AnimationNation Forum

AnimationNation


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» AnimationNation   » SideTopics   » Presidential debates. Part 2 (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: Presidential debates. Part 2
The Mod
Administrator
Member # 854

Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Mod   Email The Mod         Edit/Delete Post 
Decided open up a new thread just to keep thing in order. Have fun!
IP: Logged
JDC
IE # 116
Member # 1993

Icon 1 posted      Profile for JDC   Author's Homepage   Email JDC         Edit/Delete Post 
cool..

I thought the second debate was a close race.

I didn't care for Bush's snappy attitude. I'm curious about this plan Kerry keeps talking about.

Could you imagine if we get a reverse of the last election. Bush wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college.. people would go ape sh*t!

party on dudes.. and dudettes. [guitar]

--------------------
Http://bluemonstereyes.blogspot.com

IP: Logged
-FP-
IE # 13
Member # 914

Icon 2 posted      Profile for -FP-   Author's Homepage   Email -FP-         Edit/Delete Post 
Bush was at his best, such as that is. I thought the debate was close, although the online polls I checked this morning seem to indicate that Kerry is considered the winner - among those who vote in online polls, anyway.

* MSNBC
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 66%
Bush: 34%

* CNN
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 76%
Bush: 22%

* CNN America Votes (This is different from the one above)
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 86%
Bush: 13%

* CBS News
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 88%
Bush: 12%

* Fox News
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 53%
Bush: 46%

* Boston Globe
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 84%
Bush: 12%

* AOL
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 51%
Bush: 49%

* Yahoo News
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 64%
Bush: 33%

* Campaigns and Elections
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 49%
Bush: 50%

* MS. Magazine
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 65%
Bush: 35%


Online Polls in Swing States

* Tampa Bay Online
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 87%
Bush: 12%

* Rocky Mountain News
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 92%
Bush: 8%

* KOLO TV Reno, NV (Scroll Down)
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 92%
Bush: 8%

* Asheville Citizen-Times, NC
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 88%
Bush: 12%

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
The most interesting piece of news I heard was that W wouldn't appoint any judges who believed in slavery (?).

I did think W did pretty good. He was definitely on his game even tho' he told a lotta woppers. Yeah, I know Kerry stretched the truth a lot, but it strikes me (for obvious reasons) that W went way beyond stretching the truth as factcheck.org proves (and many others).
Of course, W would've had to fall down drooling and wet himself to have done worse than the first debate.

It's interesting the on-line polls show Kerry the winner. I would've put down closer to a tie. Maybe it has something to do with the type of people on the internet?

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
Thomas
IE # 19
Member # 101

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thomas   Email Thomas         Edit/Delete Post 
FP,
Most of those polls are so incredibly skewed, that they are totally unbelievable. Besides it looks to me that most of them are handle very similar to the way we do polls here. Quite unscientific.

--------------------
-Tom

IP: Logged
-FP-
IE # 13
Member # 914

Icon 1 posted      Profile for -FP-   Author's Homepage   Email -FP-         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Most of those polls are so incredibly skewed...
Thus my qualifier "Kerry is considered the winner - among those who vote in online polls, anyway". I think less than 60% of the US is regularly online, and most of those online would never bother to check the little box and click SUBMIT.
IP: Logged
JHBucktooth
Member
Member # 1884

Icon 14 posted      Profile for JHBucktooth   Email JHBucktooth         Edit/Delete Post 
I wanna go visit those OTHER Internets the President was talking about. Betcha they're way cooler than this one.
IP: Logged
Nedlaw
Member
Member # 3052

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nedlaw   Email Nedlaw         Edit/Delete Post 
I know that several of the democratic online mailing lists send out reminders on the day of the debates to make sure their supporters vote in the online polls. Not sure if repubs do this as well, but given the disparity of the online polls, I'd say probably less so. BTW, last night after the debate I noticed the Internet was waayyyy slower than ealier that evening- whether this was just a coincidence I don't know... Still, the non-interactive polls showed Kerry winning as well, although by only a few points.
IP: Logged
MICROPHONE JONEZ
Member
Member # 1918

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MICROPHONE JONEZ           Edit/Delete Post 
I think Bush fell off the wagon and was coked-up for the first half hour of the second debate. Lordy!

Also, Bush forgets he owns a tree-growing company.

IP: Logged
SpudLass
IE # 203
Member # 1066

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SpudLass   Email SpudLass         Edit/Delete Post 
Nedlaw, not that this makes the internet polls any more scientific, but Republican groups caught on and requested their own people take the polls this time around, too. Dems appear to be more committed typists, at least.

I think George did slightly better this time, but that's only to say he seems to have kept a lot of his lip-pursing in check. As "...George Bush looked like a blister about to pop. Loud, mouthy, swaggering, interested only in hearing himself lay down the law, he behaved like a verbally abusive husband." America's crazy ex-boyfriend. Yup, I can see that...

th'missus

IP:
Logged
SpudLass
IE # 203
Member # 1066

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SpudLass   Email SpudLass         Edit/Delete Post 
Oops, sorry about that neverending link.

Anyone curious about this?

Bush postpones election-year doctor's visit
Tue Oct 5, 7:39 PM ET
 Politics - AFP
WASHINGTON (AFP) - After undergoing his annual medical check-up in August 2001, 2002 and 2003, US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) has put the procedure off this year until after the November 2 election, his spokesman said.
Bush, locked in a neck-and-neck race for the White House with Democratic Senator John Kerry (news - web sites), is in "great health" and got the green light for the decision from his doctors, spokesman Scott McClellan told AFP.
"This has been a busier travel period for the president than the previous three years," the spokesman said.
Bush, 58, is known as an avid physical fitness buff who switched from running to mountain biking earlier this year after hurting his knee.
"The president, like other Americans, talked with his doctors about when to have his physical. They felt it was perfectly fine to do it later this year," said McClellan. "The president is an active person who is physically fit and in great health."


Cuz, you know, he's had issues with taking physicals in the past and all....

th'Missus

IP: Logged
RZetlin
Member
Member # 1162

Icon 1 posted      Profile for RZetlin           Edit/Delete Post 
As I mentioned before Bush rehashed the same themes.

The only new thing I have seen in the debate is Bush accused Kerry of being a liberal. (Which has no bearing to me because I have a government party called "liberal")

But George's bushism is always funny.

quote:

The truth of the matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if "he" were the President of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off.

"He" is referring to John Kerry, but it doesn't sound like this, but sounded like Saddam would be President of America. Maybe Saddam's name is really on a secret ballot for Nov. 2. Actually both references doesn't make any sense. [Razz]
IP: Logged
bunny burgerman
IE # 138
Member # 2793

Icon 1 posted      Profile for bunny burgerman   Author's Homepage   Email bunny burgerman         Edit/Delete Post 
Bush lied about not owning a "timber company", Factcheck.org says: "In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in 'LSTF, LLC', a limited-liability company organized 'for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales.' Factcheck.org

By the way, this is the site Dick Cheney meant to cite during his debate. So I guess the Republican party believes this site to be non-partisan.

--------------------
www.pyatyletka.com
pyatyletka.blogspot.com

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
Here are the transcripts from the debates...
First,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html
Second,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1008.html

All in all, I think Bush was very week, and showed very low character by trying to slap the 'Liberal' label on Kerry.

I've also notice him trying to swipe Kerry's ideas as well in the news.. You're hearing more and more about how we're trying to involve other countries now.

...and even last night Bushit said "My opponent says he has a plan; it sounds familiar, because it's called the Bush plan. We're going to train troops, and we are. We'll have 125,000 trained by the end of December. We're spending about $7 billion." ...Even though that would be the first time anyone has ever heard of this 'Bush plan'

And what else was really weak was when he pointed out Kerry was for the war... BASED ON LIES YOU TOLD US YOU FRIGGIN' MORON!!!

...and it is plain arrogant to think people are stupid enough to fall for points made about bills Kerry didn't sign into without presenting the entire details of those bills... The oldest trick in the book is to creat a 'Food for starving children bill' then add all types of things to it like, food must be bought from Haliburton, yahts for every congressmen, phone taps for anyone... and then when you disagree with it.. they pull out the Senetor Kerry wants children to starve.. he didn't sign the "Food for starving Children Act" Well, obviously it works wonders on his supporters.. but I don't consider them deep thinkers. Yeeee diggidy!

And I think Bush had some coaching.. but his coach was probably doing this off stage all night.. [Gary]

Debating 101 you raise your voice and become more animated during the key points. But Bush did it throughout.. just came off as I'm loud, smarmy and can you believe this other guy?

Watch the next debate.. and I bet he does it only a few times.

and also.. when he does the 'can you believe what you're hearing' head sway and smirk after EVERY rebuttle from Kerry... you lose the impact.

If I had to guess, based on body language, what George Dumbeya Bush does for a living, (without already knowing) I would say "Used Car Salesman." That is how he presents himself. It's a god damned travesty how he weaseled his way into office, and is a mystery for the history books to unravel.

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
And let's talk about the Iraqi Threat, and the Sadam threat.. at best, if unchecked by us and the UN, Saddam could POSSIBLY pose a threat say.. 10 years down the line?.. if that. And it's a 'POSSIBLE' threat. They have yet to turn up the blueprints for "Operation Nuke Washington DC" yet.

Bush repeats over and over again.. 'they hate us, and they want to hurt us' ... let's go over the list of countries that fit into that category next debate.. and how many of them signed up for that list since he's been in office.

This isn't the Minority Report. You can WAR with "MAYBE" or "I gotta hunch"

I mean, look at what Kennedy did when there were NUCLEAR MISSLES pointed at us from Cuba!!! Fer christ sakes! They were real.. they were there.. ready to go.

Iraq didn't even have the order forms for a nuclear missle that could touch us.. and we blow their country to crap.

I mean.. how much more convincing does one person need?

IP: Logged
Corn Fed
Member
Member # 1085

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Corn Fed   Email Corn Fed         Edit/Delete Post 
Bush was off his meds during the first half hour of the second debate, and didn't act at all presidential. He was angrily jabbing his finger around, interrupting the moderator and the audience members, and sounding shrill and desperate.

The energy deflated out of the debate after that, with both candidates losing steam and interest. Kerry wobbled on the abortion question, and Bush fell down on the final "three mistakes" question. In general, neither candidate directly answered the questions, veering off to their talking points.

Conclusion: Kerry won, but not a slam dunk like the first debate.

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
I thought Kerry handled the abortion and religous issue magnificently. He said he didn't agree with it, that he was a catholic, but had no right to govern other's bodies with his personal beliefs and idiology.

Bravo.

[cheers]

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
edit...

when I said
"This isn't the Minority Report. You can WAR with "MAYBE" or "I gotta hunch" "

I meant CAN'T

You CAN'T go to war with "MAYBE" or "I GOTTA HUNCH"

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
For anyone voting, I suggest you read "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli. Bush's encouragement of fear is CLASSIC dictator type behavior. Bush is that transparent. It's almost as if he's using the book as a guideline to run his administration.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553212788/qid=1097388454/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-0244987-9085757?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

All you have to do is look around and ask if things are better than they were 4 years ago. and do you really want 4 more years of it?

I don't mean personally.. because I am personally better off, through pure luck. But the country as a whole, and then at our place in the world.

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
Dolemite50
IE # 113
Member # 830

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dolemite50   Email Dolemite50         Edit/Delete Post 
This was a close debate. Kerry had more things to say that I agree with but Bush was alot less mechanical. I'd call the debate a draw but I personally was swayed even further towards Kerry.
IP: Logged
PonsonbyBritt
Member
Member # 136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PonsonbyBritt   Email PonsonbyBritt         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For anyone voting, I suggest you read "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli. Bush's encouragement of fear is CLASSIC dictator type behavior. Bush is that transparent. It's almost as if he's using the book as a guideline to run his administration.
On a similar note, just watch Disney's "Chicken Little" on the Disney Treasures wartime cartoons DVD. While that cartoon was warning Americans to be wary of propagandist info spread by the enemy, it seems to me that the role of Foxy Loxy is now being played domestically by the Bush regime, throwing the American public off-balance with their fearmongering and conveniently timed "Orange Alerts". (Bet'cha they call a "Red Alert" just prior to election day - you heard it here first!)
IP: Logged
LeftyMcKay
IE # 168
Member # 2558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeftyMcKay   Author's Homepage   Email LeftyMcKay         Edit/Delete Post 
Time for a little humor from JibJab:

Good To Be In DC!

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Charles
Administrator
Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Charles           Edit/Delete Post 
Thought I'd give this a couple of days to reflect upon the debate before I came to my own conclusion.

Presdient Bush gave a better performance than the first one, but he was loud most of the time and seemed a bit agitated. Kerry's demeanor was calmer, kind of reasuring and once again, was much more eloquent in his delivery than the President.

The "internets" remark was embarrassing.

He also made a big mistake. He claimed that he didn't own an interest in a timber company and laughed and joked about it with the crowd after Senator Kerry's remark, then it was proven after the debate that he indeed does or did hold an interest in a timber company and that what Kerry said was correct.

This is equivalent to Vice President Cheney's remark to Senator Edwards during their debate that this was the first time they ever met, then video was shown of the two of them sitting together at a luncheon in 2001.

There was also something else that I noticed and I wonder if anyone else happened to catch this. Did anyone out there tape the debate? If you did, please take a good look at it. I think I noticed a thin cord running up along the President's hairline on his neck on his right side. It looked like it was curled into the edge of his hair, blended in so it couldn't be seen, coming up from his collar.

If I'm mistaken about this, then I wish that someone prove me wrong as it looked obvious. The TV I was watching wasn't high definition but the picture was clear and I could have sworn that I saw an earphone wire.

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't catch the wire, but if so it would mean they changed his coach from the first debate....

http://www.animationnation.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000675

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
I'll just note some humorous things:

-Kerry lectures Bush 2 or 3 times to not use "liberal" or "conservative" labels, then, when we get to Supreme Court Justices, Kerry says, "The president said that he wants to nominate conservative judges"

-Kerry's obvious discomfort about stem cell research... stumbling over his words or long-pausing twice during this singular answer/response

-Kerry making a big deal out of Bush's tree company when John Edwards sheilds some 90% of his income from payroll taxes the very same way (the tree company was NOT a tree company when Bush invested)

-Kerry demeaning the size of the countries in the coalition, meanwhile needing to pick up SMALL states to win the election. By his rationale, only NY and CA should matter. Who cares about West VA, or AZ or Delaware. Only big ones count, I would guess. Furthar he ignores their political risk of standing against terror. Also ignoring the problem about demeaning the coalition AND the war, while supposedly attempting to widen the coalition (some sources have reported Kerry's sister in Australia attempting to get them to PULL OUT of the coalition he supposedly wants to widen!!!)

-Kerry sticks with pulling France, Germany and Russia on board dispite the oil/food fiasco, and recent news that the Duelfer report also outlines French and Russian companies supply Saddam with weaponry on the days leading up to the war, and potential WMD development by Saddam in neighboring rogue nations (also following last weeks earlier admission that he probably could not get France and co. on board)

-Kerry says, of the Supreme Court, "I'll appoint Judges who interpret the constitution according to the law" !!!!! Call it a slip. I'll call it a fruedian slip

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Charles, I did tape it- i'll check later this eveing.

The internets thing was embarrassing, but also obvious that he meant websites, but started with the word internet... and rather than fumbling words, just messed up in a "smaller" way by pluralizing it like he would have "websites."

The tree thing nor the Cheney thing really matter.

The company was not a lumber company at the time Bush invested, so it's not too surprising the president didn't keep up with a $84 investment down the road. Cheney used that "meeting you for the first time" to ILLUSTRATE that he never sees the guy. A luncheon? Okay, he made a techincal error - the point still - Edwards is absent the Senate more than often, is still transparently clear.

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
[Roll Eyes]
Go watch Tron.

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
Embarrassed by "Internets"??? You should read one of the 3 BOOKS full of Bush's mistakes... his Bushisms

3 BOOKS FULL!

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
That'd be a funny to read as a book on John Kerry's foreign policy.
IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
What's wrong with Kerry's foreign policy?

Are you refering to his proposal where we'd supply the nuclear energy to Iran if they cease to manufacture it on their own, thus being the one in control, and have the ability to monitor their use of it?

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
What, CC, no mistakes by W? Just Kerry? I'm shocked!

Back to reality....

...the debate did bring up an interesting (and rather terrifying) thought. Within the next presidency there will probably be 3 to 4 Supreme Court Justices retiring.
It's a much bigger concern who is put on the court than who is made President because that person can be out of work within 4 years (regardless of who it is) and the Judge is forever (almost) ....other than the fact that the next President will dertermine who is on the court.
Left to W, I assume, that we will (at least) lose Roe v Wade.

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey.. check it out.. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_women_s_rights

Saudi's aren't allowing their women to vote...

"Women may neither vote nor run in Saudi Arabia's first nationwide elections, the government announced Monday, dashing hopes of progressive Saudis and easing fears among conservatives that the kingdom is moving too fast on reforms. "

Funny... no matter where you are in the world, Conservatives are always on the 'ugly side' of progress.
[Big Grin]

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
"Within the next presidency there will probably be 3 to 4 Supreme Court Justices retiring."

This was the primary "urgency" of the 2000 election as well. Bush didn't get to nominate a single one.

Clinton's appointments who ARE on the bench do show how crucial the bench is.

PS
Did I really need to cite any Bush goofs? You guys already have. I wanted to name some you wouldn't/couldn't bring yourself to note.

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
OFFBEAT, how is the Saudi election a conservative taint? Are you saying Bush pushed this new policy of female inferiority into Saudi Arabia??? Or is it that he's pushing democratic elections, is that what's ugly?

I hope there is more explination here than just unfounded partisan smear.

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
CC... I quoted the article... the part where it says
"...and easing fears among conservatives that the kingdom is moving too fast on reforms."

Meaning that conservatives over there think of women inferior enough to not have them vote.

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
conservatives over there. oh, I see. so you're trying to compare an entirely different sect or ideal to conservatives over here. that's like comparing saddam hussien's "republican" guard to our Republican party.

that's a twisted and low road to take.

do we need to look at the history of the parties? you'll find vast civil rights legislation under nixon. you'll find african americans being banned from the democrat party and being accepted by republicans. thats why the democrats flipped to the opposite extreme of handouts and affirmative racism (action) - to buy votes back and remake their image from their exclusionary, oppressive, and discriminating days.

IP: Logged
JDC
IE # 116
Member # 1993

Icon 1 posted      Profile for JDC   Author's Homepage   Email JDC         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think you can use the history of the parties as a viable argument.. both have been "liberal" and "conservative" over the past hundred and some odd years.. next thing you know, we will be arguing the Whigs vs. the Federalists..

another thing to mention, Nixon had a House and Senate full of democrats.. remember, they used to have the majority.. and well, last I knew, the House and Senate write the bills, the president signs them into law. Hence, they work together..

This should be a close election, I don't believe the conservative and liberal labels are helpful at all.. This should just be, who is a better choice? Who is best at leading the Team?.. and the United States, is one big team.

--------------------
Http://bluemonstereyes.blogspot.com

IP: Logged
Corn Fed
Member
Member # 1085

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Corn Fed   Email Corn Fed         Edit/Delete Post 
That's where you're all washed out, CC. While the parties switched sides on Civil Rights, the ideologies did not. The Democrats who were opposed to Civil Rights and switched to the Republican party were never liberals, they were conservative Democrats--i.e. Dixiecrats.

Liberals have always been supportive of Civil Rights and social equality, from the abolition of slavery, to women's rights to vote, to integration, to interracial marriage, to the Civil Rights Act, to the right for all races to vote and have equal protection under the law, to gay rights.

Conservatives, sadly, have had a much more obstructive history toward each of these things. So goes the progression of society. For every movement looking to advance toward equality for all, there are always those who are hesitant/fearful/angry/opposed to that change to the status quo. Hence, the existance of conservatism.

My favorite aspect of conservatism is that they are perpetually on the wrong side of history, most especially as social issues go.

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Corn Fed. Untrue. The parties did not switch sides.

The republican's have stayed the same. They are for freedom, and rights - but not special rights or handouts. The democrats are the ones that flip - from one extreme to the other. Disallowing black people to join and vote - then offering special rights and handouts to attempt to reclaim the vote they had previously surpressed (and lost). The republicans flip sides only in that the Democrats were once on the far, but opposite, side of the argument.

Moreover, the point is: conservative Saudi's are not comparable to conservative Americans. Juggling these sementics as similar ideals is a cheap ploy.

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Also, your views on “change” and history are both poor.

Clinton gets credit for the Contract with America accomplishments and good economy despite his Republican House and Senate…. But Nixon doesn’t get credit?

Tell Lincoln we’re all on the wrong side. I remember him being the sole white person on the walls of my high school during black awareness week. Tell that to Charlton Heston, a good friend to Martin Luther King, who worked for Civil Rights, and broke racial boundary rules in Hollywood. Tell that to the NRA, founded to properly by UNION peoples in the north to aid in proper gun training. They also strongly fought the Ku Klux Klan throughout our country’s history. Tell that to the Founding Fathers who wrote a constitution based on limited federal government. That same, rather conservative, constitution has lead to a very strong, very open, very free, very prosperous nation.

Conservatism leads to sometimes slower, but more thoughtful and considered change. I took a History of the Constitution class taught by a strong liberal lawyer. Even he acknowledged: you want conservative judges, so slower – proper decisions are made that people can count on. The history of constitutional consideration by the Supreme Court is routinely met with rejecting change IMMEDIATELY in order to wait for the PROPER case to decide on, and thereby define constitutional law and precedence that will stand. Sloppy changes in decisions, even in the case of benevolence, is unwise.

Case in point: Clinton’s Ruth Baiter Ginsberg has written about her support for lower the age of sexual consent to 12 years of age. Do we want more like her on the bench? If the age of consent changes, shouldn’t it be slow met, carefully considered, and not lurched towards 12!!!!

I understand a BALANCE. While being conservative – I understand a middle of the road approach. I think the courts are the last place you want too much progressivism, though. They SHOULD be the last place that shift’s.

Strangely, NY and CA have Republican locals (Governors) and vote Democrat nationals (President). I think the reverse approach more directly allows your vote and your state influence itself and write its own path. Consertative federal government - and local governments that can be as liberal or as conservative as the smaller, local state citizens desire (and thereby imposing less on the rest of the country).

IP: Logged



This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Animation Nation

Animation Nation © 1999-2012

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0