Radicals own the Democratic party?

Scrubking

Scrubking

CAGiversary!
 
I read frontpagemag daily, it is nothing but a radical right wing site, dealing with the "evil jew hating muslims", and the "evil liberals" and their conspiracy to destroy america. If horowitz didn't run it no one would even pay attention. When they actually report something accurately let me know, I have yet to see it. You also realize that "we bought it statement" has little to do with moveon itself, it is saying that the people and grassroots organizations (including them) have taken it back, away from the corporations. While I don't think moveon should be making that statement (they may be a grassroots organization, but they are huge), they are clearly referring to "the people" and not themselves. Also though, I've seen the truly far left liberals, and they're not the democratic party.

I like your trick though, making it look like both quotes are from the same source. The top is linked to cnn and the bottom to frontpagemag, though this isn't apparent when reading your post.
 
I also like your trick though, making it look like both quotes are from the same source. The top is linked to cnn and the bottom to frontpagemag, though this isn't apparent when reading your post.
Click to expand...

Oh, you got me! I never would have thought that people would be able to tell where the links took you by simply mousing over. :roll:

While I don't think moveon should be making that statement (they may be a grassroots organization, but they are huge), they are clearly referring to "the people" and not themselves.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAhaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!111!!!!!!
 
Considering that when people talk grassroots organizations moveon is still mentioned as one (which is what it was founded as in 98), I don't understand what's strange about that comment. I'm not the only one who has referred to them as one, and until recently that is what everyone referred to them as.
 
The democrats are radical, the Republicans are radical, the parties are so screwed up now that they do not really speak for the people, and if they do everyone is ignorant about the topics, mainly because people either do not care about them, or do not understand the question. Massachusetts passed a bill saying that after 1 year English should be the only language taught in a school, two citys that are hugely hispanic voted FOR it, why would they vote for it when they are not going to teach their kids English. I didn't understand the wording of it, and I doubt they did either.

Political parties are a joke. We should have listened to George Washington, no to political parties and no to allieces. At least we followed one of them.
 
[quote name='David85']The democrats are radical, the Republicans are radical, the parties are so screwed up now that they do not really speak for the people, and if they do everyone is ignorant about the topics, mainly because people either do not care about them, or do not understand the question. Massachusetts passed a bill saying that after 1 year English should be the only language taught in a school, two citys that are hugely hispanic voted FOR it, why would they vote for it when they are not going to teach their kids English. I didn't understand the wording of it, and I doubt they did either.[/quote]

Maybe the hispanics in these cities felt that it was a good thing that their progeny would be forced to learn English. You know, English is actually a good language to know in America if you want to get a job that pays better then "Fry Cook" or "Janitor".
 
I don't see the democrats as radical, though the republicans are becoming increasingly radical with the religious right gaining more power, but in an increasingly conservative country this should be expected. If the moore, moveon, ted kennedy side gain power then the democrats will become radical, but not yet. Though, look to your north, the MODERATE party supports marijuana decriminalization and gay marriage, something our supposedly radical party doesn't support (as a whole anyway).
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='David85']The democrats are radical, the Republicans are radical, the parties are so screwed up now that they do not really speak for the people, and if they do everyone is ignorant about the topics, mainly because people either do not care about them, or do not understand the question. Massachusetts passed a bill saying that after 1 year English should be the only language taught in a school, two citys that are hugely hispanic voted FOR it, why would they vote for it when they are not going to teach their kids English. I didn't understand the wording of it, and I doubt they did either.[/quote]

Maybe the hispanics in these cities felt that it was a good thing that their progeny would be forced to learn English. You know, English is actually a good language to know in America if you want to get a job that pays better then "Fry Cook" or "Janitor".[/quote]


Why would they? They speak spanish and spanish is becoming the language of America, so what I need to do is learn spanish because of this bullshit. Bush is crazy enough, maybe he will make English the offical Llanguage of America.

The funny thing is the "fry cook" and "janitors" at my school all speak english in the spanish town.

After the polling, people from the same cities complained about the law being passed, they most likely didn't vote, but the ones that did most likely had no clue what it was asking.
 
[quote name='David85']Political parties are a joke. We should have listened to George Washington, no to political parties and no to allieces. At least we followed one of them.[/quote]

Wow, didn't know there was anyone else here that felt this way. Political parties suck.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I don't see the democrats as radical, though the republicans are becoming increasingly radical with the religious right gaining more power, but in an increasingly conservative country this should be expected. If the moore, moveon, ted kennedy side gain power then the democrats will become radical, but not yet. [/quote]

You don't think MoveOn, Moore and Ted Kennedy have power in the Democratic Party? You're clueless. Who sat next to Bill Clinton at the Democratic Convention? Who is the biggest liberal icon in the U.S. Senate? (it ain't Harry Reid) Who raised so much money they claim to "own" the Democratic Party? And money means a lot in politics, why else would George Soros be such a central figure on the left at this point?
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='alonzomourning23']I don't see the democrats as radical, though the republicans are becoming increasingly radical with the religious right gaining more power, but in an increasingly conservative country this should be expected. If the moore, moveon, ted kennedy side gain power then the democrats will become radical, but not yet. [/quote]

You don't think MoveOn, Moore and Ted Kennedy have power in the Democratic Party? You're clueless. Who sat next to Bill Clinton at the Democratic Convention? Who is the biggest liberal icon in the U.S. Senate? (it ain't Harry Reid) Who raised so much money they claim to "own" the Democratic Party? And money means a lot in politics, why else would George Soros be such a central figure on the left at this point?[/quote]

Look at the democratic parties policies, do they control it? No, that's what the article is suggesting. I meant gain power as gain control, not gain influence (though I can see how it appeared that way).
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='David85']Political parties are a joke. We should have listened to George Washington, no to political parties and no to allieces. At least we followed one of them.[/quote]

Wow, didn't know there was anyone else here that felt this way. Political parties suck.[/quote]

I'm so to the left on socail issues, like my gay marriage, aboration, and legaling pot.

But I was to the right on Iraq, and things of that nature, until Bush really fucked everything up over there. I supported going into Iraq, but now I think it was a mistake because the president was an idoit and rushed in without a plan.
 
[quote name='David85']I'm so to the left on socail issues, like my gay marriage, aboration, and legaling pot..[/quote]

Its funny how screwed up the liberal/conservative division has become. Although most people find this hard to believe, liberalism and conservatives are, in fact, not opposing positions. They are, in fact, quite compatible on most issues - or at least they are in theory. In reality, both positions have become absolutely corrupted to the point where they no longer resemble what they're supposed to me.

A quick definition of what the two viewpoints are:
Conservatism: The conservative viewpoint is that its best to maintain 'traditional' values. The exact policies that a conservative would champion varies from place to place (since not all places have the same 'traditional' values), but here in the US, it refers to what the founding principles of the US government were. Therefore, in the US, the theoretical values of a conservative are that smaller government is good, and that government should only have power over a few key things that are essential for a society to exist (national defense, keeping crime under control, minting money, etc.) If its not essential for national survival, its not the government's job.

Liberalism: The liberal viewpoint is that the greatest good comes from giving people as much freedom as possible. As long as you're not directly hurting someone else, it should be legal.

If you look at the two definitions, you realize how alike they are. They SHOULD agree on most issues. As I said, though, both sides have been corrupted and really no longer have much of anything to do with what they're supposed to me. A few examples...

Gun control: as long as you're not using a gun in a crime, the liberal position SHOULD be that you should have the right to own a gun, the exact same as the conservative position.

Legalizing drugs: The conservative position should, in theory, be that the government has no right to interfere with people's lives unless it directly threatens national security - drugs don't, and should therefore be legal under the true definition of conservatism, the exact same as the liberal position.

Gay marriage: The conservative viewpoint wouldn't like gay marriage, since its not a traditional value, but would recognize that government doesn't have the right to interfere with individuals personal lives or to push moral values onto others, and would therefore legalize gay marriage - exactly like the liberal position.

Abortion: This issue is a trickier one, since its a question of whether life begins at conception or not. The viewpoints are close, but not quite identical, and it depends on whether you think life begins at conception or not. Its a complicated topic, and since this post is already too long, I'm skipping it :)

Anyway, my point is that both political sides have very little to do with what their theoretical positions are supposed to be (and the political parties that are supposed to be the embodiments of those positions are even worse.) Its well past time to wipe them both out and start again...
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='David85']Political parties are a joke. We should have listened to George Washington, no to political parties and no to allieces. At least we followed one of them.[/quote]

Wow, didn't know there was anyone else here that felt this way. Political parties suck.[/quote]

I'm so to the left on socail issues, like my gay marriage, aboration, and legaling pot.

But I was to the right on Iraq, and things of that nature, until Bush really shaq-fued everything up over there. I supported going into Iraq, but now I think it was a mistake because the president was an idoit and rushed in without a plan.[/quote]

It doesn't really make a difference what your positions on issues are. Believing that political parties are bad for the country simply means just that, that their power and influence is a corrputing and detrimental one rather than a positive or even neutral force. Every time someone in Congress votes the party line instead of their conscience, that props up the party at the expense of the country at large.
 
Actually David your beliefs aren't so much leftist as they are Libertarian. It's a Libertarian standpoint to want to legalize drugs, keep government out of reproductive choices, keep government out of marriage issues etc. The whole party is dedicated to as little government interference in daily lives as possible.

I'm all for legalizing and taxing every drug known to man. I figure the Darwin Effect will weed out the hardcore users that splurge on pharmecutical quality cheap drugs and decriminalizing drugs has more benefits than I can list. Use the taxes to fund rehab for those who want it. The billions saved by states and feds housing mandatory minimum offenders will take care of many defecits. We can't continue incarcerating 2 million people annually at 30K per head.

Both parties have their faults. The Democrats are in the middle of the desert and don't know it yet. They are so far away from regaining anything, like the Republicans in 1964. It's going to take a Goldwater like defeat for them to change, 2004 wasn't enough. They are being marginalized by the moveon.org, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi wing of their party.

The Repbublican's biggest problem is that they aren't conservatives anymore. They've become tax and spend Great Society Lite spenders. There is no smaller government, there is no massive tax decreases to the Reagan levels, there are no spending caps, there are no efforts to get the entitlement monster under control. I'm disillusioned with what my party has become. They won't even tackle immigration and border security as part of making this nation safer.

Hell, I'm not one that wants to put up an Eastern Bloc fence and guardtowers on the Mexican border but if you don't have control of your borders, you don't have control of your country. If the fighting in Iraq hasn't shown us that danger in a clear and obvious way by now we are learning nothing from our latest military conflict.
 
They won't even tackle immigration and border security as part of making this nation safer.

Hell, I'm not one that wants to put up an Eastern Bloc fence and guardtowers on the Mexican border but if you don't have control of your borders, you don't have control of your country. If the fighting in Iraq hasn't shown us that danger in a clear and obvious way by now we are learning nothing from our latest military conflict.
Click to expand...

I say we lay a mine field across the border, or start sniping those illegals as soon as they get close enough. You'll see how they will stop coming.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
They won't even tackle immigration and border security as part of making this nation safer.

Hell, I'm not one that wants to put up an Eastern Bloc fence and guardtowers on the Mexican border but if you don't have control of your borders, you don't have control of your country. If the fighting in Iraq hasn't shown us that danger in a clear and obvious way by now we are learning nothing from our latest military conflict.
Click to expand...

I say we lay a mine field across the border, or start sniping those illegals as soon as they get close enough. You'll see how they will stop coming.[/quote]

Do you remember that old Pat Buchanan commercial, where they talked about secure borders?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

I'm all for legalizing and taxing every drug known to man. I figure the Darwin Effect will weed out the hardcore users that splurge on pharmecutical quality cheap drugs and decriminalizing drugs has more benefits than I can list. Use the taxes to fund rehab for those who want it. The billions saved by states and feds housing mandatory minimum offenders will take care of many defecits. We can't continue incarcerating 2 million people annually at 30K per head.[/quote]


You believe in Darwins "Theories"?!?! I'm amazed.

The parties are bastardized now to who knows what.

We should tax all drugs. I go to colege that has the 18th highest rated crime rate in the country and the city only has like 125,000 people. All the crime is started by people owing others for drugs, and whose drug area is whoses. It also is very high in AIDS cases. If the government in and sold drugs then they would stop the crimes, and give new needles to people when they do. No more drug crime and no more AIDS from needles.

Is anyone doing anything in the city? No, they rather make the crime streets that look trashy look better and get rid of the LEGAL dumps. I guess they think if they look better more people will come. But no one will because the roads are so badly designed and the crime is through the roof.

Governemnet officals are assholes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top