Democrats Say Rice Misled About Iraq War

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I tend to disagree because history demonstrates they have pretty much always been moderate. I think there have always been more moderates than liberals and that they make up the bulk of the D party I certainly agree that the R party has grown bolder than is used to be in its willingness to assert the far religious right's agenda, but the same could be said for the D's and the far left. I support this by using gay marriage as an example. That issue is generally seen as far far left and less than 15 years ago there is not way it would have been raised to the extent it has been Same thing in the right for the Partiot Act stuff (though most of that was available via RICO and other statutes that have been around for a very long time now). Thus, I think the far ends of each party are trying to assert themselves and are name calling the moderates. Having said that, the country as a whole has grown more conservative.

Food for thought

This is a somewhat retorical question, is it the inherent nature of a bi-partisan system to become polarized, each side moving far away from the other?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

This is a somewhat retorical question, is it the inherent nature of a bi-partisan system to become polarized, each side moving far away from the other?

Well, I think it is more cyclical. I also think that events like 9/11 tend to make it lurch to the right because, to analogize, an angry (justifiable or not) mob has no conscious

But, I think most D's are moderate and for the most part always have been - I think the voting history as a whole of the D party since the 70's shows that. I also think that as issues like abortion became more stylized over time, it tended to make moderates look conservative to the far left.

For example, what parent would not want to know if their 13 year old daughter is having an abortion? I get that the parental notice is tricky because some of those abortions are from parental abuse. But, the far far left screams about this not so much for that valid exception (even with an escape clause for abuse situations), but because they see it as a slippery slope argument in that it is just one more incident of the far right trying to chip away at the right to choose. Is is conservative to vote for a parental notification? I do not think so. Does it violate Roe v. Wade to require parental notification? I do not think so. AND - I think that is not that conservative of a position Yet, I am sure to most far left people I just commited blasphemy

Food for thought

[SuzeQuze]

That's a tough one because if identifying with the young girl, which I once was, I would NOT want my parents to know. But if I were the parent I would ABSOLUTELY want to know. I don't know what the answer is. I would say not to require notification just because it isn't part of the larger issue, keeping it legal and accessible when required. I don't know, this issue hurts my brain. I just think people, even young girls, should have a choice regarding this. I feel for any parent who finds out after the fact their little girl went through this. But imagine if your parents are very conservative and would send you away or something if they found out? The girl should have the ultimate say over her body, even if a minor.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I know nothing about Obama other than he is being packaged as the bright new up and comer in the party. I wonder if he is being groomed for bigger things?

I hope to hell isn't. I cannot stand him. He makes my skin crawl almost as much as Bush. Truly phony and annoying.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

That's a tough one because if identifying with the young girl, which I once was, I would NOT want my parents to know. But if I were the parent I would ABSOLUTELY want to know. I don't know what the answer is. I would say not to require notification just because it isn't part of the larger issue, keeping it legal and accessible when required. I don't know, this issue hurts my brain. I just think people, even young girls, should have a choice regarding this. I feel for any parent who finds out after the fact their little girl went through this. But imagine if your parents are very conservative and would send you away or something if they found out? The girl should have the ultimate say over her body, even if a minor.

I agree to an extent, but the law is children have to have parental consent for any other kind of surgery If the fetus is effectively nothing more than a pesudo-appendix because it is not viable but for being in the mother and a child must have parental consent to remove the appendix - I am unsure why abortion is any different. Moreover, a parent can make their child undergo a surgery the child may not want This is just such a difficult area. In the end, I am for telling the parents solely because I think parents have dominion over their children in that they are responsible for them - but I think there are always exceptions.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I hope to hell isn't. I cannot stand him. He makes my skin crawl almost as much as Bush. Truly phony and annoying.

You like maybe two of well over 500 in FFederal Govt. leadership Hmmmmmmmm

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You like maybe two of well over 500 in FFederal Govt. leadership Hmmmmmmmm

I like many, just not the majority.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You like maybe two of well over 500 in FFederal Govt. leadership Hmmmmmmmm

That sounds about right... Though it may be one more than deserves it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I like many, just not the majority.

You are SO called out - NAME THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please note that when I asked you a similar question you responded that you liked Snow, Ford (who no longer is in power), and maybe another. But, this is a diff question, so let's hear what your definition of "many" is

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You are SO called out - NAME THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please note that when I asked you a similar question you responded that you liked Snow, Ford (who no longer is in power), and maybe another. But, this is a diff question, so let's hear what your definition of "many" is

The previous question was what Republicans I liked. Snowe and Ford were the only ones.

As for who I like now? Sure.

Boxer
Leahy
Kennedy
Conyers
Kucinich
Cantwell (depending on the weather, but it's usually stormy)
Jeffords
Mikulski
Chafee (I have respect for him, not his politics)
Snowe (ditto)
Sheila Jackson Lee
Barney Frank
Corinne Brown (how could I forget her?)

Shall I go on? I could be here all night, especially if you want me to list politicians from my state.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

The previous question was what Republicans I liked. Snowe and Ford were the only ones.

As for who I like now? Sure.

Boxer
Leahy
Kennedy
Conyers
Kucinich
Cantwell (depending on the weather, but it's usually stormy)
Jeffords
Mikulski
Chafee (I have respect for him, not his politics)
Snowe (ditto)
Sheila Jackson Lee
Barney Frank
Corinne Brown (how could I forget her?)

Shall I go on? I could be here all night, especially if you want me to list politicians from my state.

That was one of the last questions

That is hardly many - to me many would be like 150 our of the 600 or so currently in Federal Office (House, Senate, Cabinet, etc.) - but I am glad you like some. I like those as well, but think they are not as effective as the moderates. But, I like them all the same.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That was one of the last questions

That is hardly many - to me many would be like 150 our of the 600 or so currently in Federal Office (House, Senate, Cabinet, etc.) - but I am glad you like some. I like those as well, but think they are not as effective as the moderates. But, I like them all the same.

If I was looking for effectiveness, I'd be saluting the Republicans, not Democrats. But, alas, effectiveness was not the basis on which the question was asked.

If I wanted to support moderates, I'd be supporting the Democratic party. I don't and I'm not, so I'm no longer a Democrat. Their middle-of-the-road bull**** has got to end or it will be the death of their party. And it will happen soon.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

If I was looking for effectiveness, I'd be saluting the Republicans, not Democrats. But, alas, effectiveness was not the basis on which the question was asked.

If I wanted to support moderates, I'd be supporting the Democratic party. I don't and I'm not, so I'm no longer a Democrat. Their middle-of-the-road bull**** has got to end or it will be the death of their party. And it will happen soon.

But, my point was when has the Democratic Part ever been anything but moderate at least since say FDR. When have they EVER supported the liberal (and I mean LIBERAL - not today's Fox News definition of it) agenda. I suggest it never really has and has in general been made up of moderates for a long time

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, my point was when has the Democratic Part ever been anything but moderate at least since say FDR. When have they EVER supported the liberal (and I mean LIBERAL - not today's Fox News definition of it) agenda. I suggest it never really has and has in general been made up of moderates for a long time

That isn't the point. And surely you wouldn't even SUGGEST that the Democrats aren't jumping ship and swimming to the right side of the island.

The point is that with the rise of Neoconservatism, the Democrats have been kicked to the sidelines to watch as the neocons take over everything in their path (and brilliantly, might I add). As the neocons get stronger and stronger, the Democrats get angrier and hungrier for a slice of the pie back the top. So, what do they do? They goes as far to the right as humanly possible. What they are now is what the Republican party was 30 years ago. Unfortunately, it's a loser strategy because the further to the right they go, the more true liberals and progressives they lose. Middle America then looks at the Democratic party and asks what is so different between them and the Republicans. They won't come up with a very good answer and will therefore see no reason to change horses in the middle of the stream.

We're going to be stuck with the neocons for ages unless the Dems grow some balls and truly embrace liberalism. They don't need to simply ignite the base, they need to set themselves apart from the Republicans and bring something new to the table. Until they do that, they're f*cked and will be the minority party for years and years to come. You said yourself that the Democratic party isn't the anti-war party. Neither are the Republicans. Democrats bitch about No Child Left Behind, yet they passed it. They bitch about Medicare, but they passed it. Everything they bitch about is because of them, just as it is because of the Repugs. The line that separates the two parties has gotten blurred to the point where you're lucky if you can even see it. The only thing that separates the two parties is that the Democrats bitch and moan, yet do nothing. The Republicans bitch and moan, then turn around and do what they want and get **** done.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

That isn't the point. And surely you wouldn't even SUGGEST that the Democrats aren't jumping ship and swimming to the right side of the island.

The point is that with the rise of Neoconservatism, the Democrats have been kicked to the sidelines to watch as the neocons take over everything in their path (and brilliantly, might I add). As the neocons get stronger and stronger, the Democrats get angrier and hungrier for a slice of the pie back the top. So, what do they do? They goes as far to the right as humanly possible. What they are now is what the Republican party was 30 years ago. Unfortunately, it's a loser strategy because the further to the right they go, the more true liberals and progressives they lose. Middle America then looks at the Democratic party and asks what is so different between them and the Republicans. They won't come up with a very good answer and will therefore see no reason to change horses in the middle of the stream.

We're going to be stuck with the neocons for ages unless the Dems grow some balls and truly embrace liberalism. They don't need to simply ignite the base, they need to set themselves apart from the Republicans and bring something new to the table. Until they do that, they're f*cked and will be the minority party for years and years to come. You said yourself that the Democratic party isn't the anti-war party. Neither are the Republicans. Democrats bitch about No Child Left Behind, yet they passed it. They bitch about Medicare, but they passed it. Everything they bitch about is because of them, just as it is because of the Repugs. The line that separates the two parties has gotten blurred to the point where you're lucky if you can even see it. The only thing that separates the two parties is that the Democrats bitch and moan, yet do nothing. The Republicans bitch and moan, then turn around and do what they want and get **** done.

I agree.