Dems Seem Lost... let me help!

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
In the wake of Massachusetts electing Scott Brown, the Democrats seem a bit confused on direction. Some of them are obviously still going through the shock of it all, and haven't fully realized what it meant. On the day after the election, the President's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, explained how it was obviously frustration which had spilled over from Bush, Obama would later back that idea up himself. Howard Dean says it's because Obama hasn't been liberal enough, and he didn't ram health care through quick enough or aggressively enough. But even other democrats like Lanny Davis, think Obama needs to be 'pivoting' to the middle, and changing focus to jobs and the economy.

So it's obvious, there is a fractured party in complete disarray at the moment... searching for some ideas and possible directions to go, before the ship sinks entirely in November. Being the conscientious citizen I am, I have decided to bestow my brilliance upon the Democrats, in order to help them find their way again....

First of all, don't let it get you down, keep plowing ahead with your socialist agenda. I'm sure it's just a matter of the packaging, people just haven't understood your message. Maybe Obama should write a book... he's good at that, right? Or if he doesn't have time, maybe he can get Bill Ayers to write it for him, like he did his other book? Anyway, who writes it won't be important, it will just be an outline of your entire liberal agenda, you know.... what do you call those things? Oh yeah, a manifesto! Nice European sounding name, huh? So, you have Obama pen the Liberal Manifesto!

Now the great thing about this is, Obama can go on a nationwide 'book tour' and talk about the book and stuff, and it will take everyone's mind off what is going on in their everyday lives. Oprah could follow him around doing those little 'mock' interviews, like Diane Sawyer, and people could see Obama in his true element. This publicity would garner interest in the Liberal Manifesto, and people would come to know the greatness of everything Liberal! As the crowds gather, Obama could deliver speeches where he pounds his fists hard on the podium and screams like a madman to the crowd... people eat that up! He could say some really cool phrases, like... From each according to means, to each according to need! And the crowds will cheer!

The next thing.... Put some posters up! Not little campaign fliers, but huge portraits on the sides of buildings, all across America! In larger cities, you may also erect a statue of Obama. The event of the unveiling for these things, would be a great time to bring the children in, have them sing songs of praise to Obama, that always touches people's hearts!

I have a hunch, if the Democrats follow my advice, they will have all kinds of success with it!
 
The racist like you are happy, and the moderates like me are happy. His own base the turbo-libs are mad as hell cause he's not liberal enough.
Yes, Obama has cluster fucked larger than any of you idiots would have guessed or hoped for!!! Why?
Gay rights, The war flag battle cry of the tiny turbo-lib enclave of San Fransico. They care passionatley and they make up a smidgion of the country. Religious blacks shot it down in Cali and that wasn't a large enough message.
Obama will continue to piecemeal bribes to the jilted middle class, independents and non rich repubs. Is he mortally wounded, it's always the economy. He'll need better than average GDP to get out of the fox hole he dug for the non existant war.
I won't go into what he should have done, as his self inflicted wound is obvious enough.
 
If the pubs put up an non religious moral True financial conservative he/she will win in 2012. If its hucklberry or any other social conservative.. I refuse to vote for them.

Signed Chapdog. Suburban MA Independent.
 
Chapdog said:
If the pubs put up an non religious moral True financial conservative he/she will win in 2012. If its hucklberry or any other social conservative.. I refuse to vote for them.

Signed Chapdog. Suburban MA Independent.
Click to expand...

Conservatives will always fail without social conservatism. Sorry that I disgust you; get over it.
 
You don't disgust me. I just don't think its govt job to pimp social opinions with govt money.
 
My "opinions" are based in centuries of trial and error of right verses wrong. Like punishing those who kill their young, and not allowing modern society to pervert traditions.
 
Im financially conservative and socially liberal. I will try to vote closest to that. Mccain was total opposite; financially liberal and socially conservative. Id just like to see a true fiscal conservative regardless of party.
 
I can't tell you how many times I've heard folks claim to be "financially conservative and socially liberal". It is a fashionable term because of Hollywood culture, but like all fashions, will be obsolete in time.
 
Chapdog said:
You don't disgust me. I just don't think its govt job to pimp social opinions with govt money.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a degree, but I think you make a detrimental mistake in culling social conservatism from the conservative ideology. You essentially cut the 'heart' out of conservatism. It's not that we need a 'preacher' running for president, but we do need someone who has core conservative values, and these include social conservative values, like right to life.

How can you have the convicted belief that we are "endowed by our Creator, certain unalienable rights" if you don't believe in a Creator? Not calling your religious faith into question, but it's just not possible to have both views. Now, if you don't believe in a Creator, then you presume the rights we have are given to us by man, which means that man can also take those rights or change them as he sees fit.

This being said, many hard core social conservatives go too far with it. By this, I mean they allow their religious compassion dictate policy, which leads to them not being very good fiscal conservatives, we saw this with Bush. The trick is finding someone with a balance, who can articulate the message of fiscal conservatism, make the connection to social conservatism and respect the values it brings to the table.
 
Chapdog said:
Im financially conservative and socially liberal. I will try to vote closest to that. Mccain was total opposite; financially liberal and socially conservative. Id just like to see a true fiscal conservative regardless of party.
Click to expand...

Id really like to see that also... While I am not 100% economically conservative, I am 100%+ socially liberal and am likely to vote for the most socially liberal canidate out there... Generally its the Democrat by a long shot.
 
Dixie said:
I agree with you to a degree, but I think you make a detrimental mistake in culling social conservatism from the conservative ideology. You essentially cut the 'heart' out of conservatism. It's not that we need a 'preacher' running for president, but we do need someone who has core conservative values, and these include social conservative values, like right to life.

How can you have the convicted belief that we are "endowed by our Creator, certain unalienable rights" if you don't believe in a Creator? Not calling your religious faith into question, but it's just not possible to have both views. Now, if you don't believe in a Creator, then you presume the rights we have are given to us by man, which means that man can also take those rights or change them as he sees fit.

This being said, many hard core social conservatives go too far with it. By this, I mean they allow their religious compassion dictate policy, which leads to them not being very good fiscal conservatives, we saw this with Bush. The trick is finding someone with a balance, who can articulate the message of fiscal conservatism, make the connection to social conservatism and respect the values it brings to the table.
Click to expand...

I belive we have a creator and that we are endowed certian rights by that creator.... I am a SOCIAL LIBERAL.
 
Dixie said:
I agree with you to a degree, but I think you make a detrimental mistake in culling social conservatism from the conservative ideology. You essentially cut the 'heart' out of conservatism. It's not that we need a 'preacher' running for president, but we do need someone who has core conservative values, and these include social conservative values, like right to life.

How can you have the convicted belief that we are "endowed by our Creator, certain unalienable rights" if you don't believe in a Creator? Not calling your religious faith into question, but it's just not possible to have both views. Now, if you don't believe in a Creator, then you presume the rights we have are given to us by man, which means that man can also take those rights or change them as he sees fit.

This being said, many hard core social conservatives go too far with it. By this, I mean they allow their religious compassion dictate policy, which leads to them not being very good fiscal conservatives, we saw this with Bush. The trick is finding someone with a balance, who can articulate the message of fiscal conservatism, make the connection to social conservatism and respect the values it brings to the table.
Click to expand...

Separation of church and state is your answer to how a conservative can be socially liberal. Besides you and I both know that many of the conservative convictions are conjured up by BS money making schemes by campaign contributors.. as example how is marijuana anti religious? I get the whole right to life argument but I also have an opinion that one poor teen who cant get an abortion due to law and winds up having a kid and living in poverty the rest of her life could have been averted had she gotten an abortion then went to college started a good family and had 3 new kids. why should the latter three kids right to life be taken away. Its all sort of grey zone what if type stuff SO on that issue I fall back to personal rights.
 
Chapdog said:
Separation of church and state is your answer to how a conservative can be socially liberal. Besides you and I both know that many of the conservative convictions are conjured up by BS money making schemes by campaign contributors.. as example how is marijuana anti religious? I get the whole right to life argument but I also have an opinion that one poor teen who cant get an abortion due to law and winds up having a kid and living in poverty the rest of her life could have been averted had she gotten an abortion then went to college started a good family and had 3 new kids. why should the latter three kids right to life be taken away. Its all sort of grey zone what if type stuff SO on that issue I fall back to personal rights.
Click to expand...

Oh don't break-off that racist pinhead so soundly
 
Chapdog said:
Separation of church and state is your answer to how a conservative can be socially liberal. Besides you and I both know that many of the conservative convictions are conjured up by BS money making schemes by campaign contributors.. as example how is marijuana anti religious? I get the whole right to life argument but I also have an opinion that one poor teen who cant get an abortion due to law and winds up having a kid and living in poverty the rest of her life could have been averted had she gotten an abortion then went to college started a good family and had 3 new kids. why should the latter three kids right to life be taken away. Its all sort of grey zone what if type stuff SO on that issue I fall back to personal rights.
Click to expand...

There is no separation of the principle that we are endowed by our Creator, that is the basis and foundation for the Constitution and our form of government. Matters solely concerning religion shouldn't be the business of the state, and matters solely concerning government shouldn't be the business of the church, that is ALL that was EVER intended by "wall of separation." This is an insidious undermining of our founding principles, and you are falling into the trap of believing it.

Again, perhaps it boils down to a fundamental difference of belief, we are either endowed rights by our Creator, or we are granted rights by man. If you believe the later, then your foundation for conservatism has been compromised, and your fiscal conservative ideology fails. Suddenly, our rights are in jeopardy from the progressives, and they can make the moral justifications for changing our rights, because you've admitted they are changeable by man, and not endowed by our Creator.
 
Dixie said:
There is no separation of the principle that we are endowed by our Creator, that is the basis and foundation for the Constitution and our form of government. Matters solely concerning religion shouldn't be the business of the state, and matters solely concerning government shouldn't be the business of the church, that is ALL that was EVER intended by "wall of separation." This is an insidious undermining of our founding principles, and you are falling into the trap of believing it.

Again, perhaps it boils down to a fundamental difference of belief, we are either endowed rights by our Creator, or we are granted rights by man. If you believe the later, then your foundation for conservatism has been compromised, and your fiscal conservative ideology fails. Suddenly, our rights are in jeopardy from the progressives, and they can make the moral justifications for changing our rights, because you've admitted they are changeable by man, and not endowed by our Creator.
Click to expand...

Government lacks authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this is something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. - John Locke

For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority.

These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top