult children of gay parents.




You need both a male and female parent? Should we take children away from single parents whose spouses have died and put them with a foster family?

 

[Bruxley]

You need both a male and female parent? Should we take children away from single parents whose spouses have died and put them with a foster family?

More sophistry???
Do you contend that these children DON'T need these examples. Taking them AWAY exacerbates the problem OBVIOUSLY an ignorant proposal. The very role of organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters and the various mentoring programs is to fill that recognized need.

The logical fallacies and fabrication of assertions not made don't go toward validating your premises, instead they reflect more on the weakness of them.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Same sex is IMPOSSIBLE to create a family in and of themselves.

Yet we still let infertile couples get married, or women who are past menopause, or folks who have had vasectomies or hysterectomies.

Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, that one is the least intelligent and most dishonest.

 

[Bruxley]

When taken out of context like that I would agree. The family reffered to was father, mother, child (or children). I take it you know a way for two men or two women to form such a family "in and of themselves".

Out of context quoting is a little dishonest too. Doesn't take alot of intelligence to choose a single sentence out of a post and apply some insults to it either.

I expected some moderator to call 'off topic'. I've tried to steer each posts back to the topic to counter that. I DIDN'T expect one to simply label ideals he disagreed with as dishonest and unintelligent.

 

[snaptafar]

Is this topic about gay marriage or change candidates? I hope certainly hope any discussion on change candidates isn't limited to that.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Change isn't necessarily progress.

This is a huge issue that many liberals don't seem to realize. And that's what this "change candidate" thing often boils down to. Appealing to the perception (which, of course, I agree with) that things are not good as they are and that a change would be beneficial. Where I break with many liberals is that I don't assume any change will be for the better. For instance on gun rights specifically I've run into so many people who honestly assume that any new restrictions will be for the better, and cannot imagine the idea that things could actually be made worse than they are right now.

That said, I hold that the 'Change Candidate' slogan is being used to appeal to those that prefer leaders that lead with emotion. I believe that the Federal Government should be that most conservative and that more local the government the more liberal with local communities being the most liberal but no absolutes at ether end.

I'm still failing to see the link between wanting to change the status quo and "leading with emotion." I will agree that the whole "change candidate" thing is an appeal to emotion; because often the "changes" proposed are so vague as to only satisfy those who feel that any change will be for the better (which makes no logical sense, unless you actually believe the world is as bad as it could possibly get). However, the other (more conservative) end often seems equally illogical and emotive; just look in this thread, and see how often it's implied that any change will be for the worse. This makes no more sense than the other.

Is this topic about gay marriage or change candidates? I hope certainly hope any discussion on change candidates isn't limited to that.

Well, that and our occupation of Iraq are probably the two topics on which many desire the most change. So it's unsurprising that any discussion on this topic would include at least some discussion of either one or the other.

 

[mountainclmbr]

Who would have thought that I, Mountainclmbr, would have started the gay marriage thread on The Firing Line? I hope my wife does not read this and think I am having gender identity issues.