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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vermont: +1 on most of what you said. George Bush has attacked our liberties in ways that we'd have to go back to FDR to replicate, and FDR had a declared war. What happened to GWB's campaign promises of privatizing social security?

I have no faith in the American electorate. Total ignorance or stupidity seems to mark them. Democrats are all fired up about the same people who have voted for the war, the patriot act, and all the other usurpations, and voted to finance it all, yet now they're saying they're opposed to the war and all the other usurpations. What a bunch of idiots. Only Obama has steadfastly stood against a lot of the mess which I suppose makes him less of a liar and perhaps the only real honest person on that party's ticket.

The Republicans don't seem to have a clue about the Constitution for the most part. Rudy Giullianni cannot legally take office because he holds a title of nobility from the Queen of England. Article II forbids all public officers of the United States from holding such titles. Even honorary ones.

Mitt Romney is talking about making those who earn less than $200K a year able to save money tax-free, which is flat-out fraud. The President is not Emperor. Only the House of Representatives can do that (Art. I, Sect. 8). Listening to any of these goof balls blather on on either side shows how ignorant of the US Constitution they are and many are lawyers.

Ron Paul likely won't win, but he at least has read the document he could be swearing an oath to uphold and defend. Obama never has either, but he isn't a flat out liar. They all seem to be running for God rather than President.

So Vermont- we may have vastly different political views and philosophies, but liberty knows no party and anymore, no party knows liberty.
 
ou 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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Big Brothers/Big Sisters, however, only fills the need for a role model of the child's own gender. To my knowledge, they won't provide a Big Sister to a male child with a single father, or vice versa. Same for most such mentoring programs. Which would imply that, at least as far as these programs are concerned, a child only needs a role model of their own gender and as such two male parents for a boy would be just fine.

And that's besides the fact that they in no way guarantee the "masculinity" of the mentor provided. I was in the Big Brothers program. My Big Brother wasn't particularly masculine; so much so that I wasn't exactly shocked to find out years later that he was actually gay. Go figure.

Only Obama has steadfastly stood against a lot of the mess which I suppose makes him less of a liar and perhaps the only real honest person on that party's ticket.
Click to expand...

There's also Kucinich. Crazy, sure, but he at least seems to be honestly crazy. Then again, I haven't researched him too hard, since he's one of the few candidates on either side that I could not imagine myself ever voting for under any circumstances.
 
OK JC, You're correct. I forgot the Kucinich is running. He is at least very honest. I still can't get over his Dept. of Peace proposal. He never really figured out that the DOP already exists and is called the State Department. My bad.

I am sorely disappointed in this election year. If I had to choose between Giullianni and Obama, I'd pick Obama. Looks like a great year to vote libertarian as it really won't matter which other party you pick because they both have a slate of people who don't think it is important to read the three page document that they swear to uphold. I would think as bright as they must be to get through law-school, they'd at least have some passing curiosity about what the Constitution actually says.
 
The gender matching is obviously to avoid the potential exploitation of others with sexual perversions. And the Boy Scout's suffrage about excluding gay males from their leadership may be to blame for your being mentored by an effeminate male.

The recognition of the need is the point. And you can argue that a child's father as a rule would be a better model then a surrogate but that would be weak at best.

The institution of marriage doesn't pivot on the incidental circumstances that are present in society. Those are actually being propagated by the undermining of the institution. The exceptions seem to prove the rule in that regard. If homosexuals wish to have long term monogamous relationships then so be it. But that doesn't equal marriage in any way outside of the one facet of being faithful. My point was that it is far more then that regardless of how often that is ignored.

The liberal 'change' in the matters of marriage is NOT progress. Change is progress when at the end the situation is IMPROVED not diluted.
 
OK JC, You're correct. I forgot the Kucinich is running. He is at least very honest. I still can't get over his Dept. of Peace proposal. He never really figured out that the DOP already exists and is called the State Department. My bad.
Click to expand...

Hey, forgetting about Kucinich is nothing to apologize for. Heck, I wish I could.
 
I like how the title says: "For Democrats..."

I don't think the five of us have yet to answer the question so that means this has pretty much gone as off topic as it can.
 
Since the Democrats are the "out" party they can't say they're going to
continue the "legacy" of Bush, while to find a Democratic president whose reputation is unsullied (supposedly) they have to go all the way back to JFK.
So they're the "change" party.
Regarding the return to the "rule of law" in the executive branch, Clinton issued more executive
orders than all his predecessors COMBINED! What was is the one Klintonista said "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda Cool."
 
"Change" is a sound byte. Tell the people what they want to hear. In the case of the Dems we can look toward more taxes, loss of our gun rights, more socialist programs On the Rep. side with the exceptions of Huckabee and Paul, we're probably looking at just about the same thing in different clothes. Look at the freedoms we have lost under Bush (Pat. Act). At least the ignorant AWB sunset.
My definition of liberal vs. conservative: Liberal is one who is in favor of larger gov. and more control in the Fed. gov. The state decides what is best for you. Conservative is one who believes in less government control and more rights to the individual citizen. The individual is the one who decides what is best for him or her.
I am an independent, conservative Christian and I make no apologies for what I believe. As to the gay marriage issue, I believe it is totally wrong as it does indeed tear at the fabric of society. We have strayed from our belief system in traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and that has cost us dearly. God put in place social laws for society's benefit. He did not capriciously decide I'll do this or that because I'm God and that's that. He gave us a societal framework that would enable society to work together for the benefit of all. If adhered to, society will indeed flourish. If not, society will move toward chaos. Our entire social system is in shambles because we have diverged from what we were created to be. Just my 2 cents. Again, no apologies for what I believe.
 
My definition of liberal vs. conservative: Liberal is one who is in favor of larger gov. and more control in the Fed. gov. The state decides what is best for you. Conservative is one who believes in less government control and more rights to the individual citizen. The individual is the one who decides what is best for him or her.
Click to expand...

Okay.......

I am an independent, conservative Christian and I make no apologies for what I believe. As to the gay marriage issue, I believe it is totally wrong as it does indeed tear at the fabric of society. We have strayed from our belief system in traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and that has cost us dearly. God put in place social laws for society's benefit. He did not capriciously decide I'll do this or that because I'm God and that's that. He gave us a societal framework that would enable society to work together for the benefit of all. If adhered to, society will indeed flourish. If not, society will move toward chaos. Our entire social system is in shambles because we have diverged from what we were created to be. Just my 2 cents. Again, no apologies for what I believe.
Click to expand...

:confused:

*looks at one*

*looks at the other*

:confused:
 
My thoughts: The "Change" slogan is a cheap way to hit every voter's hot button without committing to do anything except assume power over anything that could be changed. If they don't do anything, so what, they have amassed power and are not answerable to anyone anymore. They will control media so even if things like health care are much worse, we will be told that it is much better. It may not be as fast, but it is "free". And when health care is a government concern, it gives government an interest in what you eat, how much you exercise, etc because it could impact government spending.

On the other hand, maybe being the "Agent of Change" may mean being the agent of "sex change"...the government decides your gender.
 
Why would any Democrat take this thread seriously? It's nothing but inane trash-talk in large part.
 
JuanCarlos,
I don't see a conflict there. I don't see that ronl is saying that the government should be implementing those societal laws. He is just saying that we should choose to live in a way that would not be detrimental to society. Now, we can disagree on which behaviors are detrimental or not, but there are definitely some out there. And they will never be legislated away.

At least, that's my point of view.
 
JuanCarlos,
I don't see a conflict there. I don't see that ronl is saying that the government should be implementing those societal laws. He is just saying that we should choose to live in a way that would not be detrimental to society. Now, we can disagree on which behaviors are detrimental or not, but there are definitely some out there. And they will never be legislated away.

At least, that's my point of view.
Click to expand...

Actually, the quoted paragraph begins with an implication that the government should indeed maintain a given policy (only allowing heterosexual marriage) based on his belief(s). I'm not seeing how this isn't an example of the government implementing one of those societal laws.

Personally I'd suggest that if you can't at least see how there might be some basis in either the first or fourteenth amendment on this issue then you're being more than a little intellectually dishonest and allowing your personal feelings on the matter to cloud/rule your thinking. Not that this makes you a bad person or anything, or that it's exactly a rare thing...but then you shouldn't be complaining so loudly when other want to view other amendments (like, you know, that second one) just as narrowly.

Why would any Democrat take this thread seriously? It's nothing but inane trash-talk in large part.
Click to expand...

I'd say the same goes for the entire suborum. At least anytime any aspect of the Democratic Party/platform is brought up or any Democratic candidates are discussed. I wonder just how far back you'd have to go to find three such threads that didn't turn into a Democrat-bashing circle-jerk within the first ten posts or so.
 
For Democrats: What does all this "I'm the change candidate" mean?
What change, specifically, are they pushing? I have my hunches, but want to understand what they are hinting at.
Click to expand...

Give me a break, it's not like you care or that anything anyone could say would change your mind.

Richard Nixon in 68, Ronald Regan in 80, George Bush in 88, Robert Dole in 96 and George W. Bush all claimed to be for change and not one of them specified what that change would be.
Given that each of those that took office changed the nation in disastrously bad ways it's not surprising that they failed to be pinned down.

Each of the 2008 Democratic candidates has a web site where you can read their policy proposals. Health care is pretty well fleshed out in the three camps.
The war is less clearly limned because between now and when the next president takes office George Bush will continue to f@ck things up. So no one can predict the condition Iraq will be in 1/20/2009.
Over all Obama is the more conservative of the three with Edwards being relatively the most liberal. As to that not one is as liberal the voters would like them to be.

So if you seriously want an answer to your question (and you don't) then do your home work and visit the candidates web sites.
 
All the Republican presidents changed the country in a disastrous way? I have a feeling we don't agree of what good or bad is but I don't see the sense in making those kinds of assertions.
 
I'm sure you and I do disagree on lots of things JaserST4.

I don't seem to see where you object to hyperbolic attacks on the Democratic candidates in this thread.
 
Social engineering by attempting to change an aspect of society that happens to be a foundational aspect to make a small select group happy isn't the role of government. Change for appeasement is bad change. To say that a long term monogamous relationship is the same thing as being married is intellectually dishonest, not that that make you a bad person or that it's rare or anything....etc.

I'd say the same goes for the entire suborum. At least anytime any aspect of the Democratic Party/platform is brought up or any Democratic candidates are discussed. I wonder just how far back you'd have to go to find three such threads that didn't turn into a Democrat-bashing circle-jerk within the first ten posts or so.
Click to expand...

If Democrat's positions bring such a response there are 2 courses of action. First is of course to re-evaluate honestly and examine if the pre-conceived notion remains valid considering the rebuttal(s). The second would be to present the premise further by expounding on why it IS in fact valid. Responding by fabricating assertions not made, or by simpleton insults instead just re-enforces the weakness of the position and frankly re=enforces the need to re-evaluate the position.

Change is a normal desire. But actual leaders recognize that change for changes sake is more often then not just the germination of a new problem. Change is for growth. Progress isn't tearing down and experimenting, progress is building on success and reaching for more based on the learned known foundations that brought past success.

The use of sophistry and seemingly subtle condesention work more against persuading others then toward it. Continued use reflects on the entire ideology and undermines the future ability to influence. A strong, truthful, valid premise needs no such support.
 
I think that universal government healthcare tacked on to the current unsustainable entitlement programs will finally bankrupt the country, if it isn't already.

I think that the John Edwards type assault on corpoate America is designed to target the dumbest voters.The ones that have never been in business and have no idea how anything works.

I used to think that the Republicans were more fiscally responsible. But, they have sucked for the last seven or eight years. I still feel the Democrats are much more likely to redistribute your wealth to somebody that likely never made any attempt to make the sacrifices necessary to be successful. When they can out vote the people that have, we are really screwed.

I don't care what homosexuals do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top