One Party Rule

[RightinNYC]

Well, since you have decided reduce the debate to name calling and insults (typical of the right wing)

And facts, those pesky things.

this will be my last post on the subject.

Just when it was getting fun.

Mark Twain said that there are three kinds of lies: there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics.

Mark Twain said a lot of things, like "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

Just make sure you pick the ones that support your position, no matter how inaccurate or distorted they may be.

You think I picked and chose among statistics? Those are THE statistics. Straight from the government. Want to prove me wrong? Find some of your own that contradict them. I'm always open to learning.

However, there are two facts that are impossible to hide from.

Down to two now? We started with dozens...what happened to the rest?

We are once again in a war with no end in sight.

Maybe you can't see it, but I'm sure that there are many who would disagree.

We have a budget deficit that is out of control and if you think that we can continue with these huge deficits forever with no ill effects you are living in a dream world.

I don't think it's out of control, and I don't think that we will continue with these huge deficits. I think it will correct itself eventually as policy changes.

Anything else?

 

[LazarusLong]

I guess age adds a little perspective. I remember the arguments for the Vietnam war very well and they are almost identical to the ones you quote. Just as soon as South Vietnam is able to stand on its own two feet and withstand the North, we are outta here. In the end we "won" the vietnam war by leaving and letting the North take over. In Iraq, no matter what the government does, within one year after we pull out of there there will be a religious dictatorship running the country( We tried nation building with Iran-remember the Shaw of Iran-see how well that worked out) or Iraq will be split up into 3 different countries. But I guess we will have "won" there too.

As for the remarks about the south, I was mostly talking about presidential politics, however, I don't know the answer to this one, but the ones you mentioned what is their stand on affirmative action and the civil rights act of 1964. Also by south I am mostly referring to the states carried by Barry Goldwater in 1964 and having lived through that election and being in the south, I can tell you that the sole reason he carried the deep south was his oposition to the civil rights movement. It is the same reason that George Wallace did well in the south in 1968. Heck, look at all the rebel flags that still fly in the south, in Nashville, TN there is a monument that flies about 15 confederate battle flags. Half the city wants them to come down and the other half will fight to the death to keep them. (It is privately owned so it will most likely stay). Point being, many are still fighting the Civil War (excuse me , that is War Between the States in the south) and that was 140 years ago. And the only reason that Goldwater did not carry Tennessee in 1964 is because he wanted to privatize TVA. The framework for the southern vote was set in 1964 and without major drastic changes in the law and US Constitution I see no end in sight

and I guess you just cant trust us left wingers because I am going to violate my previous statement and ask rightatnyu a question: What will those policy changes be that are going to balance the budget . Please note that saying we will "grow" our way out of the deficit or get rid of fraud waste and abuse are cop outs and non answers. Every politician says that is how they will balance the budget and it is bull. So how do we erase a half trillion a year deficit. What spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised and how long will it take

 

[RightinNYC]

I guess age adds a little perspective. I remember the arguments for the Vietnam war very well and they are almost identical to the ones you quote. Just as soon as South Vietnam is able to stand on its own two feet and withstand the North, we are outta here. In the end we "won" the vietnam war by leaving and letting the North take over. In Iraq, no matter what the government does, within one year after we pull out of there there will be a religious dictatorship running the country( We tried nation building with Iran-remember the Shaw of Iran-see how well that worked out) or Iraq will be split up into 3 different countries. But I guess we will have "won" there too.

This situation is farrrr different from the one in Vietnam. Even if the situations were more similar, there's nothing to imply the result would be the same. The US resolve is far greater in this conflict, success has been far more marked, and the insurgency is hated by most of the country. There's absolutely nothing to prove that Iraq will turn into a religious dictatorship.

As for the remarks about the south, I was mostly talking about presidential politics, however, I don't know the answer to this one, but the ones you mentioned what is their stand on affirmative action and the civil rights act of 1964. Also by south I am mostly referring to the states carried by Barry Goldwater in 1964 and having lived through that election and being in the south, I can tell you that the sole reason he carried the deep south was his oposition to the civil rights movement. It is the same reason that George Wallace did well in the south in 1968. Heck, look at all the rebel flags that still fly in the south, in Nashville, TN there is a monument that flies about 15 confederate battle flags. Half the city wants them to come down and the other half will fight to the death to keep them. (It is privately owned so it will most likely stay). Point being, many are still fighting the Civil War (excuse me , that is War Between the States in the south) and that was 140 years ago. And the only reason that Goldwater did not carry Tennessee in 1964 is because he wanted to privatize TVA. The framework for the southern vote was set in 1964 and without major drastic changes in the law and US Constitution I see no end in sight

I really don't know what you're talking about here.

and I guess you just cant trust us left wingers because I am going to violate my previous statement and ask rightatnyu a question: What will those policy changes be that are going to balance the budget . Please note that saying we will "grow" our way out of the deficit or get rid of fraud waste and abuse are cop outs and non answers. Every politician says that is how they will balance the budget and it is bull. So how do we erase a half trillion a year deficit. What spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised and how long will it take

So little of the federal budget is discretionary nowadays that ANY president would have a hard time cutting costs. Bush is at least making an attempt to rein in the entitlement, starting with SS. And you might write it off as a cop out, but the truth is that an improved economy will increase receipts.

 

[ludahai]

Point being, many are still fighting the Civil War (excuse me , that is War Between the States in the south) and that was 140 years ago.

At the University of Georgia, at the main entrance to the university there is a historical marker. The marker refers to the "Civil War" as the "War for Southern Independence." Also, while I was living in Georgia (I am a NH native), many people referred to the war at the "War of Northern Aggression."

And YES, there are still many Southerners fighting the Civil War. However, not all people who fly the Confederate battle flag are racists and few truly believe in separating from the Union. It is a matter of regional pride, which they are right to have. Being from New England, a fairly distinctive region of the country itself, I can appreciate the South for itself being a fairly distinctive region.

 

[flip2]

At the University of Georgia, at the main entrance to the university there is a historical marker. The marker refers to the "Civil War" as the "War for Southern Independence." Also, while I was living in Georgia (I am a NH native), many people referred to the war at the "War of Northern Aggression."

And YES, there are still many Southerners fighting the Civil War. However, not all people who fly the Confederate battle flag are racists and few truly believe in separating from the Union. It is a matter of regional pride, which they are right to have. Being from New England, a fairly distinctive region of the country itself, I can appreciate the South for itself being a fairly distinctive region.

I went to a high school in central Florida. My U.S History teacher used the term "War of Northern Aggression" many times in place of calling it the Civil War. My middle school, high school, and Catholic Church (hello?) had many students and parishioners who, let's just say, are probably very proud of their Southern heritage. Rebel flags, Rebel flag bumper stickers EVERYWHERE. Difference is, I suppose, is that this is a different time and era now. A more aware generation. If the students were racist in any way, I don't think they'd be going to a school that was very ethnically diverse. I found no problem or never felt uncomfortable going to school or driving through their neighborhoods or part of town.

 

[anomaly]

Let me start with a simple statement: I am a Democrat. Always have been and always will be. This makes what follows much harder to say.

If you look at the last presidential election you have to ask , "How in the world did Bush win?" Consider the following:

1. The stock market was far below what it was when he took office.
2. Unemployment was almost double what it was in 2000
3. In his first four year tenure he turned a budget surplus into a huge
budget deficit with no end in sight.
4. We were in a war that should never have been started and it is clear
that the administration "cooked the books" to create a threat where
no threat existed.
5. Spending by the Republican controlled congress and the Republican
controlled white house had increased far faster and higher than it ever
did under the democrats
6. Passed tax cuts that almost exclusively benefited the richest Americans
and will be paid for by cutting spending for the poor and middle class
(read as cuts in social security, Medicare, veterans benefits, etc.)
7. Alienated almost every other country on the face of the earth to the
point that we are now hated by almost everyone (the return of the
ugly American)

I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. So what great accomplishment did Bush point to and say this is why you should give me another four years? The answer is none. You will note that all of the items listed above concern economic issues or foreign affairs. And these are the issues that Democrats hammered on and it got them nowhere. Voters were clearly concerned with other issues. (The strange workings of the electoral college helped also.)

What Bush brought to the table was one thing: RELIGION. With almost every preacher and catholic priest in the country telling people they will go to hell if they vote democrat it is not too hard to understand why people voted for Bush. After all, what is a few years of economic pain when balanced against eternity in hell. And it gets worse.

Consider this: In 1996 with the US economy humming like a fine machine, no wars, and everything looking good, Bill Clinton could not get 50% of the popular vote. The fact that Ross Periot ran and split the republican vote got Clinton elected in both 1992 and 1996. I can assure you that the republican party will take steps to insure that does not happen again. And here is the kicker: The great depression started in 1929. Hoover had four years to help ease some of the suffering that was going on in the country. He did nothing. When the 1932 election rolled around, yes Roosevelt won but Hoover still got almost 40% of the popular vote and if the south had voted in 1932 the way it now votes (IE republican)there is a good chance that Hoover could have won re election! Now, when the country can be in the financial trash can and people still vote for the party that put it there ( bear in mind that the republican party had complete control of the federal government for the 10 years leading up to the depression) then there are some things going on that we are not talking about. Those things are religion and race. I live in the south and don't kid yourself. The south votes republican on one issue above all others. Southerns believe that the republican party is anti minority and specifically anti black. Why so many people think God is a republican, I don't know. part of it is tied up with abortion but don't forget that this is the same party that gave us Prohibition.

This has not been lost on the republican party. When you look at the news, republicans are walking all over themselves to see who can kiss the collective butt of the religious right the most.

Where does this leave the Democrat party? The answer is simple, nowhere. The party would have to do a hundred eighty degree turn to woo the religious right to vote democrat. In short, become republican. This is not an answer and the republican party is wrong in their position. Freedom of religion should not mean freedom to be a Christian only, and if you are not a Christian we will force you, by law, to obey Christian tenets.

Bottom line: There is no set of economic conditions or world situation that will get someone whose main concern is religious or ethnic to vote democrat, the voting trends since the civil war prove that. (Wilson was also elected because Teddy Roosevelt split the republican vote) and there is nothing in the foreseeable future that is going to change the minds of the churches or the south. So get ready America-here comes the theocracy!

Final note: The south started down the road to being republican in 1964. The only states that Barry Goldwater carried was the deep south and that is because he was perceived as being anti civil rights. The final nails were put in place when Johnson pushed through the civil rights act of 1964

Strange it is that a left winger can not see through the corruption of his own party! The democratic party is the second most pro-capitalist party in history, and this I cannot stand.

So you think that it is 'clear' that the south, inarguably the most religious part of the country, that southerners vote Republican. This has not always been true. Until '64, as you correctly mention, the south was a huge Democratic base. then things started turning around. In 1925, in the famous Scopes trial, William jennings Bryan, a Populist, was on the side of the anti-evolutionists. So it should be clear that the south has only recently been voting Republican.

So why is it that the Dems are losing power? No doubt the insane neo-con 'intellectuals' like Hannity, Coulter, and Rush, with their messages of hatred and broad audience, have something to do with it. No doubt part of it may very well have to do with religion, and religious promotions for the GOP. But these are just very smart Republican tactics, that have secured power for the GOP in the government. The Democrats have lost their voters because they have turned their back on the working man. It was Clinton, not some Republican, who ran the most economically conservative policy in the centuray, arguably. Clinton did not do a damn thing to stop the busting of unions, he didn't raise taxes on the rich, he didn't impose strict regulations on business, he spent too much on military and not enough on social programs, and he was the one who uttered 'the era of big government is over'. This was a Democrat! The Democrats have ended their policy of old, they are no longer an economically progressive party. They are almost as pro-business, and therefore anti-labor, as their GOP counterparts. It is the Dems own fault for their recent struggles. The GOP has maintained a contant platform, while the Dems are more andm ore pro-business. I mean, Clinton began NAFTA, an extremely economically detrimental 'free trade' policy for North America, that has in turn put all of North America into the slimy hands of the WTO and the IMF, it has further put the economic forces above political forces, it has created a climate where companies are free to move factories and workstations anywhere they want. This has hurt the workers of old ford plants, of old GM plants, of old Gap and Nike plants. Andthis was done under Clinton! That is the reason the Dems have failed and will continue to fail. Until they once again represent the workers of America rather than their corporate campaign funders, the Dems will not gain any power.

 

[flip2]

Strange it is that a left winger can not see through the corruption of his own party! The democratic party is the second most pro-capitalist party in history, and this I cannot stand.

So you think that it is 'clear' that the south, inarguably the most religious part of the country, that southerners vote Republican. This has not always been true. Until '64, as you correctly mention, the south was a huge Democratic base. then things started turning around. In 1925, in the famous Scopes trial, William jennings Bryan, a Populist, was on the side of the anti-evolutionists. So it should be clear that the south has only recently been voting Republican.

So why is it that the Dems are losing power? No doubt the insane neo-con 'intellectuals' like Hannity, Coulter, and Rush, with their messages of hatred and broad audience, have something to do with it. No doubt part of it may very well have to do with religion, and religious promotions for the GOP. But these are just very smart Republican tactics, that have secured power for the GOP in the government. The Democrats have lost their voters because they have turned their back on the working man. It was Clinton, not some Republican, who ran the most economically conservative policy in the centuray, arguably. Clinton did not do a damn thing to stop the busting of unions, he didn't raise taxes on the rich, he didn't impose strict regulations on business, he spent too much on military and not enough on social programs, and he was the one who uttered 'the era of big government is over'. This was a Democrat! The Democrats have ended their policy of old, they are no longer an economically progressive party. They are almost as pro-business, and therefore anti-labor, as their GOP counterparts. It is the Dems own fault for their recent struggles. The GOP has maintained a contant platform, while the Dems are more andm ore pro-business. I mean, Clinton began NAFTA, an extremely economically detrimental 'free trade' policy for North America, that has in turn put all of North America into the slimy hands of the WTO and the IMF, it has further put the economic forces above political forces, it has created a climate where companies are free to move factories and workstations anywhere they want. This has hurt the workers of old ford plants, of old GM plants, of old Gap and Nike plants. Andthis was done under Clinton! That is the reason the Dems have failed and will continue to fail. Until they once again represent the workers of America rather than their corporate campaign funders, the Dems will not gain any power.

If only true liberals/disenfranchised Democrats came out and supported someone like Ralph Nader hardcore. That's another issue I have with members from both sides and 3rd party candidates.

The GOP started as an outside 3rd party. The GOP is the most successful political 3rd party in U.S. history. I may disagree with the Green Party, the Reform party, Libertarian Party, etc., but these parties and their candidates need the same support and passion from the disappointed members of the two major parties. Once people can get over the "I'm wasting my vote" mentality, 3rd parties can garnish the greatest successes. I for one, support the idea of multi-major party races.

 

[holocaustpulp]

Bush loves that religion. He's taking funds from social programs and giving them to religious institutions; he's making it so the effort to curb AIDS doesn't promote condoms but rather abstinance, and thus enabling inexperienced rightist groups to receive federal funding on the basis of favoritism; he is opposed to gay rights and is presenting himself as the newly-formed and rethought bigot since the Jim Crow south (the segregation argument passed out of mainstream long ago - the Moral Majority and zealot evangelicals now have damned the Constitution by trying to stifle gays); he pays increasing attention to religious groups and heeds their advice on stems cells and abortions...

The First Amendment does not mean **** to Bush, and he has excessively shown this to be true. This doesn't necessarily signify one-party rule; Frist is too looney to go anywhere in the presidential debate, and the way things are looking it seems as if America will at least be inclined to vote for a centrist. But I even have my fingers crossed for that one.

- Holocaustpulp (doubting the sense of Americans)

 

[RightinNYC]

Bush loves that religion. He's taking funds from social programs and giving them to religious institutions; he's making it so the effort to curb AIDS doesn't promote condoms but rather abstinance, and thus enabling inexperienced rightist groups to receive federal funding on the basis of favoritism; he is opposed to gay rights and is presenting himself as the newly-formed and rethought bigot since the Jim Crow south (the segregation argument passed out of mainstream long ago - the Moral Majority and zealot evangelicals now have damned the Constitution by trying to stifle gays); he pays increasing attention to religious groups and heeds their advice on stems cells and abortions...

The First Amendment does not mean **** to Bush, and he has excessively shown this to be true. This doesn't necessarily signify one-party rule; Frist is too looney to go anywhere in the presidential debate, and the way things are looking it seems as if America will at least be inclined to vote for a centrist. But I even have my fingers crossed for that one.

- Holocaustpulp (doubting the sense of Americans)

Did you ever think that the reason he's allowing federal funding of faith-based charities is because they have an astronomically lower rate of recidivism than most secular charities?

There's nothing saying that all faith-based charities have to be right winged, hell, if leftist buddhists wanted to open a soup kitchen, they'd get the same funding as any other charity.

 

[ShamMol]

Did you ever think that the reason he's allowing federal funding of faith-based charities is because they have an astronomically lower rate of recidivism than most secular charities?

What is true for some is not true for others. But I also believe in the seperation of Church and state...you know, that annoying facet of our government.

There's nothing saying that all faith-based charities have to be right winged, hell, if leftist buddhists wanted to open a soup kitchen, they'd get the same funding as any other charity.

But there aren't any buddhist soup kitchens are there? Almost all the faith-based charities are right-wing.

 

[ludahai]

What is true for some is not true for others. But I also believe in the seperation of Church and state...you know, that annoying facet of our government.
But there aren't any buddhist soup kitchens are there? Almost all the faith-based charities are right-wing.

Oh, it's that fictitious "separation of Church and State" again. That wall was designed to protect religion from the government, not vice versa. If religious organizations are providing services, and oftentimes they provide it better than the government does, then they should get some help from the government to deliver those needed social services to people who need it.

 

[RightinNYC]

What is true for some is not true for others. But I also believe in the seperation of Church and state...you know, that annoying facet of our government.

...that's not actually part of our government. And faith-based organizations have been shown to be more effective pretty much across the board. Why not use what works?

But there aren't any buddhist soup kitchens are there? Almost all the faith-based charities are right-wing.

That's my point. The left wing rails against it, but then doesn't put their effort where their mouth is. Faith-based charity funding is NOT an endorsement of any specific religion, which is why it's been affirmed by the courts. If atheists wanted to start a soup kitchen, they're welcome to it...

Personally, if it was me on the left, I'd be a little more concerned about the fact that the right had a monopoly on charities. Looks kind of bad....

 

[LazarusLong]

what do you mean Clinton did not raise taxes on the rich? That was one of the first things he did when he took office. He raised the tax rate on people making over $100,000 in 1993 and the republicans used it by saying he raised YOUR taxes to take control of congress in 1994 (unless you made more than $100,000 your taxes did not go up but that did not stop the republicans). This helped bring down the deficit and set the stage for a balanced budget in the last few years he was in office.

However, except for the above, I actually agree with most of what you say particularly on nafta. that was a give away to corporate america at the expense of the working people in this country. Now they are getting ready to do it again with cafta. they say, "oh no, this will open up central american markets to american goods." give me a break, the entire central american economy is about equal to that of vermont. yeah that will produce a lot of trade for the us. what it really does is give corporate america another source of cheap labor where they can ship american jobs to.

 

[anomaly]

what do you mean Clinton did not raise taxes on the rich? That was one of the first things he did when he took office. He raised the tax rate on people making over $100,000 in 1993 and the republicans used it by saying he raised YOUR taxes to take control of congress in 1994 (unless you made more than $100,000 your taxes did not go up but that did not stop the republicans). This helped bring down the deficit and set the stage for a balanced budget in the last few years he was in office.

However, except for the above, I actually agree with most of what you say particularly on nafta. that was a give away to corporate america at the expense of the working people in this country. Now they are getting ready to do it again with cafta. they say, "oh no, this will open up central american markets to american goods." give me a break, the entire central american economy is about equal to that of vermont. yeah that will produce a lot of trade for the us. what it really does is give corporate america another source of cheap labor where they can ship american jobs to.

Clinton eased things considerably for the upper class. His tax raises are nonsubstantial, since he repetedly hurt the working man. It was Clinton who first had the idea of getting rid of worker pensions. He didn't reverse much of Reaganomics. Labor unions continued to get destroyed. He intensified 'free market' policy by deregulating businesses repeatedly. Worker wages throughout the 90s either fell or barely kept pace with inflation. Shareholders were placed above the workers, and news of wage cuts led to stock market gains. That is what Clinton was about. And because of that, the inequality levels in the USA steadily rose during the 90s. But I do apologize for my error.