All-Out WAR?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Rabbi

member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
1,532
Location
TN
No, not the military kind.
The Wall St Journal reported this morning (Thurs) that many in the Democratic Party are wondering how to avoid losing in national elections, yet again. Many want the party to declare an all out war on the Republicans, no holds barred dirty obstructing etc etc. The argument against this is that people might be turned off by this behavior (interestingly no one argued that such behavior would work against their sworn jobs as public representatives). Putting off Rice's confirmation seems to me like one small step there.
But I think the Dems are in the late stage of serious trouble. Virtually all of their successes came from Big Government intervention: fighting the Great Depression, WW2, Civil Rights, regulations to govern pure food and drugs, etc. You can take issue with any of these for a variety of reasons but I think they are regarded, with some good reason, as successes.
But that kind of Big Government thinking is very unpopular today. We all know what Reagan said and most people agree with that.
Without issues that Big Government can solve the Dems will be a party without a purpose.
Thoughts?
 
I wonder how they intend to distinguish themselves from the big government, big spending Republican Liberals such as G. W. Bush.

If the Dems had a clue they'd stress their relative fiscal conservatism under Clinton vs. Bush's astonsihing runup in non-military Federal spending.
 
I agree. Personally, I am disgusted with both parties having childish battles that block any real solutions to problems. They are more concerned with re-election at any cost as compared to the country's issue. While carrying on about Rice is childish, I am firmly convinced that if the situation is reversed, the Republicans would act in the same manner.

Neither party really cares what they pass or do as long as the elected class gets re-elected.

Bush is already waffling on issues that his base care about. His AG prattles about the AWB and Bush backs down on gay marriage. Just setting up the soccer mom vote for 2008.

The country would be better off without either parties' hacks. A clean sweep and two parties that really care about their values would be better than this monied crowd of elites that really use social issues to hoodwink the voters such that they get back to the DC party scene.
 
It may look bleak, but compared to so many other nations we still got it made.

You could be living in Iran or France, for that matter.
 
It is possible that the spectrum of definition from arch-liberal to arch-conservative is shifting back to the right. If the individuals making the most noise about political "war" are on the fringe of definition, I would strongly suspect this to be true. They stand to lose the most credibility, from arch-left to lunatic fringe, by a change in definition.
 
"All out war?"

I gotta laugh at that one.

The left and the Dems are desparately trying to convince themselves that they've got some sort of reserves left to tap.

The reality is that they went full out in the last election, making a maximal effort using everything they had, and came up short.

They're bankrupt in ever sense of the word except financial, and they're going through great gesticulations to avoid confronting that reality.
 
Both parties in my old person opinion seem to be moving more to the left all
time, I guess my thought is how far before they fall off. :(
 
I agree with wingman. They are both headed to the left wing abyss as fast as they can. The Democrats will win that race, they are self-destructing. Which is good, except that when they are extinct there will be no stopping the Republicans. Higher government spending, higher taxes, open borders, submission to the United Nations and (just to keep this gun related!) further destruction of the Second Amendment.

grumble
 
There's always a balance, or in this case: An imbalance. It seems as though the once honorable Democrat Party has been hijacked by the Michael Moore left wing of self-serving hidden agendas. I feel sorry for the good Democrats out there, but maybe they'll be the ones who carry the torch forward. That's probably their only hope.
I, personally, am a Conservative Republican. I find RINO's to be the worst of the worst. They've hijacked the Republican Party, which does no one any good unless you consider being an ineffective leader with irrelevant agendas to be a good thing.
From my observations, I see good Republicans offering a hand of working together and I see good Democrats speaking up. I doubt that the inner struggles will ever subside, but the more good Republicans and good Democrats the better.
OK, I'll run for office again.
 
BOTH parties better realize why their are there, and WHO they represent....in all of their turff battles....who suffers ? the people !! if either party discounts the facts and logic of the issue, and makes trouble because of party affiliations...then they belong in another line of work.
 
Both parties have spent many many years passing out entitlements. At first they started out relatively small. As time went by more entitlements were required to keep the fat money sucking population happy. Now both parties are wondering how to keep the ball in the air. I really hope I'm alive to see the spectacular crash.
 
Gem

Personally, I am disgusted with both parties having childish battles that block any real solutions to problems.
Click to expand...

This statement presumes that gov't is the solution to problems. By and large, it is the CAUSE. Personally, I think that it is great when there is gridlock. Remember, whenever the gov't acts, we get screwed. The less it does, the better off we are. I would think that the mid- to late-90's would have proven that. The vampires were busy fighting each other so much that little was passed, letting the economy chug along nicely, resulting in large surpluses.

We should pay Congressmen and Senators $10 million year each to stay out of session, except when it comes to appropriations for the Department of Defense and the various intelligence agencies. The country would be far better off.
 
Sam,
There is a legitimate role for government and things it can do better than anyone else. Do you really want highways built by GE or Enron? Do you want Haliburton directing the Iraq war?
There are also many many areas where gov't has gotten involved and it has been terrible. But it is a common occurence for the media to report some problem or issue and then people demand that gov't step in to solve it. I think they ought to say NO more often on that.
 
I feel sorry for the good Democrats out there, but maybe they'll be the ones who carry the torch forward. That's probably their only hope.
Click to expand...

These "good Democrats" like Bush, Pataki, Schwartzenegger, are beginning to form the core of the Republican Party. I predict the real conservatives will bolt to the Constitution Party at some point leaving a clearly leftwing and shrunken Democratic Party, a large moderate-left Republican Party in control, and a small Christian-conservative Constitution Party.

Look for the Greens and Libertarians to grow also.
 
Do you want Haliburton directing the Iraq war?
Click to expand...
Nope. I don't even want the U.S. Government directing the Iraq war. I want them protecting the borders, evicting illegals, scaling down their own size, taking less of our money, etc., et yada.
 
I predict the real conservatives will bolt to the Constitution Party at some point leaving a clearly leftwing and shrunken Democratic Party,
Click to expand...
You would do better predicting snow in VA in August.

People will not go to the Constitution Party (which no one outside of Internet chat rooms has ever heard of) because they are ineffective and impotent. Not unless the Republicans end up with a real anti-religious zealot, and I dont see that happening.
Conservatives will stick to the Republican party because thats where the power is and with any luck they will influence party positions.
The left may or may not desert the Dems. Just depends on whether they get a better offer elsewhere.
 
You would do better predicting snow in VA in August.

People will not go to the Constitution Party (which no one outside of Internet chat rooms has ever heard of) because they are ineffective and impotent. Not unless the Republicans end up with a real anti-religious zealot, and I dont see that happening.


Lots of folks here know the Constitution Party. I wonder why they chose that name, since they are religious nuts, and not so much concerned about constitutionality of issues. FI, they were all up in arms about that camera clown Roy Moore here in AL. Why the hell I should have to read THOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME everytime I go to the courthouse to renew my business licence, or the constitutionality of using my State's property to advance the cause of Moore's Almighty God (like say, blowing up abortion clinics 90 miles from said State sponsored religious rock) doesn't concern them so much as making sure Moore's right to make sure that I acknowledge his bloodthirsty god isn't infringed upon.

I'd like to see these kinds of people leave the Republican Party. Get rid of them stop catering to their disproved notions that abortion is murder, and homosexuals somehow represent a threat to our very way of life, and I'd consider voting for the GOP for an office higher than county sheriff. But only if they take Bill Frist with them when they go.

Some people can't understand why I vote to preserve the rights of women and gays (of which I am neither) above preserving my own RKBA. The reason is because I believe I am perfectly capable of preserving my own RKBA by demanding liberty or death, shooting whoever would come to take them. I can't very well do the same thing with abortion rights or gay rights (unless I adopt the tactics of the right and start bombing churches and Right to Life organizations). So I put other people's rights before mine because IMHO the system that we have now makes me choose one or the other.
 
The Rabbi

There is a legitimate role for government and things it can do better than anyone else. Do you really want highways built by GE or Enron? Do you want Haliburton directing the Iraq war?
Click to expand...

There absolutely is a role for government in our (or any) society - I'm no anarchist. However, the role of our gov't is spelled out quite clearly in the Constitution. That role is quite limited, and the problems caused by gov't are almost entirely in the areas not mentioned there. That's why I want there to be gridlock - because then the non-essential stuff goes somewhat by the wayside and the essential stuff (i.e. Constitutionally mandated) gets done. I don't mind (and, in fact, prefer) that the gov't do anything related to foreign or military policy, as well as the entire court system (among other areas) - I wouldn't trust any single person or private entity to do that right or fairly.

As far as highways go, I see nothing wrong with privately owned toll roads. If someone, or even some entity like GE or Enron or Haliburton, decided to pony up the bucks to buy land, build a highway and keep it clean and safe, then if the road goes where I'd like to and the price is reasonable, I'll take it and pay the toll. This country has a long history of private toll roads, stretching back to before the Revolution, and I see nothing wrong with them.
 
Rabbi, I follow your point, but you could certainly find better examples.

All highways are privately built; government money merely pays the independent contractors.

Private corporations build nuclear power plants for both civilian and USN use.

Ever fly in an airplane?

Halliburton started out as a "doodlebug" outfit, looking for possible oil-bearing formations. By doing quality work and meeting deadlines, they grew. Finally bought Brown & Root. Kept growing, from quality work and meeting deadlines. Even with political connections, the work must meet specs.

Art
 
Art,
You are certainly right that I could have picked better examples. But private firms do not decide where roads should go. Thats a gummint decision. Foreign policy, the military, and a host of other issues really are best resolved in and by government. I believe it was Lincoln who decided the standard gauge of a railroad. But as pointed out, a lot of things that shouldnt be have crept in because it is in the nature of organizations generally to seek more and more power. Anybody involved with a Jewish Federation will understand this immediately.
 
I'm with Roland, on some things anyway.

I really don't have a party affiliation, but I have been leaning towards republican in the last few years, simply because of RKBA. I really don't know where I stand politically, party wise anyway.

I am not real religious, I believe in a higher power, with a Christian stance, but don't take 'religion' too seriously. I am pro-choice, only because I don't believe in preventing people from doing something that I should have no say in, because I don't feel it's right. Everything should be an individual's choice, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

I have no problem with immigrants, but I do have a problem with illegals. I don’t really care if “In god we trust†is on our currency, or where ever else “god†is written. If you believe, believe, else, don’t and shut up and leave it be.

I want a Gov. that stays out of the lives of the people, and lets them be… so long as the people don’t infringe on the rights of others.

Cyanide
 
...I think the Dems are in the late stage of serious trouble.
Click to expand...

Really? Honest?

Without issues that Big Government can solve the Dems will be a party without a purpose.
Click to expand...

Government doesn't solve problems: it merely redistributes blame and squanders tax dollars going through the motions of talking about problems. There's no hope for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party.

What the nation needs are five or six fiercely competitive, clearly defined political parties to take the place of the Democan and Republicrat parties.
 
What he says

I agree with Naders' view of the two major political parties!
"DUOPOLY" as he describes them, seems to be the right discription!
Stop voting for the lesser of the two evils, because there isn't a hairs
worth of difference between either. Very similar to george Wallaces' attitude!
Here they commeth- "The Liberal intellegencia and neocons" They'll go to any means
to rob me of a legal place at the ballot-Where there should have been a clear
and sane choice for the voters there is nothing but a choice between Industrial/military Laviathons. Who in the Hell is going to accept that?
Well, I guess we are! Trying to shove this down the throats of others
may prove to be a whole different
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top