Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Democrats are spineless

kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 12:56:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am reading an article on MSNBC, and it says how the Democrats are going to revive the health care debate. Revive for what?...Everyone knows that on a grand scale the Democratic Party lacks testosterone. Even with a President in office, and the majority in Congress they can't seem to pass anything.

I sit back, and watch how most Democrats are, alot of the upper echelon factions that run the party are liberal intellectuals who believe their brain compensates for a lack of testicular fortitude.

President Obama seems to have great motives, but he is under stiff opposition, even with in his own party, never mind that the party of "NO" obstruct everything he does.

Figures such as Limbaugh, and Robertson are allowed to spew hate on air, and not be reprimanded.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 1:39:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's because the democrats are incapable of tackling any of the serious dangers posed by the Republican party, because they are defined by the exact same problems on an equal or larger scale. They alienate actual leftists by betraying any concept of liberalism (be it classic or modern)

The democrats are pro-war, pro-corporate bailouts, anti-gay marriage and run on donations from corporate powers.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 1:40:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Libertarian squabbling at its finest. I enjoyed this!
Hai Volkov. Welcome to your party.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 2:10:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 12:56:28 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I am reading an article on MSNBC, and it says how the Democrats are going to revive the health care debate. Revive for what?...Everyone knows that on a grand scale the Democratic Party lacks testosterone. Even with a President in office, and the majority in Congress they can't seem to pass anything.

I sit back, and watch how most Democrats are, alot of the upper echelon factions that run the party are liberal intellectuals who believe their brain compensates for a lack of testicular fortitude.

President Obama seems to have great motives, but he is under stiff opposition, even with in his own party, never mind that the party of "NO" obstruct everything he does.

Figures such as Limbaugh, and Robertson are allowed to spew hate on air, and not be reprimanded.

Eh, I would probably agree that they lack testosterone, but I wouldn't go as far as to call the m spineless! ;-)

(that was sarcasm by the way)
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 10:08:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 1:40:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Libertarian squabbling at its finest. I enjoyed this!
Hai Volkov. Welcome to your party.

I'm not a Democrat - I'm a Liberal. :D

I like Obama, but I don't necessarily like the Democrats. There is a big difference. If the GOP implemented some of the policies they spouted off about, especially Bob McDonnell tonight, then I'd vote for them.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 10:20:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:08:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 1:40:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Libertarian squabbling at its finest. I enjoyed this!
Hai Volkov. Welcome to your party.

I'm not a Democrat - I'm a Liberal. :D

I like Obama, but I don't necessarily like the Democrats. There is a big difference. If the GOP implemented some of the policies they spouted off about, especially Bob McDonnell tonight, then I'd vote for them.

What about when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize only to send more troops to Afghanistan a few months later? Because of that, I lost alot of respect for the man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 10:24:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:20:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
What about when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize only to send more troops to Afghanistan a few months later? Because of that, I lost alot of respect for the man.

Did you listen to his acceptance speech? Regardless of how flimsy the reason he got that prize was, his speech was exactly right: war is sometimes a necessary prelude to peace. I forgave him for accepting that Prize with that speech.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 10:26:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:24:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:20:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
What about when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize only to send more troops to Afghanistan a few months later? Because of that, I lost alot of respect for the man.

Did you listen to his acceptance speech? Regardless of how flimsy the reason he got that prize was, his speech was exactly right: war is sometimes a necessary prelude to peace. I forgave him for accepting that Prize with that speech.

As much as I despise the Taliban, sending more troops isn't going to stop them. Plus it's hypocritical, considering the US funded them to begin with all in an attempt to stop communism. better communism than islamic extremists I think...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 10:31:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:26:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
As much as I despise the Taliban, sending more troops isn't going to stop them. Plus it's hypocritical, considering the US funded them to begin with all in an attempt to stop communism. better communism than islamic extremists I think...

Just because they made stupid decisions in the past, doesn't mean they can't correct them now, especially considering that it came back to bite them in the arse. It might be hypocritical, but it is completely justifiable.

And while yes, sending more troops won't stop the Taliban outright, it will help. Afghanistan has been left out of the Washington agenda for so long that the fact it hasn't had any stronger troop levels has really hampered any progress on any front. So has the lack of forging a path on development aid, on political accountability, on ISAF unity... there are a lot of issues to be taken care of in order to make Afghanistan democratically stable. Troop levels is one of those things.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 10:55:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:24:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
Did you listen to his acceptance speech? Regardless of how flimsy the reason he got that prize was, his speech was exactly right: war is sometimes a necessary prelude to peace. I forgave him for accepting that Prize with that speech.

"[H]aving given Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King a patronisingly dismissive pat on the head, [Obama] adds: "But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation [Note: clearly he must have taken some secret version of the oath of office, because that's not what the public one says], I cannot be guided by their examples alone." And then he has the effrontery to propound a bizarro version of history in which, "for more than six decades," the united states has "brought stability," "helped underwrite global security," "enabled democracy to take hold," and "promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea." (I suppose this[1] would be an example of the u.s. promoting peace and prosperity in Korea.)" - Roderick Long[2]

[1] http://aaeblog.com...
[2] http://aaeblog.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 10:58:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:55:09 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"[H]aving given Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King a patronisingly dismissive pat on the head, [Obama] adds: "But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation [Note: clearly he must have taken some secret version of the oath of office, because that's not what the public one says], I cannot be guided by their examples alone." And then he has the effrontery to propound a bizarro version of history in which, "for more than six decades," the united states has "brought stability," "helped underwrite global security," "enabled democracy to take hold," and "promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea." (I suppose this[1] would be an example of the u.s. promoting peace and prosperity in Korea.)" - Roderick Long[2]

[1] http://aaeblog.com...
[2] http://aaeblog.com...

Oh look, an article based on bias and strawmans criticizing Obama. That's refreshing.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 11:05:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 1:39:00 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
It's because the democrats are incapable of tackling any of the serious dangers posed by the Republican party, because they are defined by the exact same problems on an equal or larger scale. They alienate actual leftists by betraying any concept of liberalism (be it classic or modern)

The democrats are pro-war, pro-corporate bailouts, anti-gay marriage and run on donations from corporate powers.

Domocrats aren't suppost to be Liberal anyway.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 6:41:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:08:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 1:40:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Libertarian squabbling at its finest. I enjoyed this!
Hai Volkov. Welcome to your party.

I'm not a Democrat - I'm a Liberal. :D

I like Obama, but I don't necessarily like the Democrats. There is a big difference. If the GOP implemented some of the policies they spouted off about, especially Bob McDonnell tonight, then I'd vote for them.

Liberal is nothing but a label trying to classify yourself apart from another group. There are only a few differences in Liberalism, and Conservatism.JMO
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 6:45:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:24:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:20:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
What about when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize only to send more troops to Afghanistan a few months later? Because of that, I lost alot of respect for the man.

Did you listen to his acceptance speech? Regardless of how flimsy the reason he got that prize was, his speech was exactly right: war is sometimes a necessary prelude to peace. I forgave him for accepting that Prize with that speech.

War has NEVER led to peace. I am so through with people thinking that war leads to peace. War leads to the dominant entity being the dictator of the lesser power. In the case of the US, we win wars, and build bases to squelch any future uprisings. War leaves a deep seated animosity. The human side of war is rarely seen. We bomb countries from thousands of feet above the ground, rarely do we see the full extent of the carnage.

American citizens are so misguided, and yes I think your statement is misguided. War solves nothing. Why have diplomats?
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 6:49:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:20:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:08:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 1:40:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Libertarian squabbling at its finest. I enjoyed this!
Hai Volkov. Welcome to your party.

I'm not a Democrat - I'm a Liberal. :D

I like Obama, but I don't necessarily like the Democrats. There is a big difference. If the GOP implemented some of the policies they spouted off about, especially Bob McDonnell tonight, then I'd vote for them.

What about when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize only to send more troops to Afghanistan a few months later? Because of that, I lost alot of respect for the man.

He didn't vote himself to recieve the Nobel Peace Prize. Was hew to disrespect the commitee and refuse it?
Obama just plugged into an already bogus political system. Americans go to the polls during the election cycles to vote for reps that forget about them after they are conditioned by the political machine in DC.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 6:51:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:26:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:24:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:20:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
What about when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize only to send more troops to Afghanistan a few months later? Because of that, I lost alot of respect for the man.

Did you listen to his acceptance speech? Regardless of how flimsy the reason he got that prize was, his speech was exactly right: war is sometimes a necessary prelude to peace. I forgave him for accepting that Prize with that speech.

As much as I despise the Taliban, sending more troops isn't going to stop them. Plus it's hypocritical, considering the US funded them to begin with all in an attempt to stop communism. better communism than islamic extremists I think...

Better neither one. The US is for these militant groups when they want to stage an uprising to put somebody that is favorable to US foreign policy, but they are enemies when they sway away. How can you stop a monster that you started?
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 6:54:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:31:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:26:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
As much as I despise the Taliban, sending more troops isn't going to stop them. Plus it's hypocritical, considering the US funded them to begin with all in an attempt to stop communism. better communism than islamic extremists I think...

Just because they made stupid decisions in the past, doesn't mean they can't correct them now, especially considering that it came back to bite them in the arse. It might be hypocritical, but it is completely justifiable.

Justifiable in what sense?Until we need to employ them again to do our bidding?



And while yes, sending more troops won't stop the Taliban outright, it will help. Afghanistan has been left out of the Washington agenda for so long that the fact it hasn't had any stronger troop levels has really hampered any progress on any front. So has the lack of forging a path on development aid, on political accountability, on ISAF unity... there are a lot of issues to be taken care of in order to make Afghanistan democratically stable. Troop levels is one of those things.

Who says that Democracy is for that country?...The people sitting behing desks pushing papaers in distant lands? If they really wanted to help them, they would have done more than bomb the hell out of them, than offer to rebuild the country.

War is most often than not fought by killing civilians on a mass scale.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 6:56:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
These are simplistic generalisations but liberals seem to believe what they do due to intelligence, logic and alturism. This gives them the idea that they have to justify their actions and policies to themselves, each other and the electorate.

They know they are right because they have done the maths, and they feel obligated to show people the truth.

This sadly makes them a little weak.

Conservatives believe what they do more so out of emotion, 'morality', and sometimes religion. Therefore dissenters are immoral, not merely ignorant but actually at fault, personally flawed, beneath them.

Such people don't need to be taught or persuaded, merely forced.

This makes Conservatives stronger leaders.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:07:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
@ Kelly

1. I am a Liberal, with a capital-L, for a reason - I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada. And there is a reason why American liberalism and conservative appear so alike - its because conservatism is simply classical liberalism, while "liberalism" today references modern liberalism. They share a lot of things in common, but there is still quite a lot of difference.

2. War has most certainly lead to peace. Had World War 2 not been fought, and the Cold War not run its course, modern Europe, with its many institutions designed at avoiding any other wars, would not exist. Had the surge in Iraq not been done, there would still be a virtual civil war going on - and had the US not gone into Iraq at all, this may have been avoided, sure, but by no means would it have guaranteed peace, especially with Saddam. Furthermore, had war not been waged domestically in places like Chile and the UnitedStates, divisions would have been sown even deeper and peace would have been almost unattainable. Don't give me crap pacifist lines when history is against you.

3. What is the better alternative to democracy in a country that Western forces have taken as their ward? Do you suggest we set up a dictatorship? Do you suggest we allow women to be abused and denied the chance to go to school? Do you suppose we should deny a voice to the citizens? What else are we supposed to do? Nothing, as you'd suggest?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:13:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 6:56:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
These are simplistic generalisations but liberals seem to believe what they do due to intelligence, logic and alturism. This gives them the idea that they have to justify their actions and policies to themselves, each other and the electorate.

They know they are right because they have done the maths, and they feel obligated to show people the truth.

This sadly makes them a little weak.

Conservatives believe what they do more so out of emotion, 'morality', and sometimes religion. Therefore dissenters are immoral, not merely ignorant but actually at fault, personally flawed, beneath them.

Such people don't need to be taught or persuaded, merely forced.

This makes Conservatives stronger leaders.

*ahem*

You contradicted yourself when you said liberals did things out of altruism, but were essentially weak for not having a moral base - altruism is inherently a moral question, not a maths one.

Secondly, most liberals I know, and certainly myself, do not base our ideology out of "the maths." We do it because we believe in the convictions of liberalism strongly, and with all the emotion you can muster. And to say that conservatives make better leaders than liberals is, like Kelly, ignoring history. I only need to point to reformers and leaders like Roosevelt, Trudeau, Gorbachev, and Obama, to show you strong liberal leaders that built their successes on emotions as well as maths.

So no - I don't buy such an argument at all. Liberalism is strong emotionally and systematically. Conservatism is too. So is socialism. Hell, any ideology is.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:19:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 10:08:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 1:40:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Libertarian squabbling at its finest. I enjoyed this!
Hai Volkov. Welcome to your party.

I'm not a Democrat - I'm a Liberal. :D

Your ideological party.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:20:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 7:13:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/28/2010 6:56:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
These are simplistic generalisations but liberals seem to believe what they do due to intelligence, logic and alturism. This gives them the idea that they have to justify their actions and policies to themselves, each other and the electorate.

They know they are right because they have done the maths, and they feel obligated to show people the truth.

This sadly makes them a little weak.

Conservatives believe what they do more so out of emotion, 'morality', and sometimes religion. Therefore dissenters are immoral, not merely ignorant but actually at fault, personally flawed, beneath them.

Such people don't need to be taught or persuaded, merely forced.

This makes Conservatives stronger leaders.

*ahem*

You contradicted yourself when you said liberals did things out of altruism, but were essentially weak for not having a moral base - altruism is inherently a moral question, not a maths one.


No, I did not say that liberals do not have a moral base, if anything they are weak due to the fact they have strong moralities developed in a specific way. The maths comment was metaphorcial.

Secondly, most liberals I know, and certainly myself, do not base our ideology out of "the maths." We do it because we believe in the convictions of liberalism strongly, and with all the emotion you can muster.

As a rule liberals tend towards being intelligent and educated (that is not to say there are no intelligent and educated conservatives), their position is intellectual, as a result they believe in it passionately because it appears correct.

And to say that conservatives make better leaders than liberals is, like Kelly, ignoring history. I only need to point to reformers and leaders like Roosevelt, Trudeau, Gorbachev, and Obama, to show you strong liberal leaders that built their successes on emotions as well as maths.

It's a tendency, and Gorbachov and Obama are not what I would call strong leaders.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:21:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 7:19:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:08:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 1:40:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Libertarian squabbling at its finest. I enjoyed this!
Hai Volkov. Welcome to your party.

I'm not a Democrat - I'm a Liberal. :D

Your ideological party.

Like I said - I would vote Republican if they put someone I'd like in place. Like Mitt Romney, back when he was Governor. Hell, I'd probably have voted for Bob McDonnell if I lived in Virginia, I like his ideas.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:23:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 7:21:10 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/28/2010 7:19:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/27/2010 10:08:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/27/2010 1:40:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Libertarian squabbling at its finest. I enjoyed this!
Hai Volkov. Welcome to your party.

I'm not a Democrat - I'm a Liberal. :D

Your ideological party.

Like I said - I would vote Republican if they put someone I'd like in place. Like Mitt Romney, back when he was Governor.
Supporting Demoblicans doesn't mean you have any less in common with Democrats ideologically. It just means you pay attention.

Hell, I'd probably have voted for Bob McDonnell if I lived in Virginia, I like his ideas.
Which ones?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:26:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 7:20:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No, I did not say that liberals do not have a moral base, if anything they are weak due to the fact they have strong moralities developed in a specific way. The maths comment was metaphorcial.

Ah, alright, fair enough. My apologies for the confusion.

As a rule liberals tend towards being intelligent and educated (that is not to say there are no intelligent and educated conservatives), their position is intellectual, as a result they believe in it passionately because it appears correct.

But is that not the same for any ideology? I mean, few could claim that people like Lenin, Trotsky, Burke or even the nutty people that thought up the Natural Law parties weren't educated nor didn't believed in what they did because it appeared correct. I understand your point about the difference between, shall we say, intellectual conviction versus emotional conviction, but I don't think it applies as singularly to liberalism as is believed. I mean, I'd like it to be, but I can't bring myself to think it.

It's a tendency, and Gorbachov and Obama are not what I would call strong leaders.

Obama has yet to prove himself - Gorbachev was more of that "reformer" line, though he was a fairly strong leader until the later years.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:32:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 7:23:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Supporting Demoblicans doesn't mean you have any less in common with Democrats ideologically. It just means you pay attention.

Hehe.

Which ones?

His energy and environment plans I enjoyed listening/reading about - something I think we here should take a look at; his political reform stuff was appealing, and his jobs creation programs were top-of-the-line. I could go back to his website and pick out more, if you want. He reminded me of Ignatieff.

Mind you, I get it - Demoblican.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:34:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
B/c it is a party that is run by women...

Some in my area would say.

I think that for a while there they took some harsh punishment in elections and they are really trying to do better for the people. They try extremely hard to be about the people and uplift them.
Do they fail, sometimes. Do they succeed sometimes.

They are not spineless, they are just trying to do what is best for "The People" sometimes that means compromise and sometimes that means taxes.
Is it right, not to them.