If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Democratic party to firmly be for something, as soon as the polls telling them what it is are completed   (foxnews.com) divider line 1072
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

12234 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2005 at 9:36 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1072 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-07-26 10:40:29 AM
FDR is rolling over in his grave.
Great job libs!
The Democrat party has been reduced to a mere shell of its former glory.
 
2005-07-26 10:40:42 AM
Forgot a couple:
- Encourage commercialization of space through the construction of a space elevator (there's no reason NASA can't make money)
- Keep idiots like whack_dude from telling everyone else how to live their farking lives
 
2005-07-26 10:40:52 AM
Maybe Hanoi Jane, er, that's Taliban Jane now, can help them stay on message.
 
2005-07-26 10:40:53 AM
kevin5lynn:

Every single social progress has been made thanks to liberals, and all of them have strenghtened the country.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Constitution written by a group of men who wanted a smaller government with less centeralized power-- who also believed that liberty should be defended by an armed populous?
 
2005-07-26 10:40:57 AM
It is simple. The Democrats are for everything the Republicans are against, and against everything the Republicans are for.
Any wonder why they are #2?
 
2005-07-26 10:42:13 AM
Leave it to 'fair and balanced' fox news to report on the democrats.

/Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them.
 
2005-07-26 10:42:15 AM
Lerxst2k

Funny how fast that changes. Under Clinton, hell, even under Bush Sr. people were saying the same thing about the Republican Party.
 
2005-07-26 10:42:27 AM
whack_dude

- Be for low taxes.


A word about taxes...

As a canadian, I pay about 35% of my income in taxes... Seems pretty high.

But in exchange, I get subsidized day care, free health care, low cost education and lots of other social benefits.

A family member lives in Boston. His taxes are way lower than mine, but he's paying through the nose for health insurance, day care costs and, eventually, his children's education.

It's quite clear that I end up paying less than he does for the same services...
 
2005-07-26 10:43:05 AM
The Icelander:

So the Dems could pick any one of these platforms and win on it. They just choose not to.

There's you go, you should be the leader of the Democratic party.
 
2005-07-26 10:44:00 AM
Hey look, I can use photoshop too!


 
2005-07-26 10:44:15 AM
Clavis
an emotionally compelling memeplex

The really crappy part about these modern memeplexes is that, on top of the $10 tickets, they charge $200 billion in oil futures for a bucket of popcorn.
 
2005-07-26 10:44:25 AM
I think the democratic party should build a platform of

Increase Welfare
Higher Min Wage
Greater Gains in Affirmative Action
Higher Taxes
Smaller Millitary
Open Boarders
Easier Immagration
 
2005-07-26 10:45:20 AM
All I got to say to this or any other discussion: SHUTTLE LAUNCH! SHUTTLE LAUNCH!
 
2005-07-26 10:45:23 AM
2005-07-26 12:58:47 AM Almighty [TotalFark]

It is kind of interesting that people complain that neither party represents what the people want, and then complain when either party tries to base its policies on opinion polls.


The problem is, they aren't basing their policies on the polls, they are basing their sales pitch on them. When they get in office they seem to forget everything the people wanted and that they promised and instead go back to what they actually believe in. You know, the stuff they had to pretend they didn't believe in because otherwise nobody would vote for them.

Example: Clinton's major tag line in the 92 campaign was "fighting for the forgotten middle class" and his entire platform was based on middle class taxcuts. And within a year of being in office he signs into law the biggest tax increase in history -- a large part of it on the backs of the middle class. Same thing with most every other piece of his campaign platform. He polled to find out what people wanted, promised he'd give it to them, and once in office forgot all about it. Oh, sure, he'd still give his speeches based on what people wanted, but it never impacted his actual policies.
 
2005-07-26 10:45:26 AM
gallo caldo

1. Democrats controlled the House during Reagan and Bush I's term, and the Senate during Reagan's last two years and all of Bush I's term. Anything that required Congressional approval during that time needed Democrats. Now, Republicans can do pretty much whatever they want, barring a filibuster.

2. Regarding what they should be saying, I don't know whom you're listening to, but that's what they are doing. But when the Republicans control the agenda, and it's something the Democrats are opposed to, of course they're going to voice their opposition. Dems can introduce an amendment to an energy bill raising CAFE standards. It gets voted down. So now they can't speak out against the administration's energy policy?

3. Of course everybody wants to see terrorists rot. Thank goodness we have a system in place where detainees can challenge their detention so we can make sure that it's only the terrorists that are rotting in Gitmo. Oh, wait...
 
2005-07-26 10:45:29 AM
reillan

What do you consider "social progress"?


Things like feminism, civil movement, gay movement, things like that...

If we go further, you have slave freedom, etc.

Notice I said "liberals" and not "democrats", as I understand liberal values might shift from party to party over time.
 
2005-07-26 10:45:32 AM
reillan

What do you consider "social progress"?

- Civil Rights
- Womens Lib
- the environmental movement
- War on Poverty
- the New Deal
- The G.I. Bill (Truman did that one), which was partly responsible for the huge economic growth in the 1950s

Did I miss anything? I guess you could put in the anti-trust movement started by T.R. and the end of slavery. Both of those were progressive populist ideas.
 
2005-07-26 10:45:38 AM
Sorry, but americans prefer loyalty, patriotism & integrity.
Democrats offer none of that, never have and never will.

Sorry Dems, but your party is done and over with.
Whining is not helping.
 
2005-07-26 10:45:41 AM
Yeah but then you have to live in canada... think not
 
2005-07-26 10:45:45 AM
2 grams:

Increase Welfare
Higher Min Wage
Greater Gains in Affirmative Action
Higher Taxes
Smaller Millitary
Open Boarders
Easier Immagration


That is the best platform I've ever seen if you want to lose lots of elections.
 
2005-07-26 10:45:58 AM
The DNC needs a new logo. How about a female fist?
 
2005-07-26 10:46:05 AM
kevin5lynn:
I'm proud to be an American where I don't depend on government support to help me live my life, even if it's tough. As a fringe sort of military family(hard to explain) and federal workers, most of the families wealth comes from the federal government though, although I don't like to take from my family. Once I am secure enough to leave the country, I don't want to depend on anybody and travel the world as an American. I love the ability to be able to return as I left and still have all the liberties I enjoyed.
 
2005-07-26 10:46:05 AM
So let me get this straight... the Democrats want to appeal to centrist voters by bulking up the military to prepare for more invasions like Iraq? This is the single most unpopular plank in the Republicans platform, and the one the Dems ought to be distancing themselves from. If they want to pick up centrist voters, they should be focusing on civil liberties and appealing to the alienated libertarian wing of the Republican party.

/Conservative who voted for Kerry
 
2005-07-26 10:46:11 AM
tarrant84

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Constitution written by a group of men who wanted a smaller government with less centeralized power-- who also believed that liberty should be defended by an armed populous?

Actually they werent quite sure, they were sort of split when they adopted it. after Washington there was sort of two camps, the Federalists and the states rights folks. That one didnt end until the Civil War. Federalists (bigger Government) won that one hands down.
 
2005-07-26 10:46:14 AM
2005-07-26 10:12:18 AM oldfarthenry
As an outsider to US politics, it seems the two parties are more interested in defeating each other than building a better America. Sad.

In theory, at least, this paradigm can be a good thing. As each party strives to present a better platform to serve the public, they are rewarded with votes.

This worked out well for us for over 200 years.

The problem now is that it's become a competition to out-dupe the rubes and whore for marketing dollars. Anyone who genuinely believes otherwise is either insane or retarded. Or both.
 
2005-07-26 10:46:19 AM
Yeah, those constitutional framers also owned slaves and thought only men should be allowed to vote.
 
2005-07-26 10:46:19 AM
the_gospel_of_thomas:

AS an example, Bush's numbers are at the lowest. He's not going to just change his position, when he believes what he is doing will be ultimately correct.

He's not going to change his position when it means that

1. it would be an admission of defeat (God supports Bush so this can't be possible)

2. it would be an admission of a mistake - something that is simply not in Bush's vocabulary. He would rather "stay the course" at the cost of thousands more American soldier's lives (nevermind the tens of thousands of a-rabs) and let his term run out rather than look for a different solution. I call this cowardice.

3. It would cede control of the situation to other entities, something not in line with his cronies' aims at The New American Century.

But you, dear thomas, are probably much more comfortable with an obdurate leader that refuses to do anything but plough ahead with the sophomoric belief that such mulishness is a display of "resolve." No doubt it appeals to your servile nature;

"yes m'lord, of course your original plan was 100% correct, listen not to your enemies who seek to undermine your greatness by calling for other courses of action."
 
2005-07-26 10:47:30 AM
purplesmoke420: Another reason to vote Libertarian.

-Unfortunately the Libertarian Party has become one big philosophical circlejerk. The party puts out platforms that have no chance of acceptance in the general public, and then feel superior after the election simply because they managed to garner a few votes. If only they focus their energy towards changing the viewpoints of the other major parties they might actually accomplish something.
 
2005-07-26 10:47:35 AM
tarrant84

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Constitution written by a group of men who wanted a smaller government with less centeralized power-- who also believed that liberty should be defended by an armed populous?


You're right.

But who, over time, has worked hard to implement the values in the constitution? Liberal organisations like the ACLU, that's who.
 
2005-07-26 10:47:41 AM
Let's face it, there are actually four political factions with influence over politics in the United States today:

- religiously motivated "compassionate conservatives"
- secular conservatives (aka, libertarians)
- the rabid left (the OMG CHIMPY IS RUNEING AMERICA folks)
- moderates

The Republican Party is home to the first two groups exclusively, and the Democratic Party to the third.

The fourth group, moderates, is the largest and also the quietest. They have strong beliefs about a few key issues, but are willing to compromise on others. They are the swing voters, and they're generally more concerned with living their lives than with following political news.

It would indeed be wise for the Democrats to craft their platform to appeal to moderate voters. And as a moderate myself, I'm all for reducing the influence of extremist politicians on BOTH ends of the spectrum.
 
2005-07-26 10:47:56 AM
jesus_is_lord:

Sorry, but americans prefer loyalty, patriotism & integrity.
Democrats offer none of that, never have and never will.


Lol. Ok Ann Coulter. Democrats are really communists who wants to destroy democracy.
 
2005-07-26 10:48:05 AM
2005-07-26 10:40:57 AM Splixx [TotalFark]

Blame on Karl Rove. His trickery and deceit caused them to forget who they are. And he hypnotizes the masses with his big fat smiley face. Clavis has it all figured out. People are too stupid to think for themselves, so the dems must muster their own demonic forces to overcome Lord Rove.


It is simple. The Democrats are for everything the Republicans are against, and against everything the Republicans are for.
Any wonder why they are #2?
 
2005-07-26 10:48:14 AM
Open Boarders

Im pretty sure Amendment 3 specifically prevents this.

/not really a spelling nazi
//thought it was funny
 
2005-07-26 10:48:28 AM
tarrant84,
Whoa there. Don't discourage independent thought. Easier immigration and higher minimum wage? This sounds like the most logical pairing since peanut butter and man chowder.
 
2005-07-26 10:48:41 AM
 
2005-07-26 10:48:52 AM
I wish to offer cuprous2 oral gratification for what must be one of the single greatest posts I've ever seen in all of Farkdom.
 
2005-07-26 10:48:55 AM
tarrant84 [TotalFark]

That is the best platform I've ever seen if you want to lose lots of elections.



Shhhhhhhhh!
 
2005-07-26 10:49:17 AM
vernonFL

I'm super-late to the thread, but I'd just like to say, Obama will be an amazing leader. I am not a Democrat, but I would vote for him because I feel he represents something and would make stuff happen. That's the future of the Democratic party, and I'm excited to see the change.
 
2005-07-26 10:49:25 AM
Live it up,

"/Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them."


Wouldn't a liar who is lying ultimately be telling the truth?

/Althought I'm fairly moderate, I hate foxnews's political coverage.
 
2005-07-26 10:49:32 AM
The Icelander

Did I miss anything?


Oh man, your answer is way better than mine!
 
2005-07-26 10:49:50 AM

Keep your head in the sand, and you'll be safe...
 
2005-07-26 10:50:20 AM
H.L. Mencken (I believe) proposed making political office like jury duty. Your number would get called up, you'd have to pass a minimum competency test, and then you'd serve a limited fixed term.

Mencken believed you'd get better results from a random sampling of the population than you do with the current system. I'm not inclined to disagree with him.
 
2005-07-26 10:50:24 AM
The Icelander:

If you don't think those are good positions (other than the hate Bush one), then you haven't been paying attention. Do some research and get back to me.

Those are awful positions. I have been paying attention. I've watched the Democratic party descend into a madness of paranoia and conspiracy theories. The very few ideas that have come out of the Left have been pathetic. Socialize medicine? Give me a break.

When the Democratic Party expels their extremist Left, you seem to be a part of this, they will start to build a majority again. If they keep letting the extremist wing control their debate, they will continue to drift leftward until they are no more, and the Republican Party will split into two parts: a moderate party and a conservative party.
 
2005-07-26 10:50:41 AM
2005-07-26 10:16:34 AM neongoats: An anything but Bush party sounds wonderful to me, and Im not even a democrat(and not particularly liberal). I would vote for Stimpy's magic nose goblins if it would cause the the Bush dynasty to burst into flames, never to plague the world with their taint again.

Here, I'll give out some free advice. The Democrats do nothing to get my respect anymore, but I don't want them to disappear, I want them to resume their role as loyal dissent so we can have intelligent debate in this country.

Don't listen to people like neongoats. When they say Democrats have marginalized themselves by pandering to their extreme constituencies, neongoats is the guy they're talking about. Dems already are the "Anybody But Bush" party.

In the 1960's, the Democrats learned through our court system how to win arguments by simply not-losing them. Before the decade was out, we had a major political party that refused to prove anything. Nixon was challenged to prove he was NOT a crook. They turned the tables on Reagan and demanded to prove he was NOT a fool. They got their shills in the media to announce Arthur Laffer's curve was "discredited" when, if anything, the curve has been proven every single time it's been tested (including now).

They don't debate intelligently anymore. They simply insist, belligerently, to be awarded the benefit of any doubt. They debate things that really don't need to be debated. Clinton sent his best friends and his wife out to tell everybody "he said he didn't do it, so that should settle it in your mind and if it doesn't you're unpatriotic." Then they found DNA on Clinton and suddenly we had to have a debate about whether this was anything but a private matter. Funny, we never had that debate before the DNA evidence came along.

They want John Roberts to prove he doesn't have any dirt before he is confirmed, rather than proving he does have dirt to get him defeated.

They want Karl Rove to prove he didn't leak Valerie Plame's name, and they want someone to prove Plame was not a covert op, rather than taking responsibility that he did, and that she was.

The party-of-loyal-dissent has a valuable role in a society that knows how to determine truth by inspecting the arguments between two intelligent & determined but opposed zealots. Be one of those intelligent, opposed zealots. Stop trying to muddy & confuse any debate that is not to your advantage. Drop the "We all agree Saddam was bad BUT" stuff. Get rid of the "Where are the WMD?" -- work on proving that Iraq was REALLY clean, instead of demanding the other side prove that it was dirty. If you can't do that, move on to some other point, since most Americans interpret the element of doubt as validation of Bush's decision to go in.

Bush has been negligent in his responsibilities to protect the border. You want some ammunition? Play that baby up. When people see BOTH political parties ignoring the issue of our mostly-open border, they get cynical. They turn into "Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference Between The Two Parties" people, and that doesn't help you.

Bush is also weak on spending money. He goes through it like a fat lady through cotton candy. What the people want is a government that looks for ways to save money, instead of looking for ways to spend everything it has & then spend some more. THEN they want the savings to be returned to the taxpayers, with an eye toward getting rid of the income tax eventually. Stop with your endless demands for tax increases. It gives people the impression that few among your constituency actually pay any taxes, and mostly benefit from public programs. I, for one, am convinced of this.

And I can't stress enough that you need to debate intelligently. You know how confused you have become? Yesterday I was bellyaching that "the left" demands compassion and equal treatment for everybody, and develops this hatred for anyone who doesn't comply, to the extent they start cracking tasteless jokes & celebrating when Boy Scout leaders get killed in electrical accidents. And right on cue, here comes a leftist to demand that I prove it is the leftists that don't like the Boy Scouts. There we go again. Demands for proof of things that really aren't subject to reasonable dispute. Prove Saddam's bad, prove Clinton lied, prove leftists don't like Boy Scouts, and take it to the bank that we'll move the goalposts if you ever actually do prove anything.

That's not intelligent debate. We have a place in our society for a party-of-dissent, in a society that debates intelligently. So by demanding that we debate things stupidly and half-assed, the Democrat party is defeating the reason for its own existence. If it can ever see that, it will start on the road to fixing what's busted.

2005-07-26 10:40:57 AM Splixx [TotalFark]: It is simple. The Democrats are for everything the Republicans are against, and against everything the Republicans are for.
Any wonder why they are #2?


All you "Waaahh!!! mkfreeberg writes too much it's too hard to read!!!" liberals, what I'm saying really boils down to that that guy said. mkay?
 
2005-07-26 10:51:26 AM
Seeing the shuttle detach from the fuel tank with the Earth in the background was amazing.

I am not sure why the Shuttle Launch didn't get a thread, given the other greenlights lately.
 
2005-07-26 10:51:30 AM
cuprous2
Well at least you are starting to realize the truth then!
 
2005-07-26 10:52:25 AM
2005-07-26 10:45:38 AM jesus_is_lord
Sorry, but americans prefer loyalty, patriotism & integrity.
Democrats offer none of that, never have and never will.

Sorry Dems, but your party is done and over with.
Whining is not helping.


Whining = dissent you don't like. Example: Jeebus-people never stop whining about abortion. Never.

I'll bet your Jesus really likes triumphalist war-mongering, doesn't he? What...no? Tough shiat. He must be a farking whiner.

/just keeping things lively!
 
2005-07-26 10:53:05 AM
TMBGfreak

I'm proud to be an American


As you should be.

where I don't depend on government support to help me live my life, even if it's tough.

This is the part a lot of americans have a hard time figuring out: pulling in your lot together is better for everyone, all around. You're not taking anything away from anyone, you're contributing and getting your fair share back.

A rising tide raises all ships.


I don't want to depend on anybody and travel the world as an American. I love the ability to be able to return as I left and still have all the liberties I enjoyed.

I fail to see hos this is connected? Did I miss something?
 
2005-07-26 10:53:08 AM
Either submitter is:
1. Saying it's bad to get feedback from your constituents anonymously
2. Saying that Republicans have usurped all of the Democratic mission statements to suit their own political needs, thus making it tough for Democrats to oppose their own agenda
3. Notgiving a crap about partisan politics, and waits with baited breath to see what monster chingaso awaits in 2006!


/Not a troll. I have maybe a half hour to enjoy FARK a day, unlike some, who seem to live here.
//Much respect to the posters
///Waiting to see the shuttle crash...I mean launch
////Bush wants to stop the program
/////Only takes one shot at that tank to do so, and blame Al Quaeda
//////Tinfoil hats are multi-purpose: you can cook with 'em!
///////Seven!
 
2005-07-26 10:53:11 AM


"Now, here are some results from our phone in poll. 95% of the people think Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding. Unless proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will."
 
Displayed 50 of 1072 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report