No!no!no!no!

[sweetnpetite]

I don't care if you are in the majority, you are still wrong!!!!!!!

(just venting some frustration from those who say liberals should 'give up there ideals' because the majority of the country doesn't agree. I just read a letter to the editor saying as much and I think it's one of the stupidest things anyone could say.)

Would the christians give up there ideals if they were in the minority? Would they abandon there beliefs and values for unity? I think the answer is obvious.

Sweet

aparently a part of the liberal elite, blinded by my irrational idealism.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... liberals should 'give up there ideals' because the majority of the country doesn't agree ...

That’s about as dumb as saying, “Earth has more ocean than dry land, so let’s all breathe water.”

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

S&P,

No one should give up all their ideals and beliefs just to win an election. That's true whether the person is liberal, conservative or, like me, a militant-middle-of-the-roader.

And no one individual or group has any moral authority to claim that other Americans must accept 100% of their agenda. Bush didn't win because of "liberal beliefs" but due to certain, specific elements of that belief.

A vast number of voters believed their conservative, "religious beliefs" were being submerged by politically correct, "liberal beliefs" and that resisting this perceived trend was more important than their economic well being.

Liberals have two choices: risk staying in the out-of-office wilderness, self-righteously decrying the "boobs and boobettes" in middle America, or try to understand their values and address their needs.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[BigAndTall]

Does that mean compromis is out of the question?

 

[Edward Teach]

Liberals are not in the minority.

They are in the majority.

They just didn't vote in large enough numbers.

 

[fifty5]

I don't care if you are in the majority, you are still wrong!!!!!!!

...

Would the christians give up their ideals if they were in the minority? Would they abandon their beliefs and values for unity? I think the answer is obvious.

Sweet

But Sweet, they ARE in the minority!

Not to mention that if you truly "love your neighbour as yourself" you can't avoid being liberal, whether or not you believe in JC as The Son Of God.

The majority often is wrong, which is to be expected, since, by definition, half the population has an IQ below 100.

Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan - Samaritans were a despised minority too!

Stick with it, Sweet - you keep on loving your neighbour! Even if you don't win elections, you'll keep your self-respect.



Eff

 

[cantdog]

Does that mean compromis is out of the question?

Yep. Some is.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Does that mean compromis is out of the question?

I suppose it depends.

We comprimised on slavery for a while- was it the right thing to do?

I think a marriage/domestic partnership comprimise might be in the best interest of those concerned, considering that if we don't let the all out opposition divide the rest of us into two camps, we will have a needed majority to get something done. (whole other topic)

Comprimise is for polititians. The rest of us are allowed to have as extreme of an opinion as we want. Even if we are in the (voting) minority.

I should find the editorial that set me off and post it here, to be fair.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Now that the election is over and George Bush won, perhaps we can move on to becoming a more productive and prosperous nation.

Hopefully, we can gradually move toward a nonfossil-fuel-based economy. In the same motion, maybe we will find a way to free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil and labeling it a war on terror.

Such a change would create jobs in the future. This job creation would increase commerce, improve education, cheapen the cost of insurance and perhaps improve our values and way of life.

We need to unite and advance toward these goals. This may mean that many Democrats will have to accept that much of America does not accept their ideals. Maybe they will learn that believing your way is the only way and that incessant complaining, without any detailed plan or offering toward change, is foolish.

and this one:

This election will perhaps be remembered most for the defeat of liberal ideology. America rejected the candidate who would have brought a dangerous progressive agenda to the White House. Make no mistake, this was an election between a conservative president and a liberal challenger, and the American people chose the former.

The political map of this nation is overwhelmingly red and it represents red-blooded, God-fearing Americans who desire a return to the traditional values upon which our nation is built. This will consequently mean conservative appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who will adhere to the Constitution, rather than liberal appointees who follow their own activist views.

Clearly, this is what the electorate has indicated it wants.

If Democrats continue their dishonorable obstruction of the president's judicial nominees, they can expect to pay for it once again next election for working to thwart the will of the American people.

and on another note:

this one was just plain misinformed-

Voters in 11 states affirmed what most Americans know intrinsically to be true: The only rational way to regard marriage is the way it has been regarded for thousands of years. This now makes 17 states since 2000 that have rejected the attempts of gay activists to alter marriage.

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=opinion

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Does that mean compromis is out of the question?

My father told me to compromise my demands, but never compromise my ideals.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Now calm down!

When Clinton won I didn't hear anyone yelling about how America has gone overwhelmingly liberal and rejected conservative values once and for all.

The pendulum swings both ways.

---dr.M.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Now calm down!

When Clinton won I didn't hear anyone yelling about how America has gone overwhelmingly liberal and rejected conservative values once and for all.

The pendulum swings both ways.

---dr.M.

I know doc,

It was just a temper tantrum.

but actually, I think what you just said is the exact point. we didn't say that, but somehow they think we did- but they really are saying this now, and the people in power are making the same claims.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I promised to quit the political threads for a while, but I thought this might be worth posting.


http://www.markfiore.com/animation/depressed.html

 

[matriarch]

I promised to quit the political threads for a while, but I thought this might be worth posting.


http://www.markfiore.com/animation/depressed.html

Very good.

 

[oggbashan]

What I find interesting is the 'friendship' between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.

Prime Minister Blair makes Kerry look like a conservative Republican. His party's manifesto would make even many Democrats blink because of its radical socialism (by US standards).

He has banned all handguns. He is likely to ban hunting shortly and ownership of even a sporting shotgun requires a licence. Even anglers are getting worried that they are next on the hit-list.

He supports a National Health Service and is pouring money into it as if there is no tomorrow. He 'doesn't do God' - how would that go down with the President?

Our policemen have to fill in so many forms if they arrest someone that they try to avoid it unless absolutely necessary. Our armed police have refused to carry guns because they can be tried years afterwards for a split-second decision.

Do you want to swap Bush for Blair?

Og

PS. No we don't want Bush, but if we got him our Civil Service would drive him nuts. It works and ignores politicans as much as possible.

 

[cantdog]

Bush for Blair, what a concept.

All his "down-homey" Texasisms would fall a bit flat, then, I daresay, and you are completely right, the civil servants in Britain would make him crazier than a shithouse rat in a matter of months.

Blair would find himself politically isolated (even more than he is now) and the direction of the American Empire might take a beneficial change. British or no, a President is not far from a Dictator as the Right has interpreted the constitution. The office wields extraordinary powers and hardly informs Congress or the public what it has done.

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

...British or no, a President is not far from a Dictator as the Right has interpreted the constitution. The office wields extraordinary powers and hardly informs Congress or the public what it has done.

Change 'President' to 'Prime Minister'; 'Right' to 'Left' and 'Congress' to 'House of Commons' and the statement is true of Blair as well.

Og as jeanne or vice versa - nearly as difficult as swapping Bush and Blair.

 

[cantdog]

Such is the age in which we live. The mass of people hang on the lips of the men on high, who lie to them and enrich themselves. The culture falters, the international culture resembles the posturing of bullies and the caws of crows. I read the daily and weekly papers, the articles in Harpers' and other such publications, from a hundred eighty, two hundred years ago, and blush for my age, which has lost so much of the understanding of the idea of a civilization and the concept of a republic with its hope for improvement of the lot of man.

They mistrusted banks and watched corporations for abuses, they discussed the implications of the franchise and the advantages, in celerity of decision, accruing to the monarchy. De Toqueville beheld the Jacksonisn era and saw clearly both its immense potential to empower the people and its deplorable plebeian tendency. A bumpkin president, a bumpkin cabinet, a bumpkin bench, a bumpkin nation, he said, in so many words. The last hurrah of Jeffersonian anti-federalism before the claws of the wealthy strangled it.

Limbaugh, today. The Daily Mirror, all to amuse the ignorant and distract them from their responsibilities. Huxley cast it in Beta and Gamma terms, but it is happening just the same.

Where do they put their penises, that's the important thing. Bush has integrity, they said, over and over. Integrity.

 

[fifty5]

Change 'President' to 'Prime Minister'; 'Right' to 'Left' and 'Congress' to 'House of Commons' and the statement is true of Blair as well.

Og as jeanne or vice versa - nearly as difficult as swapping Bush and Blair.

Shit!

Misread that as bush and hair - and got confused...

Eff

Oops, sorry, this was supposed to be serious...