sabro said:
I thought Janet Reno was John Goodman in drag.
*coughcough* Nice one! But geez, you really oughta apologize to John Goodman! You still didn't explain Reno's militant fascism during the Clinton administration.
sabro said:
I'm a teacher, so "conservative" is not a bad word, just bad policy.
A few reasons why I'm a liberal: Federal power over states rights. Social programs. Education. An activist policy that tries to solve problems. The environment. Human rights. Health care, nutrition, head start programs, after school programs...Much of this costs money so I want to tax you and spend it. I think this is more honest than borrow and spend.
At least you're honest about it. That's kinda refreshing, actually.
I'm more for states rights instead of a centralized federal government (what works in Maine won't necessarily work in Monatana). Remember the national 55-mph speed limit?
As for social programs, I agree that we have a moral obligation to care for those who truly cannot care for themselves.
However, I believe that those who
can take care of themselves have an equal moral obligation to do just that. Lacking a work ethic isn't a disability. Hang around any government benefits office and you will mostly see perfectly able-bodied people who know how to play 'the system'. I'm not against social programs, but I am against bloated vote-buying schemes masquerading as social programs.
But then you simply said "social programs". Perhaps you could add some context?
Do the same for "Education". After all, who isn't for educating kids and adults?
I've yet to see an activist policy that solved anything. Milked problems for everything they were worth (Araft, Jesse Jackson), but solved a problem?
Human rights? Again, you need to expand on that. You'll have a tough time finding anyone in the Republican party who isn't for human rights. We're the party of Linclon, remember? In 1964, it was 94% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats who passed Johnson's Civil Rights Act. But organizations like NOW aren't about equal rights, they're about revenge.
But at least you admitted that you want to tax ME but said nothing of taxing yourself. (reminds me of an old joke). Why does everything have to be forced charity by the federal government. Isn't that fasicism? Or have you not seen the reports of how "red" counties donate more to charity than "blue" counties?
And since you're a teacher, haven't you ever wondered why you have the most powerful labor union in the US, but you still make less than some guy working an assembly line building your Chrysler? Your union wouldn't be taking you and your money for a ride would they?
sabro said:
My voting block tends to be the "Democrats will take you for granted" block, because they know that for now, they don't have to do anything for our votes. The South used to belong, but started quitting it way back with Reagan. Anger can be healthy. Maybe my party will wake up?
You make a good point there. Will they? Sure, they need to listen, but you also have to speak up. If your party isn't listening to you, aren't you just wasting your vote? After Nader's run in 2000, you would think that would've done for the DNC what Perot did for the GOP in '92. But the only thing the DNC had going for them was how their voters felt about Bush. What were the survey results? 70% anti-Bush and only 30% were pro-Kerry? What the heck are you gonna do in '08? The GOP is fired up and Hillary will only strengthen them.
If you're really passionate about your party, you have to become proactive within the party, or it will only continue to take you for granted and not represent you. God forbid you guys end up with your own Hitler. Of course, if you get the party on a cohesive message with a candidate that doesn't come off as an elitist hypocrite (Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, H. Clinton) and you're still losing elections, you may have to consider that the voters are deciding that they don't need your agenda. But at least you could stop wondering "what if..."