Top 12 reasons Liberals, Progressives and the lost art of being a true Democrat, Vote the way they do !

What is up my eville corporatist scoundrel???

:-)

Atta boy!!!

:-)

Now get back to work, I need the money!!! And if we do not cross paths tween now and then; May you and your family have the Merriest of Christmas's my friend. We will be thinking of you all here in Snowville.

of the democrats I know of...that list pretty much sums them up....of course like you said....some differneces....but very minor I might add.

its accurate as hell.....but if you do not agree...then please state your case...you are arguing without providing evidence to the contrary...make your case...and we will make ours.

peace.

Druswid: Think that they are true???? Sir one has only to listen to those pillars of intellectual dishonesty like NPR, PBS, MaddCow, Bill dumb@!$%# Maher, and a list of other contradictory liberals to know the absolute truth of the statements in this piece.

Okay, so why do I have to be informational? All you did (at least it sounds like it to me), like I said, was regurgitate points from talking heads that aren't even necessary factual in and of themselves, they're just what many conservatives have been told to believe of liberals. If you're forming your opinions based on what the media is telling you, then you aren't taking it from the most important source, which is your every day interactions with people. And honestly, would anything I actually really change your mind?

My guess is that you're set in your way of thinking, and that you'll just find something in what I say to nitpick about and say, oh, you're just like my idea of everyone else. Well, poo on that. Also, I think by posting this, you're enjoying being inflammatory against liberals, because somehow, liberals hurt you terribly and you're angry with them, even though, aside from liberal politicians, most of us are every day people just like you, and you don't seem to be able to see that. But, you know what? I'll humor you a little, and I'll address a few of your misconceptions.

1) Let's talk taxes. Now, it isn't that I believe the government will spend my money better than I will, because there are things that are going on that I don't want them to spend my money on, such as the wars. I don't want any wars, I want us to pull back and stop fighting people and stop wasting that money. What I feel is the best use of my tax dollars is upkeep of infrastructure, such as the highway system, the forestry department, keeping clean water going, etc. The country does need money to run, and we do have to help pay some of it. Also, letting tax cuts expire isn't raising taxes, it's returning them to previous, pretty normal levels.

2) The reason I don't own a gun is because I'm a pacifist, and I live in a pretty safe town. If I wanted a gun, I'd take some training classes and go get a gun, but it isn't something that I worry about, because I don't believe in living in fear. Maybe I have that luxury, because I'm in a good area, I just don't feel I need a gun at this point. Maybe some day I will, just in case. I don't feel the need to restrict other peoples access to guns, unless they've got a history of mental illness or some such.

3) Freedom of speech; I believe in freedom of speech for everyone, but I don't think that death threats and gun sight analogies, etc. are alright. There is no need for violent rhetoric, it is overblown. I don't use it myself, I don't think anybody, liberal or republican should be using it. I realize that there are going to be people who use more fiery language than I do, and that's their right, I just believe that there is a certain point where people cross a line, but otherwise, pretty much anything goes.

4) Why would I ever think the Constitution should be rewritten? The Constitution may be amended if enough people vote on it, but it is not in constant need of revision. I especially don't need it rewritten to suit my tastes.

5) The oil thing is tricky... having our own sources of oil would be better, and if it helps get us out of foreign wars and countries, I'm for it. However, I think it would also be great to more away from a dependence on oil to more alternative, safer sources. Oil is not in unlimited supply, and just look at the disasters resulting from oil spills. The Gulf oil spill is still in recent memory.

6) Illegal aliens; there's a solution to that. Companies hire illegals because they can pay them far less than they pay citizens; if you nationalize the illegals, you have to pay them the same amount. Then you make them take mandatory English classes, or you deport them. If they're not illegal, there's no problem.

7) On the abortion issue, I am pro-choice, not because it pleases me that unborn babies get aborted, but because I believe that unless I am the father in question, someone else's child is not my concern in the least, and they should be free to do what they will. That's what freedom is about, having the choice to decide for yourself. When that choice is stripped away, freedom is lost, and that isn't alright. Also, I have no need for keeping death row inmates alive, but I would not be the one to flip the switch and take another person's life.

Anyway, that's not your entire list, but I feel those are the key topics... take it in, see what you think.

2) The reason I don't own a gun is because I'm a pacifist

And that is YOUR choice....The Dem side, especially the far left, generally want to take that choice away from you permanently. They want to FORCE you to not have a choice in the matter.

6) if you nationalize the illegals, you have to pay them the same amount.

No they won't. They will get fired and replaced by other illegals. Hence the need to fine/jail the employers of illegals.

Thanks for that, Greg. You asked, and you received. Sometimes initial indignation gets in the way of thoughtful discussion.

Only one problem Drus..... I do not subscribe nor listen to to hive, thank you. I have listened to each and every hypocrite I listed and I stand by my summation. Assumption kills more intelligent responses than censorship Drus. And please spare me the "I can only go by your words and make the appropriate response..." routine. It is boring repititous and intellectually dishonest. You should have asked first. That would be a measure of true intelligent debate. You see it is only through assumption that you were able to extrapolate so much response to so little comment. Sad.

Druswid,

If I may I would like to address at least one thing you stated in your above post.

Freedom of speech; I believe in freedom of speech for everyone, but I don't think that death threats and gun sight analogies, etc. are alright. There is no need for violent rhetoric, it is overblown. I don't use it myself, I don't think anybody, liberal or republican should be using it. I realize that there are going to be people who use more fiery language than I do, and that's their right, I just believe that there is a certain point where people cross a line, but otherwise, pretty much anything goes.

What you posted above (bold by me) is a direct confirmation of the presumption of the articles #3, which reads:

I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as
nobody is offended by it.

The point that was attempting to be made by the above is that others right to speech is allowed as long as I agree with what is being said but not so when I feel what is being said is not acceptable.

In you post you clearly have said that you agree with freedom of speech except when it crosses some self-defined line and then at that point it is now subject to limitation. That thought that you are expressing is exactly what the point of #3 was trying to say.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

If taken as read the amendment allows for the freedom of all speech and that is regardless of it's content. What is not contained in the amendment is a prohibition on legal avenues that can be sought to recoup damages incurred as a result of that speech, this is, as far as I understand, open to be pursued in a court matter provided the case has merit.

I would like to point out that while I did, in fact, say that I disagree with anyone using violent rhetoric, I nowhere stated that I thought that there should be some kind of limitation on it. People are free to use any kind of violent rhetoric which they would like to use, and are therefore free to look as barbaric using said violent rhetoric as it makes them. I mean, honestly, tell me, are you really down with death threats? Also, I did make use of the phrasing where I said I thought people crossed a line, but crossing a line does not mean limitation. You took my words in a different way than I meant them.

Druswid,

You took my words in a different way than I meant them.

I was attempting to point out that this is what the notion of the #3 in the article was directed at. I attributed to you the notion of limitation and that was incorrect, I am sorry about that. My comment was not intended to do the blame game, it was to indicate the validity of the notion behind #3 and how easy it is to be guilty of doing just such a thing.

I mean, honestly, tell me, are you really down with death threats?

No not at all. And per your explanation I see that yours was an expression of your disdain and not a call for limitation. I wonder if there would be a possible remedy from the court for matters of hate speech in which the offended party felt threatened by the speech, without limiting the freedom of speech?

Good catch and the rebuttal is good too...problem is, we have very little choices other than these two....

I voted Republican, because since 1969, only Republicans balanced the budget. And, since 1913, the Republicans have balanced the budget for more than 3 years in a row twice. Not once did Democrats balance the budget for any sustainable period in that same time period. Republicans are the only ones to truly show fiduciary responsibility. They understand that we have to not only think about today, but tomorrow, next week, next month, and 30+ years down the road. Democrats are only thinking about the next election and getting re-elected. They really don't care about our children, grandchildren, etc. Democrats don't care about those WITHOUT a voice, instead they only care about those they can con into voting for them by pandering.

Not quite true tom-

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

To clarify, congress authorizes the budget. Between 1955 and 1981 Democrats held majorities in both chambers of Congress. From 1981 - 1987 republicans controlled the Senate, while Democrats held onto the House and then regained the Senate while holding controlling the House as well from 1987 -1995.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_republican_president_balanced_a_budget#ixzz1g3hfhIbs

Clinton just fudged numbers and had a surplus on paper. Hard to say we were ahead when we were already in the hole. That slick "fact" drives me nuts. And regardless of it's truth or not, congress speedily spent it all for the ink was dry.

Rachel,

You assumed that I was making the case about the Presidents. I was making the case about the House and Senate, which were REPUBLICAN in 1920-1930 and 1998-2001, when we had the budget surpluses. The Presidents don't matter as they can only draft a budget and have a Representative ally introduce it or veto it when it gets to their desk. Everything else is done by the House and Senate in preparing a budget.

tom-

I don't assume...never have, never will. That's why I posted the entirety of the section that was pertinent:

To clarify, congress authorizes the budget. Between 1955 and 1981 Democrats held majorities in both chambers of Congress. From 1981 - 1987 republicans controlled the Senate, while Democrats held onto the House and then regained the Senate while holding controlling the House as well from 1987 -1995.

Surplus budget in 2001 that was blown....

Greg- according to my very LIBERAL hubby, yes...this one:

4. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a
gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from
murderers and thieves. Even though, in Chicago last year, for example, guns were banned, but they still had over 700 murders...mostly by guns.

He's been a hunter, a police officer and is still a gun owner. #4 is patently false of many liberals....it is true for the fanatics, but, not liberals....

Sure, I disagree with plenty of the list. I just don't typically argue logical fallacies. Especially when the author seems so convinced of their position, regardless of the logic (or lack of) involved. The generalization present is enough to rule it out, based on this logic, but I appreciated the read, so I figured I would offer the counter-view of one of my online disucssion friends. I know, my using fallacious logic is "two wrongs make a right", but I just didn't feel the need to defend myself, as an independant who leans Democrat, against attacks that are so fallacious.

As cliche as it sounds, if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns. The lessons of Prohibition and the "War" on Drugs should have shown people the light by now...

My biggest complaint is those that say the POTUS wants to take our guns...I can't understand that, when he's the one that signed the legislation to allow guns on Federal lands.

Extremes, no matter the subject, side, ideology, are dangerous!!

I think Fast and Furious and the coming UN agreement are more than enough to back up the statement about Obama wanting more gun control. He was the one who said when the time came, things would be done under the radar.

In addition, the New Jersey Democrats are still arguing that the 2nd ammendment infringes on the states right. Illinois still fights it as well. I haven't seen him mentioning anything about these infringements.

Yes, I read the title. However, every point is geared toward "Democrats" rather than "Liberals" or "Progressives" and why "Democrats" voted that way. I have voted Democrat for about a decade now. As such, when you state that you are informing me as to the Top 12 reasons I vote the way I do, my curiosity kicks in.

Besides, you forgot #13. I'm black. He's black. I obviously voted for him because he is black, right? Heh. Tongue-in-cheek on that one, but... if the shoe fits, right?

Just being a smartass, but...

Nah, color only comes into a political conversation when you have nothing to say.

I kind of thought the rest of your list was the same thing...

I disagree that there was any sort of paradigm shift in the party anytime recently. Could you be more specific with regards to who you are talking about? I disagree that the Democratic party has turned any more Progressive or Liberal than it was 2 years ago. Could you reference what issues you're referring to, in which the Democrats took exception with and replaced their leaders?

Either way, thanks for the convo.

RACHEL, the idea that Obama wants to take our guns away comes from his own mouth in the 2008 Democratic primary, when he said that Rural Pennsylvanians and Midwesterners cling to their guns and religion. I didn't quote it as I'm not sure if I am paraphrasing or actually quoting him, but that was the essential message. Having lived most of my life in rural PA, I was offended by that.

tom- yet, he's the one that sign the law to allow them into National Parks...

Ya know, hubby was born and raised in rural NM and he didn't like the gun portion of that statement, yet, he didn't hold a grudge for three years...and, Obama was talking more about the mentality of some, than of taking away guns...

Not at all, but I've gotten the message that only republicans are allowed over-zealous weapons comments. One does get tired of hearing how only republicans support the 2nd amendment.

Moderate democrat here and fully support 2nd amendment.

Thank you for illuminating me. I'll vote DEMOCRAT too.

Also ridding himself(Obama) of those pesky constitutional limits will help as well.

Reality

I am sure that you meant allowing all the bush tax rate cuts to expire as that is what need sto happen

Obama chose to extend tax cuts for the rich against former President Clintons recommendation. Because of this huge Obama mistake, American economy and jobs sit in stagnation. At the end of 2012 Obama will heed Clintons advice.

Contrary to republican belief, the rich do not create jobs. No business person, democrat or republican is going to invest into their company nor hire more employees in a bad economy. Doing so defies logic and sound business practice.

Reality

You are preaching to the converted

I want all the tax rates to expire and revert to the Clinton levels.

Let them stay there until the debt is cut in half or real tax code reform is completed whichever comes first.

Eliminating all deductions, credits, adjustments and loopholes will accelerate two things - paying down the debt and Congress enacting comprehensive tax code reform

Don't hold your breath.....you'd be dead long before that happens.

stumpjumper

You are likely correct, but I have trouble seeing a situation where some of the rates are preserved and some are not

I just cannot see that happening, it seems that it will be all or none that go away