If Democrats Don't Win this November...

DOCTOR Berman,

You have lost your moral bearing, and any standing you might have had here as an authority on anything, due to your crude, hateful and violent post advocating nuking California and its citizens, and surrendering its cities to an enemy. Even if you attempt to pass it off as a "joke," it is sick and vile. Sir, have you no shame?

You no longer deserve a response to any of your ideas, having revealed yourself as a crackpot.

I'll save this message and repeat it whenever it seems appropriate. I don't care if I am in a minority of one.

It'll be one small voice against such insanity.

 

Yeah thats the ticket, let the stock market tank. While a dem is in offce (like the last time).

I have to agree with jmccord's statement, I think most people are fed up with both parties (corruption, lies & seeking their own agenda) wait that sounds like corprate america...

We need a for the people person, in office. One that doesnt take from the rich and give it to the poor, one that can tax everyone the same, one that can cut certain budgets and reduce the cost of spending, one that can reduce those being paid 100k or more a year to 60k. One that can do that would surly be elected into office and everyone would be happy until one of the parties shot him/her......

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Oct 12 2006, 09:30 AM) [snapback]331750[/snapback]</div>

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Read this post and, after translating it into English, consider that this is the caliber of the majority of the brain-trust that is supporting the runaway train of our present government.

Even the Evangelicals will be jumping ship when the new book hits the stands on Monday. We've all been played for suckers.

Want to try again?

 

"We need a for the people person, in office. One that doesnt take from the rich and give it to the poor"

Translation:

We need a for-the-people person in office, one that doesn't take from the rich and give it to the poor"

Now, does this make sense? A for-the-people person would be one who does not favor the rich. A person who "doesn't take from the rich" would be a for-the-rich person - ie. George Bush. So a president who exempts the rich from taxes (Bush) must increase taxes on everyone else, and is therefore not a for-the-people person. Got it? Muddled thinking, muddled writing. What a bore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 12 2006, 09:58 AM) [snapback]331762[/snapback]</div>

OK. Got it.

We should take from the poor and give to the rich. Oh, like we do now.

My French is better than his English and I only took it in school, never lived there.

 

We need a for the people person in office. One that doesn't take from the rich and give it to the poor, but rather taxes everyone according to what they make.( they do that now I know) If you make more than 100k a year you should pay more on your taxes, (the money should be used for what its intended, not giving it to those who refuse to work, like missusing welfare). (This would save billions) A person that can cut certain budgets in half (find cheaper ways to get it done) and reduce the cost of spending, you know the spending the left is always complaining about, As an example: 5k for a hammer is a little much, A person who would have those high paid persons pay more taxs on their salaries 100k and above a year in areas like the white house, senate, supreme court. One that could do all that would surely get elected no matter what party they were for..

There I edited it for ya..

I wonder was there a lot of finger pointing during the great depression??? Wasn't Roosevelt (dem) in office?
I guess only the repubilcans were pointing... <_<


Daniels post below hits the nail on the head... I have to agree with Daniels statement.. :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 11 2006, 09:57 PM) [snapback]331567[/snapback]</div>

That was Lincoln. P.T. Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute. He was right, at least as regards the electorate. Anybody who believes the election promises of either party is a sucker.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 11 2006, 12:58 PM) [snapback]331330[/snapback]</div>

There never has been, and probably never will be, a politician with a tenth the wisdom or a thousandth part the honesty of Lear's fool.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 12 2006, 04:51 AM) [snapback]331612[/snapback]</div>

The marketplace is a very powerful force, and can be ignored only at our peril. But the "direction" it always and inevitably steers us in is the concentration of economic and political power in fewer and fewer hands.

The marketplace is very good at producing goods and services at lower prices. But it is a complete failure at providing the basic necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) to those who need them. The result is that we have good products for the rich, while an ever-growing number of people are homeless or lack routine preventative medical care.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 11 2006, 01:14 PM) [snapback]331339[/snapback]</div>

Political parties have one goal and one interest: to get elected and to stay in power. Lincoln and Douglas argued about what they believed. JFK and Nixon told the people what they thought would get them elected. Today the parties conduct scientific polling to learn what the voters want to hear, and then hire speechwriters who craft that data into speeches designed to get votes. The party that does this most effectively gets elected. (Skewed a bit by electoral fraud on both sides: the side that does it most effectively gains an advantage relative to the first tactic.) Lately, the Republicans have done the job more effectively and fooled more people into voting for them. In the 60's the Democrats were better at it and fooled more people into voting for them.

The Democratic party has adopted the strategy of moving as close to the Republicans as it can: i.e., moving to the right as the Republican party moves to the right. It (D) has assumed that everyone to the left of it will vote for it, seeing it as less evil than the R. What foiled it in the last 2 presidential elections is the fact that as it moves to the right, it loses people on the left, who see it moving so far to the right that there is no longer enough separating it from the R to justify their supporting it. While it blames the leftist voters for "jumping ship," it has only itself to blame for moving too far from its former base.

Meanwhile, as the D has crowded as close as it can to the R, the R has invented the brilliant strategy of accusing the D of being "extreme leftist." This strategy works because the voters are, in Barnum's word, suckers, and will believe anything thrown at them.

But in the end, the only thing that has changed in either party is their election strategy. They both continue to stand for the same thing they've always stood for: personal greed for money and power.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Oct 11 2006, 06:34 PM) [snapback]331444[/snapback]</div>

Just wondering...who authorized you to speak on behalf of "Americans"?

I suspect that the people who are most concerned about being perceived as a weakling and not having (ugh, how crass) "big brass ones" -- either individually or on a national level -- are the same ones most insecure about their masculinity.

But, heck, I could be wrong.

 

Daniel,

Your heart is in the right place. Lose some of your cynicism and don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The only workable goal is to make the world better, not ideal. We don't live long enough and we have to think of ourselves and our families at some point. Good people actually exist outside of your circle.

Read "Le Petit Prince" ("The Little Prince.")

The fox had it right. "Rien n'est parfait. Je chasse les poules, les hommes me chassent" ("Nothing is perfect. I hunt chickens, men hunt me.")

Sad but true. You'll have to learn to live with compromise if you don't intend to put a bullet to your brain someday.

 

The OP's point is borne out by what happened in British politics over the last 10-15 years. The Tory government of the 80s was losing respect by the truckload on so many points, but the Labour party failed on three occasions to dislodge them, being considered even worse by the people. The only solution was a re-invention of the Labour party which took the form of a very strong leader, a desire by the party members to swallow their disagreements in order to actually achieve the common goal, and a strategic and sizeable jump towards centre ground.

Since 1997, with a very strong PARTY leader (making no claims on 'national leadership' about which Americans seem concerned but is in fact a terribly vague and somewhat flawed concept) the Labour party has occupied a very dominant position with the Tories floundering. Recently though, Labour has suffered much criticism and weakening of its united front, and the Tories are re-inventing themselves much like Labour did previously, with a move towards centre ground.

The deep irony here is that we have a third party that has always occupied centre ground, the Liberal Democrats, but people don't vote for them because 'well, they're the Lib-Dems, aren't they?' People perceive that they are the third party and will never win. This despite most people's feelings on policy match the Lib-Dems more closely than either of the two bigger parties.

That's democracy for you

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 13 2006, 02:40 AM) [snapback]332151[/snapback]</div>

"The only workable goal is to make the world better, not ideal. We don't live long enough"

Exactly right. I said the same thing in a previous post about "incremental improvements". I heard some good news today - what a great change from blood, death, waste and carnage. A guy started a bank for poor people 30 years ago with $27.00. He now helps millions of poor women support their families. The Nobel committee thought it was pretty good too. He won the peace prize.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6047020.stm

"Unleashing of energy and creativity in each human being is the answer to poverty." Prof Yunus."

Life is really short. On your deathbed, the only question that matters will be "did you make the world a bit better, or did you make it worse?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 12 2006, 11:40 PM) [snapback]332151[/snapback]</div>

My view, which you are free to disagree with, is that voting for the D makes the world a worse place, not a better one.

We all must decide for ourselves which compromises are worth making, and which are morally unacceptable. Voting D is a compromise I find (for myself) morally untenable.

Actually, I have voted for individual Democrats, and I have (less often) voted for individual Republicans. But these were unusual individuals who I did not view as being reprsentative of their parties. Supporting one party to keep the other out of power, in my opinion, is a compromise with the devil (to use a figure of speech) and not a constructive compromise.

I hope you will forgive me if I don't use your criteria for deciding whether or not to kill myself. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 13 2006, 05:43 AM) [snapback]332180[/snapback]</div>

I see no substantive argument or information in your post. Just a list of issues you think I'm wrong about. Thank you for that informative list.

If those are the only issues you think I'm wrong about, then you and I agree more closely than I do with most of my friends.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Oct 11 2006, 06:34 PM) [snapback]331444[/snapback]</div>

What a laugh .
John Kerry is a decorated war hero.
He runs against Bush who was AWOL from his responsibility to fulfill even his draft avoiding training.
Arnold Swartzenegger is a pretend macho who runs against decorated Vietnam Veteran Grey Davis.
Its not that the Democrats are weak.But the public is gullible and easily conned by chickenhawks.
Hi all,
Im new to the group.Im especially enjoying reading the political forum.
My SO just bought a 2006 red#3 (full tax credit).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Oct 14 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]332816[/snapback]</div>

Welcome to the fray, mojo. And congrats on your SO's new car!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Oct 14 2006, 04:25 PM) [snapback]332816[/snapback]</div>

Speaking of gullible, one of the most disgusting and appalling things I saw during the 2004 presidential campaign were the individuals happily and proudly wearing bandages with little purple hearts on them at the GOP national convention. Here are people gleefully supporting a guy who weaseled out of overseas duty by openly ridiculing a military honor awarded to someone who actually served in a Vietnam combat zone. The Swift Boat Veteran's group really did their job.

Of course, this was topped by the fact that there were, apparently, a majority of voters who, at worst, fully supported this kind of shameful display (quite obviously orchestrated by Karl Rove) or, at best, weren't fazed in the least by it and voted for Bush, anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 12 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]331781[/snapback]</div>

Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wiat wait....

Just now saw this.

Please, tell me where you're getting your facts. What a riot. You musta forgot that Clinton left a budget SURPLUS.

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

Hey, maybe this is why the color for Democrats is blue and for Republicans it's red!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 12 2006, 06:51 AM) [snapback]331612[/snapback]</div>

Now, this one's really interesting, because how would the pollsters have any way of knowing a priori who they were canvasing? So, in other words, if this is really true, it tends to indicate that 60% of the voting public are democrats.

Or did you make this up too? (Prove me wrong by providing your source.)