Republicans need to reach across the isle and hug a Demoncrat. Liberals can't help but be the best campaign message in favor of Conservatives. It seems that every time they open their collective or individual mouths, not only do they stick their foot in it, they put everything else in it as well, including their Kennedy sized rear ends! It really doesn't matter what Republicans do, positive or negative. All that needs to happen in order for them to maintain control of Congress and the Presidency, is for Demoncrats to keep talking, and that's something that's not about to stop - they just think they're too important. The more they speak, the more America sees that they have no agenda, no message, and no plan. They are the "do nothing for nobody", party. The only thing they can claim as a common characteristic of their pathetic and tired mantra is their hatred of George Bush and all things conservative. Unfortunately for them, that's not enough to get elected. Oh sure, it gets the radical base in a frenzy, but it doesn't play well in commonsense laden, flyover country. It's really too bad that the liberal radio network, "Errant America" is failing so badly, more people need to hear it. The louder the left shouts, the more the good guys win.
15 comments:
Even by scud standards, this is pathetic. Here, let me play editor:
$scud_post =~ s/^R.+\.$/I prefer incompetence./;
Wow, looks like you guys have officially abandoned reality. And all went off to join Dubya in that fractured fairytale world he's busy creating.
I'd quote some statistics to show you the error of your ways. But, I know how upset seeing the truth makes you.
So, Dickheads, tell us what the Dimwit Party stands for. Over and over, you simply make Scud's point: you rip Chimpy but offer nothing else. Instead of touting the latest BS from CBS's polls, try offering what the Lib Dem Garbage can do for us......
It is humorous isn't it, rightard? The pathetic irony is that the left wants to call themselves "progressive", as if it's an honorable term descriptive of their ideology, when in fact; there is nothing "progressive" about them! Progressive denotes a forward movement or improvement of position. The reality is that on every issue, they have no progressive ideas at all! Unless you count communism or socialism, but those ideas are neither progressive, new or positive. Look at the major issues facing us; Social Security - put their heads in the sand and hope it goes away; Taxation - run away from sensible systems like flat tax or fair tax, and cry for more unequal redistribution (see communism); Terrorism - all cultures are equal, America is inherently bad because of it's superiority, who are we to protect ourselves from potential attackers (see moral relativism); Military - again, it's unfair that we are the only remaining super power. The military would be virtually unnecessary if we were better global citizens. The bottom line is that they are too morally bankrupt and confused to ever understand how wrong they are.
Laugh on.
With your beloved president in a self-inflicted free fall. You repugs, in your desperation, are once again turning to your tried and true " The Best Defense is a Good Offense" plan of attack. Unfortunately for you, swiftboating ain't gonna get it this time. That boat's done sailed. George's record of incompetence has at last overwhelmed even the ability of Rove and those on the right to put a positive spin on his failings. It's gotten so bad, that some of the Borg like GOP members of Congress are beginning to exhibit a little progressiveness themselves. Actually showing a smattering of independent thought and trying to distance themselves from the mistakes of this administration. What a novel idea, free thinkers in the Republican Party. I do commend them for their efforts, habits formed over a lifetime can't be that easy to overcome.
I have to admit, it's been a distinct pleasure observing the dissension in the ranks of the GOP. Witnessing the decline of American Fascism, just naturally creates a warm satisfing feeling among us libs. Of course, we're well aware fascism will never completely die. Since the right will always be able to count on the continued support of the reasoning challenged, who make up the 30 odd percent of the population who still support Bush. Odd being the applicable word here. Military - It's a fact, that not joining the service can be viewed as a form of self protection. You know, limits your personal exposure to danger. But, beyond that, I don't really see that the Lip Service Soldiers and their families are doing much to protect anyone from anybody.
Righturd, was the "dickheads" comment some kind of clever reference to VP Dick C's shooting the old guy in the head? If it was, it was quite amusing. Now to answer your question about what the Democrats can do to help the country. It's simple really. Ninety percent of the time, just do the opposite of what Bush and the Repugs would do. That would assure that the country would be at least 90% better off than at the present time.
On social security - the president waged a nonsensical war against Iraq whose current costs, according the the Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz, run conservatively at one trillion dollars. George Bush set out to "fix" social security with a plan he was forced to admit didn't fix anything. Five hundred and sixty billion - about half the cost of Bush War II would have bridged the social security shortfall. You can kill brown people or take care of the elderly but you can't do both with existing revenues.
Taxation - while we're taxed less than nearly every Western nation but the Cayman Islands, I'm certainly open to new plans. Ideally the tax structure should make it impossible to finance Bush War III. Currently 1/3 of my money goes to Washington while about 3% goes to Pennsylvania. I'd like to see those percentages swapped. Under my plan, Red Staters will learn quickly how much they suck off the Blue State teet.
Your tirade on moral-relativism is little more than a straw man. I don't see many contemporary Americans running around with copies of Jean-Paul Sartre. Personally, I'd carry one only if I knew it would antagonize the Bush faithful...
Thank you again for your confirmation of what the reality-based world already knows; you have no ideas, only complaints! Anger, cynicism and hate won't win elections. It may play well within the fevered cult of negativity (Demoncrats), but not within the real world of commonsense America.
Maybe any of you lefties could share with the class one positive idea that the left has to offer concerning one of the major issues of the day. I doubt it exists other than Bush bashing.
It's a shame you aren't more a part of this reality-based world you speak of. There is no way, anyone getting most of their information from zealots like Rush, Sean, Ann and Michelle. Can by the most lenient of definitions, be considered reality-based. If, as you are convinced, all our actions are controlled by our hatred of George Bush. Then we must give credit where credit is due. This credit of course will have to go to our very proficient teachers, conservatives like you. Folks, who have displayed an unrelenting hatred for Bill Clinton, since the day he won the presidency until the present time. I'm afraid it will be an impossible task for those of us here on the left, to ever surpass that ongoing hate fest. Like the little boy who cried "Wolf" on the hate issue, you're just preaching to the choir now. A convenient fall back position when you don't have a valid argument.
"Maybe any of you lefties could share with the class one positive idea that the left has to offer concerning one of the major issues of the day." Well scud, no matter which issues either of us should choose to raise. If the other one disagrees, there's a ready made list of talking points with which to refute it. It's a problem not uncommon to either side. I'm not always successful, but I try not to be presumptuous enough to actually think the positions of others are always without merit. On occasion, I even find myself agreeing with something you say.
I just don't see every issue in black and white. For me, it's just not that simple. I don't know if this falls into your "major issues classification or not. But it's one I see quite often, so here's an example from my daily life. Conservative ridicule and scorn expected. I have worked for a telephone company for many years, and I been in lots of homes where the residents are obvious welfare recipients. Now I won't deny it ticks me off to see a strapping young man sitting there on his ass, while I'm out in the weather working to fix the phone line I'm probably helping to pay for in the first place. But at the same time, I'm aware the little kids who live in that house, had absolutely no say in what kind of parents they ended up with. So, though it's a tough decision to make and far from perfect. I would rather pay the assistance and know some jerk is abusing it, than to do away with it and know some little kid could be doing without. If that makes me a "bleeding heart" liberal, then so be it. It's not a label I have a problem with.
I would correct recent economic policies that have served cronies at the expense of others. As this chart indicates, real median income has fallen since the Republicans took power. We can attribute some of that decline to the bubble. A year after Western incomes decline we experience a residual effect in the Northeast. But incomes across Scud's Midwest have fallen harder. The strong ramp in the 90s reflects aggressive wage negotiations by unions backed by a Democratic President. Under the Republicans, industry has reclaimed the upper hand. The Clinton years were nothing short of miraculous. Even the bottom fifth saw Y/Y gains of 3.2, 4.7 and 4.1. Historically, we've been generally more prosperous when labor is stronger. Liberals understand that, conservatives do not.
Scud's region is in decline as a result of declining manufacturing. If it wasn't for autoworkers and friends of autoworkers supporting the industry, it would probably vanish. Why can't Americans produce cars that people want? To answer that question, one needs only to examine the hinges. European cars all have solid metal hinges with doors that close like a clock. American cars rely on cheaper alloys and plastics. Why? Each American car includes $1500.00 in health care costs. Liberals have been hounding this issue for twenty years but conservatives still don't get it.
You want more ideas? Fiscal responsibility, more equitable tax burden, increased monies for college tuition, prudent evironmental management and American (not Iraqi) infrastructure enhancement. You make the country stronger by investing in its people and its infrastructure. Liberals understand that, conservatives do not.
Thanks Jeff, you never fail to disappoint, and as a result, prove my point. So you're saying that the decline of manufacturing jobs in our modern economy is a Republican problem? Come on, even you should be able to understand that those jobs have been in decline for the last 30 years. Is it really a problem, or is it economic evolution? The other items you mention are typical of the left's talking points. Unfortunately, the ideas you mentioned are problems not solutions.
Fiscal responsibility - a bipartisan problem and a huge disappointment to conservatives regarding the present administration and congress, but better with the demoncrats? Hardly.
Equitable tax burden - like what, taking more from the top and penalizing productivity and entrepreneurship? Doesn't work. Even John Kennedy, the last decent demoncrat, understood that.
Environmental management - demoncrats put vital environmental issues like protecting insects, swamps, rodents, and in Barbara Streisand and Ted Kennedy's case, their personal view out their estates front window, ahead of little things like people, national security, and jobs. It may be hard to understand, but conservatives also enjoy nature and understand the balance between use and protection.
Infrastructure enhancement - what do you mean - roads, energy, water, education, etc? Once again, this always has been a problem for libs. You can't have everything without a way to pay for it. And raising taxes on the top 20 percent won't solve anything.
I repeat. The left doesn't have any solutions, only complaints.
Scooter, I think we probably have more in common than you may think. The only thing I don't understand is why intelligent people get caught up in the demoncrat lie as disseminated by the MSM, that conservatives are a bunch of heartless, selfish, money grubbing SOBs, who revel in others' pain and suffering. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I think conservatives know that one way to slow the growth of entitlement programs is to find ways to get the capable lazy ass off the couch and get him or her out into the productive side of society. There always will be those in need of help, and assistance will always be available.
Scud, I have no doubt that the two of us do have a lot in common. I'm sure many of the things we are concerned about are identical. It appears though, that at this point, we start to part company on how these concerns can best be addressed. Take taxes and the environment for instance. I'm fairly positive we're both concerned about these two issues. It's just that the level of priority we assign them, must differ greatly. Believe me, the MSM is no more responsible for my positions, than hopefully right wing talk radio is for yours. I will also say, I'm every bit as baffled by some of the positions you guys take, as you are by ours. And as a general rule,I don't think of all conservatives as SOBs, just some of them. I'll try to keep the rest of this reply short. One subject only, I promise.
The environment. Though you appeared to dismiss swamps as insignificant, lumping them in with peoples unobstructed views. That is far from correct. Swamps, though hardly recognized as such by most people, are extremely important. If you like water, you should like swamps. I live out in the country and swamps and marshes are my water filtration system. No city water here in my part of rural Ohio, we're still dependent on wells and the natural water table for our water source. Primitive I know, but it's true. There are still really people around, like myself, who don't buy their water from a utility company or get it out of a plastic bottle. So yeah, it bothers me when folks, usually just because they want to make a little more money. Advocate filling in or dumping crap in those swamps and marshes. Just as I imagine it would concern you, if guys like the one who pumps my septic tank. Started demanding a relaxation of the environmental restrictions that now prohibit him from dumping his pumper tank into, say the area that makes up the Bloomington Water System. No doubt, it would save him money and maybe even create some new jobs, but somehow that doesn't always seem like reason enough. One other thing, unobstructed views would be more of an aesthetic issue than an environmental one.
I"m sure to conservatives, I fit nicely into the niche reserved for radical environmentalist. Who else but an extremist "tree hugger" would be concerned about what's being done to this countries wetlands. It's not something I intentionally set out to become. I just can't help myself, I've always liked clean water.
Scooter, Of course you're right. My use of the word swamp was more as a metaphor than literal. I too enjoy and recognize the value of natural wetlands. We have them on the family farm - in fact, we have converted all the ag land back to natural habitat, planting 20,000 trees, digging 2 duck ponds and planting native grasses. Sounds pretty "green" for a neo-con, eh? My problem is with militant "Earth worshipers" who automatically sacrifice the needs of people or a community for the sake of some obscure environmental concern without taking into account the greater need of the community. In our area, there have been plenty of farmers destroyed by environmental activist groups blocking their ability to work their own land because a small puddle forms and stands for a week after it rains. The Streisand, Kennedy thing I was referring to was their instrumental role in blocking off shore drilling in order to preserve their view. Our dependence on foreign oil is both an economic and national security issue; more important than Babs or Teddies view. They are hypocrites of the worst kind! Thanks for your comment.
scud - you're nothing if not disengenuous. A ten year old would have recognized that I didn't blame republicans for 30 years of manufacturing decline.
"Bi-partisan" is scud-speak for a republican short-coming. The GOP was able to block inquiries into Mr. Bush's wiretaps and his pre-war intelligence so they could certainly block democratic feasts from the pork barrel. The rapid accelleration of spending under the republicans is such that the Times Square debt clock can't keep up. As usual, reality gets in the way of scud's weltanshauung. Consider the year over year increase in national debt by administration. With regard to depleting the coffers and mortgaging the future, there's no contest. The party of SUVs, exurban enclaves and run away consumer spending wastes tax dollars like drunken sailors.
I'm glad you like Mr. Kennedy. He was a good liberal who surrounded himself with good men like Galbraith, Schlessinger, Tobin, Heller, and Gordon. His tax cuts were distributed across all quintiles and coupled with additional incentives, namely infrastructure and investment incentives. As impressive as Kennedy's economic policies were, Clinton's were even better when you consider the monsterous deficit he inheirited from another drunken sailor named Bush.
The Bush tax cuts have served to accelerate the widening gap between the hyper rich and the rest of the country. Not since the 20s roared have we seen such a wide divide in income distribution. Under Bush, the most disproportionate share of burden falls on those who earn in the hundreds of thousands. It was dramatically reduced for the hyper-rich. From the end of the Second World War until 1981, a rising tide really did lift all boats. That is no longer the case.
With regard to infrastructure enhancement, I prefer the Kennedy model, not the Bushean model that enhances OTHER infrastructures while it depletes the coffers with needless wars and straddles another generation with its spending spree. I don't care if Iraq has schools or highways. Don't ask me to help foot the bill.
How many militant earth worshippers are there, scud? A couple hundred? Their paltry numbers didn't prevent you from painting the opposition with a mighty wide brush.
Yeah, that sounds pretty green for a neo-con or for that matter, anyone. I find what you have done to be most admirable. Hopefully, and it sounds as if it does, that trait extends to the public domain as well. You see, many people are extremely fond and take the best of care of their own private property. But really don't give much thought to the public property, or for that matter the property of others. A case in point being the person who would never dream of throwing his McDonalds bag into the back seat of his own car, but automatically rolls down his window and tosses it outside. What's important to many people is extremely limited. So, unfortunately people like that bear watching.
Of course some folks go overboard about the environment, just as they do about everything else. But it has become very easy for others, to use them as a yardstick with which to judge everyone who's vocal about environment. That's not an approach an informed person would take about anything. It would seem, looking for common ground is more fruitful than focusing on our differences. Maybe not as much fun, but probably a better idea.
Dito.
Post a Comment