Can I find common ground with Democrats?

[fedupconservative]

I've recently decided to end my relationship with the GOP and am hoping one of your candidates can help convince me to vote Democrat.

Some questions I have are as follows:

1. How much will your candidates Health Care plan cost, what does it cover and how will we pay for this?

2. Will your candidate not only pull us out of Iraq but the majority of other countries we have troops stationed?

3. What is your candidate going to do about the impending economic nightmare of $58 Trillion in future entitlements for Medicare, SS and govt pensions?

4. How trustworthy do you believe your candidate to be?

I look forward to having a healthy dialogue with many of you and hopefully we'll find enough in common to bring me over from the 'Dark Side'.

[mike_c]

1. welcome to DU...

...and I hope you find some of the answers you're looking for!

[Maddy McCall]

2. Welcome to DU, fedup...

I've got to go to work...I'm hoping that you get some informative responses.

Bookmarking, because I want to come back and read this discussion.

[karlrschneider]

3. You don't need a reason to leave the dark side.

But then you could be just bullshitting us.

[winter999]

18. Boy, that's a warm welcome!

You think if there was a GOPher (s)he'd identify themselves?? Then again by definition a GOPher is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[CJCRANE]

77. It's happened before.

Turned out it was a freeper showing off to his friends how long he could last on DU as an out conservative
(a DUer found and linked to the actual thread at freepville).

So you can see why some DUers are cynical.

Good luck to him though if he's genuine.

:thumbsup:

[El Pinko]

219. Even if he is doing that, so what, so long as he's respectful in this vein?

If he starts advocating retrograde BS then I guess it's up to the mods as to how much of that is tolerable.

But just saying he's a conservative and asking questions isn't trollish, IMO.


I seriously doubt there is much common ground to be found, but hey, have a go.

I don't mind a thread like this being spectated by the freeps because we have the truth and the facts on our side, and our motives are the betterment of society as a whole.

They have buzzwords and talking points, and their motivation is self-interest and to hell with everybody else, so they can watch and heckly all they want from the safety of FR or that other sewer that likes to watch us - they got bupkis.

[Quantess]

182. How about taking the questions at face value and reserving judgment?

He/she's asking legitimate questions. Bullshit may indeed spew forth at a future time, but for now it seems legit. ;-)

[fedupconservative]

188. I'm a he

and I'm trying to be as forthcoming as possible and appreciate all those who have done the same.

[Quantess]

190. Welcome to DU!

I hope you find something of value amid all the nuttiness here, currently. I suggest staying away from GD-Primaries if you're looking for levelheaded discussions.

[fedupconservative]

192. Thank you

and the discussion is just fine. In fact, it's far exceeded my expectations.

[Matariki]

247. No kidding. I think many people here have those exact same questions.

They're good questions. We don't want to elect anyone who is just going to preserve the status quo, and not work toward affordable health care or get us out of endless and illegal war.

[FreepFryer]

4. Actually I'm more interested to learn why you've left the GOP. Might help us bring others over. (nt)

[fedupconservative]

26. My beliefs

"Actually I'm more interested to learn why you've left the GOP. Might help us bring others over"

Good question and one I should have touched upon.

First, these are some of my beliefs.

1. The heavy hand of govt, while well intentioned, only serves to erode our freedoms.

2. When we try to help other nations(Iraq), it ends up causing more harm than good and drains our Treasury. But we also need a foreign presence in this day and age to help us combat terrorism.

3. Corporate taxes - While it seems good on the surface, it ends up being another tax on individuals.

4. 2nd amendment - Any attempt to restrict gun rights is a marginalization of those rights the same as the Patriot Act and the National ID card would marginalize our rights.

5. Their needs to be limits on the size of govt or we'll bankrupt ourselves.

6. Corporations should have import tariffs levied on them if they set up overseas

7. The Dep of Education serves little purpose educating our children and should be abolished and replaced with individual state departments.


Now why I'm leaving the GOP.


1. Words cannot begin to express how outraged myself and many other conservatives are at the incompetence of our president.

2. Our country is less safe today than before we went to Iraq.

3. Our budget is in shambles.

4. Our rights are under attack(new FBI database, Patriot Act, National ID)

I know some of these issues we're far apart but I'm willing to compromise.

Thanks for the warm welcomes and responses.

[Winterblues]

69. My opinion on some of your issues

Our country is indeed less safe today than before Republicans took control. For over forty years while Democrats had control America was kept safe mainly because we believe it is better to be loved than feared, where as the Republicans feel just the opposite. They want America to be feared...Our budget is indeed in shambles and it began to be that way under Reagan who thought it was better to give resources to the wealthy and large Corporations in the mistaken belief they would trickle that money down. It doesn't work that way and it never has worked that way. Our economy begins at the bottom and works up not the opposite. Our rights are indeed under attack and the reason is Republican authoritarianism. They want to be your daddy. Democrats believe the people are capable of governing themselves..It should be obvious which Party is eroding your individual rights.Another thing is quit listening to right wing propaganda such as Rush Limbaugh etc. They LIE and LIE and LIE some more. Do a little research.. Every single recession America has experienced since the great Depression has been under a Republican Administration. When Clinton submitted his first budget every single Republican stood up and said it would destroy the American economy. They voted in lock-step against it. Al Gore had to cast the tie breaking vote to pass that budget. America went on to experience the "Greatest Economic Expansion in History". When Bush* came to power Republicans decided to show us how it was supposed to be done.. Amer cia then went on to experience the Greatest economic turn around in history and that began months before 9-11 so it can't be blamed on that..Do some actual research and you may just find some amazing information especially on the Health Care issue. National Health Care would not only pay for itself on the surface but it would free u[p business to be competitive in the world markets. We are the only westernized nation that does not provide National Health Care so all other business through out the world are not burdened by Health Care Insurance costs of their employees so of course they can be far more competitive. Democrats have always been a boom for the economy. They want to invest back in America while Republican want to give the wealth to the most wealthy and let America suffer..

[fedupconservative]

76. I don't understand

You're agreeing with the majority of my points but telling me I need to do some research?

It's because of the falsehoods I've seen with my party for why I am here. Our GOP president has done the exact opposite of everything my side believes, especially concerning individual rights and govt spending. Now we're in a mess and I'm thinking you might see a few more like me coming around.

Just don't try to convince me to eat Tofu or take away my guns.grin

[Winterblues]

104. Then Welcome and maybe together we can make America great once again.

It sounded to me as if you still held a lot of the Republican ideas for Government and America and I was just suggesting those ideas are wrong for America and this last Decade under Republican (mis) rule should demonstrate that to any critical thinking person..America can and will do better but only under Democratic Representation...

[butterfly77]

133. We don't care what you eat...

and we don't want our guns taken away either. These and other myths are spewed by your party. They want to tell us what to eat, where to live, who to marry, etc... We live in the same country as you do and what effects you effects us all as you can see from your president and his do nothing but destroy congress and senate...Just vote for Hillary...

[backscatter712]

152. Tofu and guns?

First of all, tofu can be quite tasty! (though I'm a big carnivore myself.)

Second of all, there are lots of Second Amendment Democrats here, including myself. I'll be damned if I'm going to allow the .gov to take away our Second Amendment rights! There are a lot of newer Democratic Congressmen who were elected in '06 from the western states who will raise hell if something like the "Assault Weapon" (aka scary-looking black gun less powerful than Grandpa's deer rifle) ban was brought up again.

[otherlander]

160. Take away the guns?

Never! DU is full of well-armed leftists.
:evilgrin:

[orleans]

199. tofu is something you and i can definitely agree on.

guns? um, not so much.
tofu? absolutely. (yuck!)

[readmoreoften]

202. I'm pro-gun.

As a woman, I enjoy being able to protect myself.

[OnionPatch]

207. Same here.

Plus, I come from a family full of hunters and gun collectors....all Democrats.

[Marrah_G]

238. Tofu is gross and just don't point your gun in my direction and we are cool :)

Ohhhh... and if you hunt... kill one extra deer and give it to a food charity!

I don't think we are very different in many areas. Often the fight is over how to do something, rather then what the goal is.

Seriously, welcome to DU.

[flamin lib]

81. Thanks for the considered explanation for your current discomfort with the GOP.

I'll try to respond item by item with my own take on things.

1. The preamble says the responsibility of government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". The part about the general welfare is often lost on libertarians. If universal single payer health care promotes the general welfare it is something the Government should do. The only argument should be what constitutes the 'general welfare'.

2. "Helping" other nations should not mean armed intervention or covert overthrow of their governments. Hammas was successful because they build hospitals and infrastructure. The Taliban is resurgent because they fix streets and infrastructure in Afghanistan. The average Afghan makes $2 a day. The US could literally buy the hearts and minds for a fraction of what we spend on bombs and bullets.

3. Taxes have two purposes: to raise revenue and to modify behavior. Corporate taxes, when passed on to the consumer, are similar to a use tax. Tax ammunition and only the people who shoot will pay the tax. You pay taxes on your favorite stuff and I pay taxes on mine. Tax profits earned offshore and it becomes more attractive to produce profits here.

4. 2nd amendment--there's a whole forum just for that so I'll not get into it here. Suffice it to say the federal government is the least of your problems. The most egregious regulations are at the city and state level.

5. The only reductions in government size have occurred under Democratic administrations, both here in Texas and in Washington. Anne Richards combined agencies and eliminated redundancies. It only took Bush two years to put it all back. Bill Clinton made the fed smaller. Look what Reagan and Bush have done.

6. See 3 above.

7. As it is the DoE is underfunded and can't do much right. Leave education up to 50 states and get 50 standards. Kansas gets to teach religion and Texas gets to not teach at all. Yeah, that's a real solution to the education crisis.

As for why you're leaving the GOP, what the hell took ya' so long! ;-)

Welcome to the party of sanity.

[Yael]

85. You sound like a disaffected Ron Paul supporter

[fedupconservative]

93. He's insane

He has some decent domestic policies but his foreign policy isn't practical nor is his insistance of gutting the country to almost nothing(I don't like govt).

[Iris]

167. Now you're talkin'!

Pull over a chair and sit by me!

[Virginia Dare]

169. Funny, because..

his foreign policy is about the only thing about him that appeals to me.

[fedupconservative]

181. Partially

I want a strong military but a smaller foreign imprint, not none.

[Virginia Dare]

230. To me a strong military doesn't mean a whole lot..

while the country's infrastructure and economy crumble around us. I think at this point our military has become too strong, or we're throwing way too much money into it and "security", and it is to our detriment. Much like what happened to the British and Roman Empires, we're trying to control too much of the world.

[fedupconservative]

232. Thas is one of my arguements.

I don't believe we need military bases in 130 countries. It's what's bankrupting us and is one of the major disagreements I have with my party. So even if I disagree with some of the Democratic Social plans, I'd much rather see us spend our money on Americans who need help rather than stirring up bee's nests around the world.

Interesting fact, the US spends more on our military than the next 16 highest countries COMBINED. This doesn't include our spending on the war.

[guruoo]

99. A couple of observations:

"Their needs to be limits on the size of govt or we'll bankrupt ourselves."
"The heavy hand of govt, while well intentioned, only serves to erode our freedoms."

-Agreed, however, I also believe likewise that: 'Their needs to be limits on the size and influence
of corporations or we'll erode our freedoms, and bankrupt ourselves both morally, and fiscally.'

[fedupconservative]

102. Fully agree

[guruoo]

132. How about this...

I f we were to have had a truely honest election process,
the choice would have been down a simple matter of choosing between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

[Burma Jones]

118. All Right, let's see......

I disagree about the "heavy hand of Government" well, maybe not disagree, but believe being some distance away from the complete and utter freedom of Anarchy is highly desirable. If we had complete freedom, most of us would be dead or some country with a big old Government would have killed off our free asses long ago.

We need a covert, quiet and ruthless foreign presence/cooperation to combat terrorism. When you make it a point to brag about how well you can kill off "enemies of freedom" it becomes a lot more expensive, ineffective and deadly, but the current jackasses decided to use swagger as a political tool.

Corporate philosophy - Corporations are required by both criminal and civil law to maximize shareholder wealth - NOT be good for America (unless it just happens to coincide) - as foreign ownership of American Companies increase, our economy will - by law - exist to make non-Americans wealthy, it already does. All that regulation of corporations and those other pesky restrictions on the free market slowed down that wresting of the nation's wealth away from those that worked for it by the investor class. Unions kept cheap labor from flooding the market, but, Unions are so...Socialist.....

2nd Amendment - Well, I don't think my neighbors should have a rocket launcher or a modern Gatling Gun AND if someone owns a gun and that gun harms someone in my family, I want the right to kill that gun owner in a slow and painful way. Otherwise, fire away.

The last administration to run a surplus was a Democratic Administration. The myth that it's only Democrats that want large government is just that, a myth. Many politicians (certainly the ones that do not get marginalized by the media) want large government because it gives them (and those that paid to put them in office) more wealth and power. If you want to make sure that a small group of people can continue to suck away the Nation's wealth and squirrel it away in Dubai, then run up huge deficits and spend that money on defense, if you spend that money on welfare, at least it doesn't end up in Dubai.....

The Department of Education is total bullshit - I agree.

[gaspee]

141. IMO

You don't particularly fit in the D category. Neither do I, I'm a socialist but I find the Dem party a better fit, so that's where I am.

I vote Dem because I think Republicans are Me, Me, Me whiny babies who think they've gotten everything they have in the world on their own personal merits. They haven't. I find the R's I know to be racist, sexist and imaginary friend worshipping wouldn't know truth if it slapped them in the face and think America's place in the world is with our boots on their necks.

The R's I know tend to think all immigrants (since their family arrived) are scum and out to steal their jobs. The R's I know think us LGBTQ folk are trying to steal their children. The ones I know think we don't have enough people in jail even though we have the highest per capita prison population in the world.

The R's I know tend to think private business works better than government. Then who do they explain the post office, the fire department, the water department, sanitation, snow removal etc.

They don't believe in the common good.

You sound like a Ron Paul kind of guy to me.

My candidate dropped out so the only reason I'm voting for one of the remaining two (most likely Clinton cause Obama seems to hate teh gays) is to keep another conservative demagogue off the Supreme Court.

I don't think you'll like either of the candidates, but that's just my opinion. I think you'll find yourself to different in core beliefs.

[fedupconservative]

146. I was more Thompson

Like I said earlier, RP had some decent ideas but his foreign policy was naive at best.

From what I'm seeing, Barack might be the best fit for me. Although I'm very pro business, I think they wield too much influence and have too much control in our domestic policy. Barack looks like he wants to change some of that influence.

I'm still researching and don't expect to come to a decision for awhile(remember, it took me 15 yrs to get here).lol

[uppityperson]

161. Pro-Big business=Republican. Pro-small business=Democratic

Republican party is pro-business, if that is a big business that gets them more money. These days Republican party is not pro-small business at all, just Big business. And I think that we all know that the rich are getting richer, while small businesses get poorer, while trying to hang on and keep jobs available for their people.

If you have a small business ask yourself if things are better or worse for you and your business than they were 6 or 7 yrs ago.

[backscatter712]

144. You're not too far from me.

Let me address a couple of your points really quickly. I don't have time for everything, but I hope you'll see that yes, we can work together.

"1. The heavy hand of govt, while well intentioned, only serves to erode our freedoms."

Yeah, that is true, but on the other hand, society cannot function without government. To quote from the Code of Hammurabi, "The first duty of government is to protect the powerless against the powerful." Government is one of humanity's oldest institutions, which has been with us since the beginning of civilization. Government can work, and does work.

But, like all human institutions, government is imperfect. IMHO, the way to keep government working well is to participate. America has been lax in participation, caught in apathy, and only now are people waking up, liberal or conservative. When few people participate, then government gets wasteful. Government gets infiltrated by parasites and predators who'll waste taxpayer's money and use government to harm people. And the U.S. government has a rather large share of parasites and predators right now, sucking from all of us like vampires. If you'll join us, join with fellow liberals and conservatives and push to take our government back from Bush and the rest of the predators that have turned government away from its mission, we can make our government work again. Let's make our voices heard!

"2. When we try to help other nations(Iraq), it ends up causing more harm than good and drains our Treasury. But we also need a foreign presence in this day and age to help us combat terrorism."

Very true. IMHO, the correct response to terrorism is not open military force and invasions. It's not to turn this country into a police state. Terrorism is best combated with law-enforcement and counter-intelligence. When those two things are working correctly, you don't really see it. We don't even have to do things like pour out our drink bottles at the airport. Terrorists are given far too much publicity. They're nothing but common criminals, and while they organize like the Mafia and drug cartels, it's well within the capabilities of law-enforcement and intelligence to fight them and stop them without destroying our liberties. Also, IMHO, invading countries, especially the invasion of Iraq has been completely counterproductive - the resentment coming from our invasion and the atrocities we've committed have resulted in more terrorism, and will continue to create more terrorism until we bring our troops home.

As to the four reasons why you're leaving the GOP, I couldn't agree more.

[Telly Savalas]

198. Have you considered the Libertarian Party?

That party sounds like a better ideological fit for you than the Democratic Party.

[readmoreoften]

201. Welcome and a response:

I can't answer your OP questions, but here's an answer to how my beliefs as a very progressive Democrat coincide with yours. Actually, we agree on a lot.


"

First, these are some of my beliefs.

1. The heavy hand of govt, while well intentioned, only serves to erode our freedoms.

* I actually agree. I'm a left-libertarian. I don't want to see more legislation over nothing. I do want to see our rights upheld. I also want to see small businesses from the more pernicious global corporations who can use their government connections to gain favors and squeeze out the little guy who may actually have better ideas and a better product. I also believe in strong labor protection because a solid middle-class makes America stronger.

2. When we try to help other nations(Iraq), it ends up causing more harm than good and drains our Treasury. But we also need a foreign presence in this day and age to help us combat terrorism.

I'd go even further. I don't think it's a good idea that we help other nations unless we're working with a global coalition to stop an immediate genocide. I'm a little cynical and I think we're picking and choosing nations to "help" based on what certain corporate campaign contributors will benefit from. I'd like us to focus on rebuilding AMERICA before we take our act overseas.

3. Corporate taxes - While it seems good on the surface, it ends up being another tax on individuals.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one for now. Unless we're talking about small businesses (under 500 people.) I used to run a Subchapter S corp.

4. 2nd amendment - Any attempt to restrict gun rights is a marginalization of those rights the same as the Patriot Act and the National ID card would marginalize our rights.

I have two loaded guns in my home. On the other hand, from a practical point of view, I've also lived in New York City and I understand why the gun laws there are the way they are. People in NYC didn't grow up learning about guns. Everything they know is from television and movies. And armed NYC would be crazy. Furthermore, the surveillance in Manhattan is so intense that a gun wouldn't do you much good under martial law. But I'm conflicted because I do support the 2nd Amendment.

5. There needs to be limits on the size of govt or we'll bankrupt ourselves.

I agree. If we stop all the military spending and kickbacks to contractors I believe we can stay within budget.

6. Corporations should have import tariffs levied on them if they set up overseas

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue.

7. The Dep of Education serves little purpose educating our children and should be abolished and replaced with individual state departments.

On this we'll disagree somewhat. I would worry about the quality of education in certain states.

BTW

I am wholeheartedly against the Patriot Act and the National ID. My vision of the government is "people coming together to get things done as a community: fire department, schools, garbage pick up, roads" not Big Brother obedience.

Hope that helps!

[defendandprotect]

215. You feel you were betrayed by this president . . . ???

Re #1 . . . do you honestly think that Bush is in Iraq to bring democracy and freedom?
Have you considered that it's about war itself -- perpetual war -- which is basically
a financial RACKET -- and control of ME OIL?

#2 . . . we have quite a "foreign presence" --- we have troops stationed all over the world.
Not to mention CIA infiltrations and other mischief making --- See: Operation Gladio

#3 -- Are you arguing against taxing corporations at all?
You should understand that most corporations thru many evasions are paying very low rates of taxes;
lower than individuals ---
See: The New Deal

#5 -- I don't see problems with size of government --
I do see problems with the size of corporate wealth -- ExxonMobil 36 Billion last year!
and that it provides a challenge to our "people's government" which the government cannot
now sufficiently respond to. As far as "bankrupting ourselves," certainly Halliburton and
Blackwater and the half trillion so far in costs for Iraq seem to be doing that!!

#7 -- the Dept of Education, like other government depts and agencies is like a typewriter ---
it depends on whose doing the writing and directing as to the results you get.
Most of our agencies are headed by people who wish to destroy the depts/agencies they are heading;
i.e., fox in charge of the chicken house.

AND, I can well understand all of your reasons for leaving the GOP --
we share most of them ....

but what has taken you 7 years to do this?

Did you not notice before that Bush was thought by most of the world as a "moror" or "idiot" ---?

Do you think it's unintentional that Bush is bankrupting the Treasury and that the Republican
Congress did nothing about that for more than 6 years?







First, these are some of my beliefs.

1. The heavy hand of govt, while well intentioned, only serves to erode our freedoms.

2. When we try to help other nations(Iraq), it ends up causing more harm than good and drains our Treasury. But we also need a foreign presence in this day and age to help us combat terrorism.

3. Corporate taxes - While it seems good on the surface, it ends up being another tax on individuals.

4. 2nd amendment - Any attempt to restrict gun rights is a marginalization of those rights the same as the Patriot Act and the National ID card would marginalize our rights.

5. Their needs to be limits on the size of govt or we'll bankrupt ourselves.

6. Corporations should have import tariffs levied on them if they set up overseas

7. The Dep of Education serves little purpose educating our children and should be abolished and replaced with individual state departments.


Now why I'm leaving the GOP.


1. Words cannot begin to express how outraged myself and many other conservatives are at the incompetence of our president.

2. Our country is less safe today than before we went to Iraq.

3. Our budget is in shambles.

4. Our rights are under attack(new FBI database, Patriot Act, National ID)

I know some of these issues we're far apart but I'm willing to compromise.

Thanks for the warm welcomes and responses.

[fedupconservative]

218. Yes, Bush betrayed our party.

Reply to your questions.
1. I couldn't begin to try to figure out Bush's logic of staying in Iraq. His logic is flawed at best and 5 yrs would lead even the most intellictually challenged person to figure that out. How it escapes Bush is beyond me but their are a number of repubs on my side who compare Bush's intelligence to 'Curious George'.

2. Yes. We have by some estimates over 750 military bases running in over 130 countries. Our country is going bankrupt because we're shoving our nose in places it doesn't belong. Time for these other countries to take the training wheels off and pay for their own defense.

3. I know on the surface it seems like a great idea taxing corporations but let me present you an example from your reply. ExxonMobil paid $30 Billion in taxes in 2007. Sounds great right? Well the consumer is the one who actually paid there tax bill for them. So if gas is $2.75 a barrel, we probably are paying $.75 a gallon for the taxes Exxon will have to pay. Without the taxes, consumers would pay probably $2 a gallon, in essence affecting the lowest income earners the most. See the catch 22?

I'm all for taking money away from the oil companies but don't use a shell system where we're the ones actually paying.

5. I see a problem with the size of govt because somehow we have to pay for it and it ends up biting us in the future. Right now, 19% of our yearly income taxes are used to pay just the interest on our national debt of $9 Trillion. We need to control spending where we can or we end up with less money to run the programs the left wants to fund.

7. The Dept of Education serves no purpose in educating our kids. They are a $50 billion(I'm estimating here) a year blight on our economy unless you think 'no child left behind' was worth the cost. Let the states decide since they pay for the schools and the teachers anyways.

And in response to your other question, I'd hope you can focus on the fact that I'm here now, not where I've been.









Re #1 . . . do you honestly think that Bush is in Iraq to bring democracy and freedom?
Have you considered that it's about war itself -- perpetual war -- which is basically
a financial RACKET -- and control of ME OIL?

#2 . . . we have quite a "foreign presence" --- we have troops stationed all over the world.
Not to mention CIA infiltrations and other mischief making --- See: Operation Gladio

#3 -- Are you arguing against taxing corporations at all?
You should understand that most corporations thru many evasions are paying very low rates of taxes;
lower than individuals ---
See: The New Deal

#5 -- I don't see problems with size of government --
I do see problems with the size of corporate wealth -- ExxonMobil 36 Billion last year!
and that it provides a challenge to our "people's government" which the government cannot
now sufficiently respond to. As far as "bankrupting ourselves," certainly Halliburton and
Blackwater and the half trillion so far in costs for Iraq seem to be doing that!!

#7 -- the Dept of Education, like other government depts and agencies is like a typewriter ---
it depends on whose doing the writing and directing as to the results you get.
Most of our agencies are headed by people who wish to destroy the depts/agencies they are heading;
i.e., fox in charge of the chicken house.

AND, I can well understand all of your reasons for leaving the GOP --
we share most of them ....

but what has taken you 7 years to do this?

Did you not notice before that Bush was thought by most of the world as a "moror" or "idiot" ---?

Do you think it's unintentional that Bush is bankrupting the Treasury and that the Republican
Congress did nothing about that for more than 6 years?

[defendandprotect]

236. What you are saying is encouraging . . .

and you should only be encouraged in your thinking ---

However . . .

I'm still kind of hung up on a number of your responses which seem to suggest that Bush is making mistakes
based on his intellectual failures while most of us see the Bush/Cheney arrangement as
intentionally corrupt. Are you anywhere near seeing that? Iraq, of course, as an "illegal" war
of aggression was based on lies to disinform the public about a connection to 9/11. Iraq also
provides the neo-con desire for perpetual war and enrichment of cronies, such as Halliburton and
Blackwater.

And, again, in #2 ...
Time for these other countries to take the training wheels off and pay for their own defense.
you seem to be under the impression that these countries want us to stay -- rather they want us to
go and have been trying for decades to get us to leave their countries. We are a disruptive force
in their societies wherever we have a military presence. Evidently, you're not quite clear on the
neo-con desire for Superpower status and the urge to continue in that mode while ensuring that no
other Superpower arises -- in fact, a clear move to return to imperialism - Pax Americana.

Re #3 . ..
There is no business which doesn't pass it costs off to some degree to consumers.
The arrangement we've had with corporations --- which are chartered and which we can dissolve ---
has been that they provide jobs, we allow them to pollute, and we tax them.
Currently, we are taxing them at less of a rate than the ordinary individual pays ---
often as low as 8% or less.
And, when car manufacturers went overseas to produce cars for less, did cars become any cheaper
in the US?
When the Berlin Wall fell, what happened to the "peace dividend" --?
It's ridiculous to suggest that we have "terrorism" which necessitates what the Cold War didn't --
a loss of freedom for Americans --- and what WWII didn't --- i.e., bankrupting the nation.

The Republican Party has always been the business/corporate party --
they act in their own interests.

As for OIL . . . we should nationalize oil -- it's a natural resource which should not be in
the hands of a few private families.

Additionally, we have an oil industry which has worked actively to suppress information about
Global Warming in a decades long campaign costing tens of millions of dollars to disinform the
public.

Essentially, we need to discontinue to burn oil in order to run our automobiles ---
yet Detroit's lack of response to increasing MPG suggests more of an allegiance to the oil
companies than to producing efficient cars.

Re #5 . . .
First --- I think you have to acknowledge that when Clinton left office we were at PEACE and we had a SURPLUS . . .
the costs of running government are not the problem --
the costs of perpetual war and privatizing government services are the problem.
PLUS, not holding corporations and government agencies responsible for corruption which has
been the case in the past years where Republicans had total control -- and no accountability.

Basically, the government is supposed to meet the needs of the public -
not the needs of corporations --
and not the needs of warprofiteers ---

A nation with poorly housed and ill fed people is not a strong nation.
A nation without health care for its citizens is not a strong nation.
A nation with ignorant citizens, lacking education is not a strong nation.
A nation warmongering in corporate/imperialistic interests is a nation creating enemies.

Our budget is difficult to understand because Social Security is included --- plus it's surplus which is a SLUSH FUND for corrupt government -- and purposefully arranged that way.
It also DISGUISES the reality of our military costs --- which are sopping up more than 50%
of the budget.

# 7 . . . I see no positive in discussing any agency still run by Bush/Cheney and under
Republican control. The corruption is too widespread.

However, with just a small pool of money --- which could be done state by state, in fact --
we could provide a college education for anyone who wanted it. This was suggested long ago;
but the reality of that blocking is that education is for the elite ---
and the costs of it are to become out of bounds for the ordinary citizen.


I presume your response to my asking you where you have been for 7 years is that you
want to look ahead and not back. I can understand that --- but most of us also want to
understand the past in order to avoid repeating that history in the future.

[fedupconservative]

239. Just remember, there will be some things we disagree on

and I'm fine with that if I feel your party represents the most logical way of moving forward.

On to your points.

I can't honestly say whether I think Bush is corrupt or not. With Cheney, there is no question in my mind. Bush, well he's a former drunk who bankrupted 2 of his own companies and hasn't figured out the English language yet so It's hard for me to give him the credit of being smart enough to purposely lie to us. I'm more thinking he has the mental capacity of a 3rd grader and was led astray by some really, really awful people who have influence in my party.

2. This is where some people make mistakes. Republicans are not neocons, nor are they Evangelical bible thumpers(no offense to my Christian friends). True Republicans want us to stay out of foreign entanglements. Remember Somalia or Serbia. It's this new and idiotic breed of Republicans called neocons that want us to police the world and use force as our negotiator.

3. Corporate taxes. This is the hard one. When we tax corporations, they build that tax into their prices which in essence, turns their tax into a tax on us. Not only that, it is one of the influencing issues which sends companies overseas.

It's not like it will kill me to see us tax corporations, I just want people to understand that we are the ones who end up paying those taxes.


As for nationalizing oil, I'm all for it. Those greedy bastards are killing our country for a necessity we must have. That's another reason I like Dems, - Their push for alternative energy is 100x that of my own party where the only plan seems to be the Fred Flinstone mobile. IT really escapes me why we haven't embraced this more with our party until I remember who's in charge.


I hope I shed some more light on why I'm here with some of my answers. IF you have more, ask away. There's 10x the civility here than trying to discuss these issues with neocons.










and you should only be encouraged in your thinking ---

However . . .

I'm still kind of hung up on a number of your responses which seem to suggest that Bush is making mistakes based on his intellectual failures while most of us see the Bush/Cheney arrangement as
intentionally corrupt. Are you anywhere near seeing that? Iraq, of course, as an "illegal" war
of aggression was based on lies to disinform the public about a connection to 9/11. Iraq also
provides the neo-con desire for perpetual war and enrichment of cronies, such as Halliburton and
Blackwater.

And, again, in #2 ...
Time for these other countries to take the training wheels off and pay for their own defense.
you seem to be under the impression that these countries want us to stay -- rather they want us to
go and have been trying for decades to get us to leave their countries. We are a disruptive force
in their societies wherever we have a military presence. Evidently, you're not quite clear on the
neo-con desire for Superpower status and the urge to continue in that mode while ensuring that no
other Superpower arises -- in fact, a clear move to return to imperialism - Pax Americana.

Re #3 . ..
There is no business which doesn't pass it costs off to some degree to consumers.
The arrangement we've had with corporations --- which are chartered and which we can dissolve ---
has been that they provide jobs, we allow them to pollute, and we tax them.
Currently, we are taxing them at less of a rate than the ordinary individual pays ---
often as low as 8% or less.
And, when car manufacturers went overseas to produce cars for less, did cars become any cheaper
in the US?
When the Berlin Wall fell, what happened to the "peace dividend" --?
It's ridiculous to suggest that we have "terrorism" which necessitates what the Cold War didn't --
a loss of freedom for Americans --- and what WWII didn't --- i.e., bankrupting the nation.

The Republican Party has always been the business/corporate party --
they act in their own interests.

As for OIL . . . we should nationalize oil -- it's a natural resource which should not be in
the hands of a few private families.

Additionally, we have an oil industry which has worked actively to suppress information about
Global Warming in a decades long campaign costing tens of millions of dollars to disinform the
public.

Essentially, we need to discontinue to burn oil in order to run our automobiles ---
yet Detroit's lack of response to increasing MPG suggests more of an allegiance to the oil
companies than to producing efficient cars.

[defendandprotect]

245. First, thank you for being so honest and open . . .

I like your approach ---

And, you should know that actually I'm a registered Green Party member who usually votes
for Democrats ---

As for disagreeing -- true.
But I do notice that we actually agree on a lot --- !!!


Meanwhile . . .

Hard to know where to begin with the suggestion that whether Bush is "corrupt or not" is
"hard to know" . . . !!!
Especially since you've reduced him to a level of retardation ---
And, I presume, the "really awful people in your party" you would identify as ...
neo-cons, or PNAC -- ?

While I agree with you that a more moderate concept of the Republican party has been lost to
neo-cons and Evangelicals -- still -- that was a long, long time ago.
Poppy Bush attacked Iraq - Gulf War I -- and Sen. Robert Dole made it clear in the Senate that it was about OIL.

And -- Coming back to just this part of corporate monopoly/corruption --
You seem to not be able to hear what I am saying to you --
large corporations pay LESS than they did in the 1950's . . .
they pay LESS than the average tax-payer --- sometimes less than 8% --- !!!

Think about it . . . when corporations go oversees . . . is it to increase their profits or
or to pocket larger profits? Certainly the experience with the car industry makes clear that
they have not shared those additional profits with the consumer.

Again, EVERY business in some part tries to move its expenses -- and taxes are part of expenses --
on to the consumer. Small business and large, alike.

Companies are going oversees to "harvest slave labor."


Hope we'll be comparing notes/experiences and chatting again soon ---









Just remember, there will be some things we disagree on
and I'm fine with that if I feel your party represents the most logical way of moving forward.

On to your points.

I can't honestly say whether I think Bush is corrupt or not. With Cheney, there is no question in my mind. Bush, well he's a former drunk who bankrupted 2 of his own companies and hasn't figured out the English language yet so It's hard for me to give him the credit of being smart enough to purposely lie to us. I'm more thinking he has the mental capacity of a 3rd grader and was led astray by some really, really awful people who have influence in my party.

2. This is where some people make mistakes. Republicans are not neocons, nor are they Evangelical bible thumpers(no offense to my Christian friends). True Republicans want us to stay out of foreign entanglements. Remember Somalia or Serbia. It's this new and idiotic breed of Republicans called neocons that want us to police the world and use force as our negotiator.

3. Corporate taxes. This is the hard one. When we tax corporations, they build that tax into their prices which in essence, turns their tax into a tax on us. Not only that, it is one of the influencing issues which sends companies overseas.

It's not like it will kill me to see us tax corporations, I just want people to understand that we are the ones who end up paying those taxes.


As for nationalizing oil, I'm all for it. Those greedy bastards are killing our country for a necessity we must have. That's another reason I like Dems, - Their push for alternative energy is 100x that of my own party where the only plan seems to be the Fred Flinstone mobile. IT really escapes me why we haven't embraced this more with our party until I remember who's in charge.


I hope I shed some more light on why I'm here with some of my answers. IF you have more, ask away. There's 10x the civility here than trying to discuss these issues with neocons.

[fedupconservative]

246. I'm glad your taking the time to answer my questions

As for our US companies who go overseas, I believe we should impose stiff tariffs on their incoming goods. I think it's a travesty that we let our companies go overseas, taking American jobs with them, so they can produce shoddy goods thru made my children, all so some company can look better to Wall Street.

I'll confess, I haven't bought any Nike products for yrs because my wife rented one of Michael Moore's documentaries where the Nike executive said Americans wouldn't do the work and they were forced to set up in Asia. They can go to hell.

[defendandprotect]

257. Well . . . Clinton delivered NAFTA --

so much of the problem we face here as Democrats and with the Democratic candidates is
the GOP co-opting the Democratic party ---
DLC being the corporate-sponsored arm of the Democratic Party ---
and the "blue dogs" being 42-45/? Democrats who vote like Republicans ---
and who confer with the President and GOP leaders ---

Hillary is DLC ---

Much of the corporate ability to flee is due to the overturning of the Bretton Woods Accords which
happened under Nixon --- capital can move around in a moment --- labor can't . . .

And -- of course, not all of the goods are "shabby" --- however, the larger issue being not only
depriving Americans of their jobs -- usually accompanied by union-busting or barring unions ---
but the "harvesting of slave labor" around the world --- a return to child labor and forced labor.

Your wife is probably aware that whether you want to buy dishes or a coat --- children's clothing
or shoes --- everything is now made in China.

China finances our debt --- along with Mexico which should, of course, be directing its investments
in providing jobs for their own citizens. All of this is corrupt!

Hope you also have seen Michael Moore's SICKO --- great, great movie.

Good luck here ---

[lumberjack_jeff]

253. Excellent.

I disagree with a number of your views, but the very fact that you're here indicates that we have much in common.

1) liberty. The liberty to do what we want depends on our willingness to stand up for our neighbor's right to do what they want. If the patriot act has a silver lining, this is it. The last 8 years have shown me that the gun rights people had a point, as it has shown you that the ACLU types did too.

2) education. The department of education is necessary. If it works badly, it is because of the ideology at its very top.

3) international aid is miniscule and almost entirely military "aid". We're not doing them any favors, sadly, we're not doing ourselves any favors either.

4) government limits, particularly through tax policy are arbitrary. A government that is limited in its imposition on people will be limited in scope. Cut the military by 1/3 and there's plenty of money to provide universal health care. Universal health care, in turn, can then save each of us $2000 or more of waste, inefficiency and the cost of poor care. Government should be about creating pragmatic solutions for ourselves, not arbitrary limits, and certainly not protecting or turning a blind eye on industries that prey on us.

5) we are less safe because we're looking to be less safe. In motorcycle safety class they call this target fixation. If you want to avoid the hazard in the road, look at the clear road, not at the hazard. It is human nature to go where we look.

6) our budget is indeed in shambles. It is a direct result of making taxes a policy decision that is unrelated to the programs provided. Set the program at a level that is appropriate and beneficial and then set taxes adequate to cover that need.

And welcome to DU. Ignore the slings and arrows. :hi:

[Nederland]

5. Answers

As best I can do, though I'm sure others will chime in:

1. How much will your candidates Health Care plan cost, what does it cover and how will we pay for this?

No way of knowing, but it won't be more expensive than what Americans pay right now.


2. Will your candidate not only pull us out of Iraq but the majority of other countries we have troops stationed?

No.


3. What is your candidate going to do about the impending economic nightmare of $58 Trillion in future entitlements for Medicare, SS and govt pensions?

Raise taxes on the rich.


4. How trustworthy do you believe your candidate to be?

More trustworthy than most politicians.

[bpeale]

57. healthcare

1. How much will your candidates Health Care plan cost, what does it cover and how will we pay for this?

No way of knowing, but it won't be more expensive than what Americans pay right now.

given that everyone would be under an umbrella, i would say the costs SHOULD be way less than we are currently paying, although you have to take into account those on welfare, medicare, etc., but i still think it should be way less than we are currently paying.

[ReadTomPaine]

6. "Sleeping on the Democratic Couch – Advice for Republican Refugees"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1857274

[orleans]

200. that was a GREAT thread--i loved that post!

thanks for the reminder.

[fedupconservative]

210. I found it rather offensive

Is that intolerant hate creed how Dems propose to unite our country?

So God forbid if anyone has a differing view, you're just as bad as my party when it comes to trying to compromise and unite.

See, I actually think having parties has a lot to do with the divide and discourse our nation is embroiled in. We're forced to choose between 2 parties no matter how centrist our views on a number of issues may be. Our parties look for the slightest hint of difference on an issue and magnifies it tenfold to get us to fight each other. Lines are drawn, bitterness follows.

If this is how it is, no thanks. I'll grovel to no one and next time I hear Hillary or Obama talking about uniting our country, I'll realize it's nothing but propaganda.

I'm very disappointed to see such a level of hate and intolerance being supported from your side. Yeah, I know Republican are well know for this but I thought your side was suppose to be better than that.

[orleans]

217. oh god--was i even talking to you? i replied to someone about

something that apparently you weren't around to know about at the time.

and as far as summing up everyone by my remark to someone else--i was reading this thread you put up and it seemed to me you got OVERWHELMING support from everyone here--including me about the fucking tofu!

now, i tell someone i really enjoyed a post they made in august of 06 and you have a problem with that?

maybe you should ask yourself WHY me and so many others liked that thread about sleeping on the democratic couch. WHAT had republicans done to us, to this country, that made a post like that so wonderful?

and you call that an "intolerant hate creed"?? maybe you should read it again. and not be so quick to judge.

is this your excuse to start slamming democrats? you twist up "Sleeping on the Democratic Couch – Advice for Republican Refugees" and call it a hate creed?

we're not all fucking tye-dyed, groovy, laid-back, "dudes" around here. some of us are sick to death of that fucking republican party and that goddamn george bush and his fucking neocon freaks of which the masses of sheep in the republican party supported--and of which you claimed to support as well.

i no longer have tolerance for such shit. i don't forgive the republika party--i don't forgive bush/cheney/etc, and i have zero tolerance for their crap. and i absolutely HATE what they have done to this country--and what they have done to other countries.

why do you have a problem with that?

maybe you found it offensive because you were part of the problem?

btw--you don't like my bitter, resentful, intolerant attitude you can always put me on "ignore" and i'll disappear from your view. far easier to "ignore" me than it is for me to ignore the pillage and rape bush did to us.

if you want to know where "your candidates" stand why don't you start watching the debates and go to their websites and do some research? three out of four of your questions are like asking people to pull out their crystal balls and ouija boards. not everyone carries one of those. in spite of what you may think about "us"

[ReadTomPaine]

220. I'm not surprised in the least. Turnabout is never fair play to conservatives.

We don't need more conservative Republicans in the Democratic party. We have plenty of missing and disenfranchised liberal voters that have to start getting courted and counted first. That's a bigger priority than selling out a party platform to political opposition. We are not Republicans. You already have a party, the problem is that people like yourself allowed it to be co-oped.

Is that intolerant hate creed how Dems propose to unite our country?

I have no intention of uniting with the conservative movement or the GOP since I am a Democrat and have been since well before it was fashionable and the rest of you decided to leave your sinking ship. We don't exist to service your needs or accommodate your politics. As a republican refugee, it is you who must learn to accommodate our platform or you can hit the road. It's not your house, get it? If you don't like the current political environment, look in the mirror and start placing the blame where it belongs. If your flawed political judgment got you into this mess, what makes you think anything you say or have to bring to the table will be of value to those of us who knew the problem from the start?

So God forbid if anyone has a differing view, you're just as bad as my party when it comes to trying to compromise and unite.

There is no compromise with the current GOP. There is only capitulation or resistance. It's that simple. Sorry to be the one to break this news for you, but conservative republican beliefs have no place in the Democratic party now or in the future. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow, but you screwed up when the stakes couldn't be higher. It's those very mistakes that lead you here. Now it's time that you listen to the people who have been trying for decades to tell you this was coming, and not stamp your foot and demand accommodation from us. This is political charity. Your first handout. Welcome to the political dole. Get in line.

See, I actually think having parties has a lot to do with the divide and discourse our nation is embroiled in. We're forced to choose between 2 parties no matter how centrist our views on a number of issues may be. Our parties look for the slightest hint of difference on an issue and magnifies it tenfold to get us to fight each other. Lines are drawn, bitterness follows.

It's easy and rather convenient to claim this now that the glass house is shattering around you and you have no place left to turn, but I'm sure the song was different when things were rosy and sweet during the 80's & 90's. Parties may be divisive, but they don't create the divisions, they merely reflect them. It means something to be a Democrat, FUC. That may come as a surprise to someone from a party without principle, but most of us won't compromise our beliefs for the sake of your comfort level. Centrism didn't stop us from getting into this mess, and it's not going to get us out of it. I want my 10 years back and I'm not going to wait a generation to get where we should be already so you can feel at home. You're a guest, remember?

If this is how it is, no thanks. I'll grovel to no one and next time I hear Hillary or Obama talking about uniting our country, I'll realize it's nothing but propaganda.

You had damn well better start to grovel, because people like you are the reason this country is in the state we are currently experiencing and it's only by the grace and patience of people like myself that you haven't been shoved against a wall and had some common sense beaten into you. The unpleasant reality is that this country isn't going to be united via centrism or compromise. Political solutions to the current crisis ended around '94, with Gingrich's ascendancy. It's going to take pain, confrontation and years of strife before the American Republic has any chance of being restored. If you can't face that, then go home and stick your head back into the sand.

I'm very disappointed to see such a level of hate and intolerance being supported from your side. Yeah, I know Republican are well know for this but I thought your side was suppose to be better than that.

You haven't seen anything yet. If you don't like what democrats have had to become in order to survive the political fires that the GOP started, then you and other disaffected conservatives shouldn't have permitted your party to be hijacked by extremists. That flame has hardened us like the tempering of steel. It's the height of irony and arrogance to see you, a conservative, complain about intolerance. You're reaping what you've sown, tough guy. If you knew that Democrats were more principled, as you indicate, what the hell were you doing all those years supporting the other side? So suck it up, get in line and do as you're told or go back home to Daddy Bush. Those are your options. You need us a hell of a lot more than we will ever need you.

[orleans]

222. beautifully said. thank you. n/t

[fedupconservative]

231. I hope you feel better

I expected some hard feelings so let it out.

Once you're done maybe you'll start seeing I'm not trying to change anyones views. Instead I'm trying to integrate them with Democratic viewpoints. I realize I need to compromise and I'm willing to do that but I think we both know there are some issues we will just not agree on no matter how many concessions I make. I'm willing to accept that.

But please, don't get on a high horse of how great you are and how awful we are. Things happened, my party got overrun with neocons and Christian Conservatives and elected a really awful president. What can I say? Now what's your excuse for Pelosi?

I just want to point out bitterness will get us nowhere. Even with the best intentions, your party will have some bumps in the road as did ours, though ours were more like crashes.

Irregardless, I hope you'll see why I'm really here and work with me the best you can to help me mesh my values and ideals with your beliefs. I can't see any way to right the direction of our country without a Democratic President, so I'll support one but I don't believe that I have to give up everything I believe in order to do so.

[hfojvt]

240. the only problems we have with Pelosi

are that she caves to Republicans way too much.

You don't have to give up anything to vote for a Democrat, you are just making the typical lesser of two evils choice.

This discussion board, OTOH, is another thing entirely. There are plenty of "purists" here who are very quick to cast stones and aspersions at those they perceive to be heretics or trolls.

They don't like conservatives, on any issue. Even people like me, who are radical left on some issues and conservative on others, and often will defend what I see as unfair attacks even on conservatives that I disagree with. Insofar as anybody notices me at all, I think there is a decent sized contingent that would be happy to see me get booted out.

That is what the linked OP was saying. If you now want a liberal party or more liberal policies than you did before, then you are welcome here. But if you just want a more moderate Republican party, then go back to the Republican party and fight for that. Especially here, where we are fighting to make the Democratic party more liberal and less Liebermanesque. Although now we seem to be crawling with Clintonistas who just luuuuurve centrism.

[ReadTomPaine]

241. I'll feel better when the modern GOP is melted back into the plowshares from whence it came..

and this entire debacle is just a chapter in a textbook titled "Failed Political Movements and Ideologies". I'd give a lot for an actual, principled opposition where I can go to sleep easily the night before an election and not be too concerned about which side wins the next day. That would make me feel best of all.

I expected some hard feelings so let it out.

You'll get more than hard feelings and you should. It's time for your ilk to take 'personal responsibility' for what's happened in this country. There are people to blame, and you're one of them. This problem is far larger than the GWB presidency and if you don't see that, you haven't learned a thing. The problems with the GOP go beyond its easily co-oped vertical structure and the 'few bad apples' at the top pulling the strings. There are core values and goals that have become ingrained in the party that stand in stark contrast to the American way of life (Ever read Strauss?). That's less a political stance than a form of ideological contagion to the concept of democracy and it must be treated as such. You don't find a common ground with such a virus, you eliminate it from the body politic.

Once you're done maybe you'll start seeing I'm not trying to change anyones views. Instead I'm trying to integrate them with Democratic viewpoints. I realize I need to compromise and I'm willing to do that but I think we both know there are some issues we will just not agree on no matter how many concessions I make. I'm willing to accept that.

I didn't ask for your concessions any more than I've asked for your opinion. Just your presence moves the party in the worst possible direction - further to the right. So you don't get a say, you just get a seat to wait it out until there's a place for you to go where you actually belong. That place isn't here, but we'll put you up for the time being. Meanwhile, it's better for you to simply be seen here, not heard. Isn't screwing up once enough?

But please, don't get on a high horse of how great you are and how awful we are. Things happened, my party got overrun with neocons and Christian Conservatives and elected a really awful president. What can I say? Now what's your excuse for Pelosi?

The first thing you can do is apologize for your part in this mess. You'll be amazed as just how much that simple act of contrition will accomplish. In reference to the rest, see house rules #6 & 7

I just want to point out bitterness will get us nowhere. Even with the best intentions, your party will have some bumps in the road as did ours, though ours were more like crashes.

Neither will coddling the people who are responsible for this catastrophe, fed. The housecleaning is going to be drastic and should have been undertaken during the 1970's or after BCCI in the early 90's. It was that very appeal to compromise and comity which prevented those required steps from occurring and lead to the sorry state of the GOP and the United States today. Any hope for the unity you seek died when the GOP burned it alive on the bridges they were busy setting aflame during that period. Think of it as 'tough love' - at least we aren't leaving you out in the cold. That's far more than conservatives have ever done for us.

Irregardless, I hope you'll see why I'm really here and work with me the best you can to help me mesh my values and ideals with your beliefs. I can't see any way to right the direction of our country without a Democratic President, so I'll support one but I don't believe that I have to give up everything I believe in order to do so.

Keep you values, we don't want them. This country is the equivalent of an accident victim now and your actions count more than your words. We need your votes, not your ideas. Put your feelings and beliefs in the happy box and just vote a straight democratic ticket - save the rest for later, lest you track your failures here as well.

[fedupconservative]

244. Wow, your worse than a neocon.

Sorry bud, I'm not falling for your Totalitarianism. You want me to accept responsibilty for those who hijacked my party? You're saying it's my fault that GWB lied to us and killed hundreds of thousands for no reason? Shall I put the blame on you for every mistake a Democrat caused our country?

I'll take one guess, if there are more of you, you'll do the exact same thing to your party that neocons did to mine. Enjoy your bitter little world.

[ReadTomPaine]

249. Projection, Thy Name is Republican.

The world you're talking about is the one your votes and your leaders created, fed. Not mine. Of course it was your responsibility to stop what happened to the GOP - seeing as you are a Republican. To whom else would such a duty fall? Here's a hint - "Not my problem" isn't the correct answer. As others here have pointed out, the first step to recovery is admitting your problem. Denial isn't a virtue.

When problems arose in our party, we held our leaders feet to the fire until people like Howard Dean, John Conyers and Paul Wellstone stepped up and started to make a difference. We didn't pucker up to the people trying to distort our party the same way conservatives did. There's plenty for you to learn from our side, but there isn't much of value for you to teach us or anyone, for that matter.

Here's an article that was referenced in my original thread that's particularly apt for this discussion:

Notes for Converts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/notes-for-converts_b_17662.html

4. President Bush is your creation. When the US Supreme Court humiliated itself in 2000 by handing the presidency to Bush even though two of the justices (Scalia and Thomas) had open conflicts of interest, you did not object. When the Bush administration adopted an "Anything but Clinton" policy that resulted in ignoring and dismissing all warnings of possible terrorist attacks on US soil, you went along with and made excuses for Bush. When the Bush administration allowed the corrupt Enron corporation to swindle California ratepayers and taxpayers in a last ditch effort to balance their books in 2001, you laughed at the Californians and ignored the links between Enron and the administration. When it was evident that the evidence for the war in Iraq was cooked and that State Department experts on the Middle East were not behind the war and so it was going to be run as an exercise in incompetence, you continued to attack those who were against the war in vicious terms and to defend policies that simply could not work. On intelligent design, global warming, doctoring of scientific results to reflect ideology, corporate tax giveaways, the K Street project, the illegal redistricting of Texas, torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the Terry Schiavo fiasco, and the cronyism that led to the destruction of New Orleans you have failed to speak out with integrity or honesty, preferring power to truth at every turn. Bush does what he wants because you have let him.

5. Tyranny is your creation. What we have today is the natural and inevitable outcome of ideas and policies you have promoted for the last generation. I once knew a guy who was still a Marxist in 1980. Whenever I asked him why Communism had failed in Russia and China, he said "Mistakes were made". He could not believe that Marxism itself was at fault, just as you cannot believe that the ideology of the unregulated free market has created the world we live in today. You are tempted to say: "Mistakes have been made", but in fact, psychologically and sociologically, no mistakes have been made. The unregulated free market has operated to produce a government in its own image. In an unregulated free market, for example, cheating is merely another sort of advantage that, supposedly, market forces might eventually "shake out" of the system. Of course, anyone with common sense understands that cheaters do damage that sometimes cannot be repaired before they are "shaken out", but according to the principles of the unregulated free market, the victims of that sort of damage are just out of luck and the damage that happens to them is just a sort of "culling". It is no accident that our government is full of cheaters--they learned how to profit from cheating when they were working in corporations that were using bribes, perks, and secret connections to cheat their customers of good products, their neighbors of healthy environmental conditions, their workers of workplace safety and decent paychecks. It was only when the corporations began cheating their shareholders that any of you squealed, but you should know from your own experience that the unregulated free market as a "level playing field" was the biggest laugh of the 20th century. No successful company in the history of capitalism has ever favored open competition. When you folks pretended, in the eighties, that you weren't using the ideology of the free market to cover your own manipulations of the playing field to your own advantage, you may have suckered yourselves, and even lots of American workers, but observers of capitalism since Adam Smith could have told you it wasn't going to work.

...

And then there was the way you used racism and religious intolerance to gain and hold onto power. Nixon was cynical about it--taking the party of Lincoln and reaching out to disaffected southern racists, drumming up a backlash against the Civil Rights movement for the sake of votes, but none of you has been any less vicious. Racism might have died an unlamented death in this country, but you kept it alive with phrases like "welfare queen" and your resistance to affirmative action and taxation for programs to help people in our country with nothing, or very little. You opted not to take the moral high ground and recognize that the whole nation would be better off without racism, but rather to increase class divisions and racial divisions for the sake of your own comfort, pleasure, and profit. You have used religion in exactly the same way. Instead of strongly defending the constitutional separation of church and state, you have encouraged radical fundamentalist sects to believe that they can take power in the US and mold our secular government to their own image, and get rich doing it. The US could have become a moderating force in what seems now to be an inevitable battle among the three monotheistic Abrahamic religions, but you have made that impossible by flattering and empowering our own violent and intolerant Christian right.

Now you are fleeing him, but it's only because he's got the earmarks of a loser. Your problem is that you don't know why he's losing. You think he's made mistakes. But no. He's losing because the ideas that you taught him and demonstrated for him are bad ideas, self-destructive ideas, and even suicidal ideas. And they are immoral ideas. You should be ashamed of yourselves because not only have your ideas not worked to make the world a better place, they were inhumane and cruel to begin with, and they have served to cultivate and excuse the inhumane and cruel character traits of those who profess them.

Emphasis mine.

[fedupconservative]

251. Sorry, I'm not taking the bait

Your trying to draw me into a fight I have no reason to be in. You don't know me and therefore you don't know how hard I've fought my party since the 2000 S.C. primary. I've done as much as I could to try to help the people in my party realize we were being over run by people who didn't care about us or care about our country. And I'm not the only one. Many, many others in my party knew something rotten was going on as well but when your outnumbered, the fight usually doesn't end very well.

So please spare me your indignities and your hate filled self righteousness. You are no different than the people who brought down my party with their intolerance and rhetorical hate filled nonsense. You preach the good fight but don't follow it yourself. Why is that?

I think I'll stick around if others will let me. I seem to have found more in common with people here than I first thought possible.

[ReadTomPaine]

254. Since you were busy for decades swallowing the bait - hook, line and sinker - from your own side...

it's not surprising that your belly is already too full for anything more nutritious. These problems started well before 2000 and if that's when you decided to fight it was almost a decade too late and billions of dollars too short. I'll spare you and the 'many others' nothing in the meantime - you got the GOP you deserved whether you're willing to admit it or not.

As far as your sticking around - stay as long as you like. Just behave yourself and come November vote a straight Democratic ticket. If you really want to help - that's all you need to do. Sending your favorite Democrats a few bucks once you've reviewed the respective platforms wouldn't be a bad idea either. Consider it extra credit. We'll take it from there, as usual.

[fedupconservative]

255. Are you the most bitter person in the world?

Let it go. I'm an American just like you. I want what's best for our country the same as everyone here.

I swear, it's some personal affront to you that I've seen the light and have come over here. When I was in the GOP, I'd consider it a personal victory if a Dem came to us. Why does this bother you so much? You'd rather I say the hell with it and go support the nonsense on the other side?



One thing you said I took particularly to heart:

"you got the GOP you deserved whether you're willing to admit it or not."

How did I deserve it? My gosh, you're the Dem version of Karl Rove. Let it go.

I could just as easily say "you got the Speaker of the House you deserve". Sorta doesn't make any sense though, does it?

[ReadTomPaine]

256. You claim "mistakes were made" - but they weren't mistakes, Fed - they were *choices*

Now you have to live with the consequences of those choices and I'm not surprised that you don't like it one bit. The decades leading up to the 2000 election - from Ford's presidency to Reagan's "Morning in America" - were just as responsible as the SC's decision in putting the current crew where they are today. Most of this goon squad got their start in the executive branch under Nixon and further solidified those gains under both Ford and Reagan. Those were the years you were a GOP member in good standing, pleased as punch with the way things were going. I'm sure you were just as delighted to trickle down on the rest of us for decades until you were the one feeling the rain. That makes you as responsible as anyone else in the GOP. Yes, it does.

"Let it go" is a just a shorthand for "Let me get away with it" and that's not going to happen. This albatross is staying where it belongs, around the necks of you and every conservative responsible for this disaster. You talk around this topic, but the fact remains that Bush was the inevitable result of the choices the GOP have been making for a generation. You chose to sleep with the dogs, Fed. Don't complain to me now that you can't rid yourself of the fleas. You had over 20 years to join what you already admitted you knew was the more principled party, but you didn't. Instead you've come looking for shelter when the fire you helped to start began to burn you as well as the rest of us. You earned this, you weren't a victim. You were an accomplice. Next time, don't play with matches. That makes all the sense in the world, whether you like it or not.

[orleans]

221. let's revive it:

1857274, Sleeping on the Democratic Couch – Advice for Republican Refugees
Posted by ReadTomPaine on Tue Aug-08-06 10:56 PM

Until we fix your party and send you back across the aisle, here are some suggested house rules for Republican refugees staying with the Democratic Party.

1) It’s our house, not yours.

Don’t put your feet on the coffee table, don’t raid the 'fridge and don’t pretend you’ve owned the place all along. As comfortable as you may feel here, this isn’t politics as usual. It’s not your home. If you find you fit in, you are welcome to stay and become a member of our family. Otherwise, don’t pretend we’re the same as you. Be happy we aren’t charging rent; you are expensive guests.

2) Don’t invite your crazy friends over.

We have a big tent, but a short fuse. While we are putting you up in our home, don’t push your old politics in our face. Hold your nose and support both mainstream and progressive Democrats. Yes, that means ditching McCain for now. Assuming he’s still in politics when this is over, you can vote for him or give him support then. Leave the Bush enablers at the door. You can spend time with them once we reform your party for you and send you home. It’s bad form now. Meantime, eat your veggies. They are better for you than you think.

3) Wipe your feet before you come in.

Tracking mud on our nice carpet is boorish. Leave the dirt outside. This means that no matter how much you are tempted to do otherwise, use that old GOP “support the leader” discipline and get in line with progressive politics, whether you agree with them or not. You might not like our agenda, but you wouldn’t be here if you preferred Bush’s GOP. I know old habits die hard and vices are a comfort in times of stress, but please also refrain from your favorite pastime, bashing Democratic ideals. We want you to go home as much as you want to return, but it’s hard to fix the bigger mess if we are constantly cleaning up after smaller ones at home. We do work, you know.

4) Leave the keys to the car alone.

As a party we are pro civil rights, pro women’s rights, pro minorities, pro gay, pro environment and pro choice. We believe in the separation of church and state. Don’t try to take the wheel and steer toward the right. Your driver's license was suspended anyway, remember?

5) Be nice to our friends.

We’ve been friends with labor unions, environmental groups and foreign countries like France a lot longer than we’ve been friends with you. Don’t give any of them a hard time. Don’t say they don’t belong here at our side. Don’t call them wackos or extremists. They belong here more than you do and they will be our friends long after most of you are gone. We argue with them enough as it is.

6) Don’t unpack your baggage.

The only reason you are sleeping on the Democratic couch is because you can’t face your alcoholic father. We empathize, but please don’t preach to us about religion, morals, ethics or lack of the same. Save it for the family counselor after we put your abusive parents in jail. Democrats have plenty of GOP problems to deal with already.

7) Don’t interfere in a family fight.

Moderates may fight with progressives. Grassroots liberals may fight with the party establishment. Young Democrats might argue with older ones. That’s none of your concern. These are our political brothers and sisters, not yours. If the Democratic Party is somewhat dysfunctional, at least it is still a real political party, not the empty shell of one. So if we start to bicker, leave us alone. We'll find a way to work it ourselves. Democrats are good with that. Learn from this.

Now with a little bit of luck, this will all be behind us in a few years and you’ll get your old house back. It will take a lot longer if you screw around, however. So don’t screw around.

Enjoy your stay!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1857274

[Nickster]

7. Interesting questions.

1. Hillary's will cost 150 Billion and I beleive that Barack's will cost 110 Billion or vice versa. I know that it's 110 and 150. They will be paid for from allowing some of the Dubya tax cuts to expire in 2010. There's about 400 billion removed from general revenue just from that. As far as coverage, we don't know yet. People will get at least a basic coverage plan, but that's stuff that gets hammered out through Congress.

2. Both of the candidates will move troops out of Iraq, but the other countries are different issues. Korea and Iraq aren't even in the same ballpark.

3. Well, one of the things will be to wipe out the tax money that's going to private insurance companies to provide Medicare supplement insurance, that's about 16 billion right there. The rest of that is a pretty big question that I can't really answer in a few sentences. Medicare needs to be able to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices. SS might need to have the income cap raised or taxes increased. I think a slight income gap adjustment might work best. Gov't pensions? Not really see that I see that as a major issue, but I'm not as informed on that subject.

4. Politicians are politicians, so you can't trust any of them completely. I trust both of the Democratic candidates a whole truckload more than I trust any Republican right now and probably for a long time in the future. They've allowed themselves to go way past extreme and have lied consistently to the American public. There's only so many times that you can blatantly lie to the public and get away with it. I believe the dramatic turnout in Primary voting is a sure sign that America is fed up with Right Wing Extremist politics.

Hope that helped a little at least.

[flamin lib]

8. I'll try to answer generically as I haven't decided on my vote yet.

1. It really doesn't matter what the health care program costs because we are paying for universal health care now. Increased costs due to emergency room care for the poor and hospital write-offs of noncollectable bills are passed on to those who are insured. Those increased costs to employers who insure employees are passed on in cost of goods/services.

2. Iraq is over as soon as one of the Democrats is elected and an orderly withdrawal can be done. There has been no discussion of troops in other countries. Is it important to you to remove troops from other countries?

3. Both candidates have said they will remove or increase the cap on SS taxes to make those programs viable.

4. What is the alternative? I'd trust a rabid dog over any Republican.

[Iris]

12. regarding #1

I've had 2 friends almost die, and one probably will anyway, because of lack of healthcare. If some people are comfortable with the idea that for-profit ventures decide who lives and who dies in this country, than we have a lot more problems then how much a universal healthcare plan will cost.

I guess what I'm really trying to do is ask a question with another question - What's the value of human life? (And I mean the life of a fully grown adult with established emotional and financial connections to other people who happen to think s/he is important in their lives. No jumping over to the abortion issue on this one.)

[aquart]

16. Hold on.

Is a human life of value ONLY with family and connections? Have we made a decision to let the lonely die? Because many of our elderly have outlived all of that. So let them go?

[Iris]

20. no! no! no! That's not what I meant.

But seeing that the OP is a defector from the GOP, I felt like I had to make sure it is clear I'm talking about the already born!

Of course I wouldn't want insurance companies deciding who lives and dies based on how many family and friends they have. Or how much money they have. Or even how OLD they are!

[winter999]

25. The value of a human life is directly proportional to

what he/she makes of it. Compare, say, Ben Franklin to Charlie Manson. If both were dieing and you could save only one.......

[aquart]

223. Ben's dead, Charlie's alive.

But how interesting that you equate being without family as being a criminal society can do without.

Is this what passes for "progressive" thinking nowadays?

[fedupconservative]

32. Yes, remove troop

We cannot pay for half the programs your candidates want if we're paying to keep troops abroad. We have 700 bases in 130 countries and it's time for us to get out of 90% of these countries.

http://www.therussiajournal.com/node/17488

[uppityperson]

34. We cannot pay for 1/4 the programs repub candidates want if we're continuing to spend

that much money in Iraq.

[fedupconservative]

38. Hence, why I'm here

I'd rather see our money spent on Americans even if I disagree with the programs

[flamin lib]

58. Part of the problem with closing all the foreign bases is that

after Bush 41 and Dick Cheney cut military spending by 30% in one term and began closing domestic bases there isn't any place to put them inside our borders. Of course we could just cut the size of our standing army but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

If you want to save money on defense spending I'd suggest killing Star Wars Part Deaux and decide which of the two next generation fighter planes to develop and kill the other. That and force the Pentagon to account for the $100 billion they lose every year.

There are good reasons to have troops in foreign countries. Rapid deployment to trouble areas is facilitated by having bases in Europe and elsewhere. The modest number of troops in the Korean DMZ is a tripwire keeping N Korea from doing anything stupid.

Nope, I think leaving the foreign bases open is the least expensive thing to do at present assuming we are to maintain the current size of our standing army.

[fedupconservative]

72. N Korea will not attack S Korea

While N Korea's army is vastly larger than the South's, it is ill equipped and S korea has a nuclear detterent.

What happens with the US having bases in 130 foreign countries is that those countries spend none of their own money on their self defense and therefore let us undertake the burden. Why is it our responsibilty to protect the world and would you rather see us spend money abroad or on the people in the US?

We don't have an infinite Treasury and some compromise should be considered.

[flamin lib]

88. So you're in favor of cutting defense spending?

That's the only way I can see to bring all those soldiers home.

Not that I'm opposed to curbing the Pentagon appetite mind you.

[fedupconservative]

92. No, but..

I am in favor of cutting the DoD's overseas expenditures. I want us to keep a strong military but I don't believe we should be paying to keep over 700 bases in 130 foreign countries and I believe the Dems might be our best hope in curbing our insatiable appetite of policing the world. I'd rather see the money being spent here, even for programs I might fully support, rather than giving all our money and resources to countries who might have our interests in mind.

[flamin lib]

106. Well, like I said, those bases aren't there to provide "police protection"

for those countries but to provide rapid deployment and a place to store our standing army since Bush41/Cheney gutted domestic bases.

We disagree and that's okay, it happens a lot here. No lock step in this party.

[islandmkl]

9. I believe our candidates should both answer as follows:

1)won't do anything 2)won't be necessary 3)ignore them 4) about the same as always. Therefore, Republicans will feel instantly comfortable with their positions. I'm not buying it that this person needs 'answers' to these questions to convince him/herself that either Democrat will be good for the country compared to the Bush/GOP syndicate.

[theoldman]

10. Let me try to answer a few of your questions.

1. Not more than present insurance and maybe less. It covers most people. Through higher taxes, how else?
2. Unfortunately we will have to pull out of Iraq slowly. Same for other countries.
3. Raise the age before collecting and raise the income level for paying the SS tax.
4. No politician is trustworthy but some are better than others.

[MissB]

11. You really should just go read Clinton's website and Obama's website.

Other than that, you're just wasting our time. Do your own research.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[fedupconservative]

37. Is that how you find info on GOP candidates?

OR do you get your information thru diologue?

Incidently, I can point you out to a number of GOP candidate websites and show you where their voting record is the exact opposite of how they say they feel on issues.

[uppityperson]

44. Do you look at their voting record or "how they feel"? Tell us more about you.

You say you have insurance, does this mean through a job? Generalities are ok, just give us an idea of who you are, other than "fed up" and wanting to spend money on americans rather than non-americans.

[fedupconservative]

53. Refer to "My beliefs" above.

Yes, I'm fully insured thru work with an excellent plan.

I'm feeling a little overwhelmed here with the layout of the threads but I'll do my best to answer as many questions as I can.

[uppityperson]

56. Do you look at their voting record or "how they feel"?

[fedupconservative]

60. Both

But voting records hold a lot of weight with me

[radfringe]

13. if you want to know specifics about a candidates platform

I suggest you visit their websites and read it for yourself - nothing like getting the info straight from the horse's mouth

meanwhile- questions for you

1. what made you decide to end your GOPer relationship?

2. how'd you find the DU?

3. sounds like you are half convinced already to vote dem, if not 100% or near enough convinced - will you not vote or vote goper?

[Elidor]

14. Social Security is not an entitlement program, buster.

The dialogue is not off to a healthy start.

[karlrschneider]

17. It looks to me as if the OP is asking "Why should I support any of these horrible things?"

:eyes:

[Nederland]

19. Yes it is

In fact, law dictionaries defined it as such:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e081.htm

As do various media organizations:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3DD133CF935A15751C0A9629C8B63

And the Federal government under Clinton:

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/96gb/intro.htm

[Iris]

24. you mean "a" legal dictionary defines it as such.

[Nederland]

27. Read the updated post

Arguing that Social Security isn't an entitlement program when the Federal Government calls it that is ridiculous.

[Iris]

28. Frankly, I don't really care. The word "entitlement" does not offend me.

[islandmkl]

33. are you all kidding me?

i guess entitlement is an OK 'definition' for taking away some of my money and then giving it back to me at a later date. In that case, some future generations need now worry...that 'entitlement' part will not be available...though they funded it

[Iris]

35. No.

I'm not kidding.


Ummm.... which forum did you think you were on? Is it that surprising to think someone on Democratic Underground might not have a problem with "entitlements"?

[islandmkl]

39. oh...i thought i was responding to the comments directly previous

(including yours) concerning OP question #3...get yourself a map if necessary

[guruoo]

137. He's here to learn, so chill, ...

buster! :hi:

[CANDO]

168. " Entitlement" is not a bad word.

We've been programed by the framing machine to think it is.

[lpbk2713]

15. I'm glad you saw the light.

And welcome.

:thumbsup: :hi: :thumbsup:

[guitar man]

21. welcome to DU

to answer your questions...


1. How much will your candidates Health Care plan cost, what does it cover and how will we pay for this?

I don't know, but I'd bet it will cost much less than the trillion-dollar folly in Iraq, and probably end up costing less than what we are spending now. I personally know someone who was uninsured and unable to afford preventative care for something that turned serious later on and damn near killed him. He wound up having over $50k in emergency surgery for something that $500-1000 dollars worth of preventative treatment would have prevented. And guess who picked up the $50k? You're right, the taxpayers did. You do the math on that one.

2. Will your candidate not only pull us out of Iraq but the majority of other countries we have troops stationed?

I doubt it. Not any time soon anyway. The currint misasministration has us tangled in a hell of a web on this one, I doubt it gets untangled very quickly.

3. What is your candidate going to do about the impending economic nightmare of $58 Trillion in future entitlements for Medicare, SS and govt pensions?

As a previous poster pointed out, bring the taxes on the wealthiest back to their previous levels. The uber wealthy in this country have had one hell of a ride under GW and his republican congress. They have managed to cork up most anything that might "trickle down" voluntarily to the middle class, so I guess we'll have to take the involuntary route. The right may start pissing and moaning about "wealth redistribution" and blah blah blah, but seeing how many of today's uber wealthy got even fatter feeding at the public corporate welfare trough, I don't see where they have a lot to bitch about.

4. How trustworthy do you believe your candidate to be?

my candidate is no longer in the race, as for the ones remaining, well, they're politicians too,like any other politicians, dem or repub, all we can do is vote and then wait and see what they actually do.

[kestrel91316]

22. Here's the only reason you should need to come over to our side:

Democrats oppose the reproductive enslavement of women.

(Gosh. Can you tell I am of the female persuasion, or what?)

[slackmaster]

23. Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward solving it

Welcome.

[fedupconservative]

40. lol Thanks for the welcome

IF your candidates tweaked some of their positions(2nd amendment), I believe we'd be coming over in droves.

[guitar man]

43. I think you'll find that

A whole lot of Dem candidates have tweaked their 2nd amendment positions over the years, the gun control plank isn't near as prevelant as it used to be from what I can see. But to listen to the right wing pundits, you'd never know that.

[fedupconservative]

54. I believe thay if Dem candidates came out

fully supporting our 2nd amendment rights, it would be a whole new ballgame.

It is our biggest rallying cry over on the right.

[bunkerbuster1]

84. Thing is, nobody really KNOWS what "2nd amendment rights" really are.

I hear what you're saying, but it's not like we, as a nation, ever really had a consensus on whether the amendment gave everyone the right to own whatever kind of weapon he or she wanted, or whether that includes carrying the weapon wherever he or she wishes.

I tend to think that Democrats are simply more realistic about the limitations of this rather poorly-worded amendment. This might be wishful thinking on my part. Me, I've boned up on the history of the amendment, spent many hours talking and writing about this with those more and less hawkish than I am, and still don't really know WTF "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" really means.

Except, maybe, nothing more than that the Founders were more wimpy than we'd like to admit, unable to come right out and say "We don't want a standing army!" so they foisted this mess upon us to clean up centuries later...

[uppityperson]

162. What are our our 2nd amendment rights?

Seems a lot of the issue is over what did it mean, what does it mean, what rights are being talked about.

[Coexist]

46. on the second amendment -

I live in a suburban/rural area - lots of red areas are.

Guns are history, hunting, sport, recreation, and tradition.

A fair portion of liberals live in urban areas.

There - guns are murdered siblings, drug dealers forcing them to move, drive-bys, dead police officers.


I really don't think the 2nd Amendment issue is as much of a liberal/conservative issue as an urban/suburban one. And therein lies the rub.

You should head over to the Guns forum on DU. You would be surprised how many Democrats love their 2nd Amendment rights.

Personally, I don't care either way, my dad hunted every year, I don't, but not because I hate guns. I just cringe at the thought of assault weapons. That's where I'm not comfortable.

[slackmaster]

55. I'm a 2A person too, though a lifelong Democrat

There are some of us here.

[fedupconservative]

59. you'd have many more if dems supported the 2nd

It's what keeps many away.

Our joke is to hide your guns if Dems are elected but many don't see it as a joke.

[bunkerbuster1]

63. Does the question, "Which Democrat has taken away your gun?" have no resonance?

I mean, the fact that no Democrat, to my knowledge, has actually confiscated privately owned red-blooded Americans' personal weaponry, save for the occasional raid on illegal weapons caches, ought to carry some weight. Given that the GOP has been claiming "they're gonna take your guns!" for decades now and all...

[slackmaster]

94. The California Department of Justice ordered several thousand people to surrender rifles

SKS rifles with detachable magazines.

The DoJ had allowed people to register them as grandfathered "assault weapons" after the 1999 statewide ban. Then a court decision said the DoJ had not acted propererly, so the DoJ sent letters to owners demanding that the rifles be turned in to police, deactivated, or sold out of state.

Of course they have kind of a problem enforcing it, but they did in fact order a confiscation.

[yardwork]

109. Is that the biggest problem facing this country - an unenforced confiscation in one state

of SKS rifles with detachable magazines? In California? Unenforced?

I think that we have much bigger things to worry about.

[slackmaster]

114. The point is that it is an attempted real gun confiscation that really happened

And perpetrated almost entirely by Democrats.

Also, please go to http://www.thomas.gov and look up HR1022. Whether it ever passes or not, the fact that Democrats are the ones pushing it really is a problem for us.

[yardwork]

123. But not very many Democrats. We can't control all of them.

Some Democrats represent urban constituencies that really have a major problem with unlicensed assault weapons. It's not unreasonable for them to respond to their constituents' demands that something be done. This in no way means that anyone is going to be knocking on farmers' doors taking away their deer rifles.

It's silly. Hell, I'm a gardener. It really ticks me off that I can't grow marijuana, opium poppies, magic mushrooms, or any other plant I want. Not because I want to abuse drugs, but because I think it's an unwarranted trespass on my personal freedom to tell me that I can't grow certain plants in my own yard. And it's Republicans who constantly pass those stupid laws making it illegal for me to grow a poppy, for crying out loud. But I don't list it as the #1 issue bothering me.

[slackmaster]

131. I understand - those urban legislators need a better tool set to work with

Gun bans are only one way (and IMO a very ineffective one) of addressing violent crime.

It's silly. Hell, I'm a gardener. It really ticks me off that I can't grow marijuana, opium poppies, magic mushrooms, or any other plant I want.

I hear you. I'm a gardener too. You and I both know that a lot of people grow cannabis in spite of its illegality. Opium poppies too. (In fact I grow those as ornamentals, which is legal as long as you aren't cultivating opium.) Gun laws are the same way. A lot of people break them, both good people who view them as a nuisance and just want to be left alone and bad people who have evil intent. They're very hard to enforce.

It's always challenging to understand someone else's point of view, especially when they are passionate about something you don't like or just plain don't care about.

And it's Republicans who constantly pass those stupid laws making it illegal for me to grow a poppy, for crying out loud. But I don't list it as the #1 issue bothering me.

If Democrats were really any better on cultivation of MJ, there would be at least some hope of getting cannabis cultivation legalized in the present Congress. You and I both know there isn't any chance of that happening any time soon.

I don't see it as an R vs. D thing. To me it's authoritarianism vs. freedom. Many gun people feel the same way (and I readily acknowledge that some gun people are motivated by far-right ideas too).

[bunkerbuster1]

176. Ok, that's one real weak example. ANY others?

Seriously, is that threat--they'll maybe issue a stern letter! and ask me to sell the thing out of state! Someday!--really the sort of thing that ought to keep anyone up nights? Sheesh!

[slackmaster]

194. The other one that comes to mind is what happened in Illinois

The state cracked down on people whose FOID cards had expired, no matter how slightly, and seized firearms rather than giving people a chance to pay up. That operation was run entirely by a Democratically controlled government.

Someday!--really the sort of thing that ought to keep anyone up nights? Sheesh!

Please try to put yourself in the position of people who did everything in their power to comply with the law, acted completely in good faith, and got screwed over by a failure of the system. They may pride themselves on being law-abiding citizens, and now find themselves in an untenable legal position.

Maybe you don't care about someone else's stuff, but they do. I know it's hard to empathize with someone who may own something you don't like. Try to imagine how that would feel if something like that happened to you.

The point is that it's important to them, and a big reason why more gun owners reject the Democratic Party in general. We need to be more respectful of other peoples' rights and feelings.

[gaspee]

145. oh-o

Don't confuse logic and truth with republican and ass pimple Limbaugh followers' "truthiness"

[benEzra]

166. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is the major issue...

and many of the candidates at least give lip service to banning guns the MSM dubs "assault weapons," not understanding that the buzzword refers primarily to the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America. That DLC-driven albatross is still in the platform, though I fervently hope that it finally gets dropped this year. Things are much better at the state level and are looking up in the House and Senate, though (the Senate was turned blue in '06 by newly elected anti-AWB Dems, FWIW).

BTW, to the OP, half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies. There is life for gunnies outside the republican party (and Sarah Brady is a repub, FWIW).


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[CANDO]

171. Didn't the Bush admin. have Blackwater confiscating guns in New Orleans?

Pretty sure that was for real. I've never heard of another modern President ordering the confiscation of personal weapons.

[benEzra]

177. It was mostly California Highway Patrol, some Oklahoma Guard, and the DEA...

that were confiscating personally owned weapons; most other officers and agencies involved said "not just no, but HELL no", and fortunately whoever was calling the shots changed their mind and called it off before they started a civil war. Yes, it was for real, and it is damn scary that it happened at all.

Blackwater was in New Orleans, but they were guarding the homes of the wealthy rather than acting in any sort of LEO capacity, AFAIK. (And I notice that the CHP, DEA, etc. didn't try to disarm the Blackwater guys; guess they figured it was safer to rough up grandmothers, lawyers, and minorities instead.

Here's a couple of videos (gun confiscation enters the story about halfway through the first one; the statement by the soldier at the end of that one is a bit chilling):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=%2B%22new+orleans+gun+confiscation%22&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-371946135503584962&q=%2B%22new+orleans+gun+confiscation%22&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[guitar man]

70. it's inaccurate and dishonest

The "gun grabber" title that has been painted across the entire party with an extremely broad brush is pretty inaccurate and dishonest. Some fact checking rather than relying on right wing radio and Fox Noise will reveal that it just isn't true.

[fedupconservative]

82. You mean Dems haven't proposed anti-gun legislation?

I seem to recall Obama wanting to get rid of all semi-automatic weapons.

What the left needs to realize is that conservatives don't really care about owning automatic weapons. What we're concerned with is any legislation that chips away at our rights because we know govt can't stop once they start. Look at England and Australia for example.

We can also see this thru the example of our individual autonomy. Look at the Patriot Act or the National ID card. Does anyone believe those aren't affronts to our liberties or or that govt will stop right there? I just read where the FBI wants to open up a database on all Americans thru the use of retina scans and palm imprint readers. Do you understand why we don't trust the govt when it comes to our 2nd amendment rights?

[slackmaster]

96. Yes, and some single-issue extremists like Carolyn McCarthy are pushing for a new AWB

A more comprehensive one, that would include things like M1 Garands and Carbines, and the Ruger semiautos that were specifically excluded from the old one. Not to mention the most popular type of civilian sporting semiautomatic rifle, the AR-15 (which the old AWB effectively did NOT ban).

That doesn't help the Democratic Party's image among gun owners.

[guitar man]

97. I think you'll find "seem to recall"

doesn't pass muster for fact-checking around here. It's in the same category as "some people say". Even if Obama does hold that position, he'd need a congress that would pass it, and I don't see that happening. It would be political suicide for the Senators and Reps that passed it and they know it. The simple fact is, the Democratic party as a whole has no desire to come and grab all your guns in the middle of the night.

Now, if you really want to find out where we stand on gun ownership, just post a poll asking who owns them, I think you may be surprised at the results. :evilgrin:

[fedupconservative]

100. I appreciate the info

I'll look up the info when I have a chance but right now it seems I've gotten myself into a full blown debate and I really can't keep up.

Just know, facts are very important to me. It's why I no longer support the GOP. They can't seem to get the facts straight.

[guitar man]

112. well, it's great you've "seen the light"

I don't know what Obama's position is on semi-auto weapons is and I really don't care. I've always been of the mindset that should the gov't actually show up to take my guns away one day, they will have an awful hard time trying to get them with smoke, fire and lead coming out of them :evilgrin:

Right now, I have bigger problems, like trying to feed, house, clothe and keep my family insured on what used to be a good salary before gasoline hit $3, grocery bills doubled and my health insurance premiums were hiked by $102 a month. I cant seem to work long enough, hard enough or earn enough money to keep up these days. Something has to change,and fast. The GOP has thrown the middle class down a well and we're drowning, that ought to be enough to get just about anybody to try swapping sides for awhile.

I love my guns but I can't eat them and I damn sure don't want to sell all of them. I have already sold off some of them and I really didn't want to :(

[yardwork]

105. I don't understand why you're more worried about somone taking your guns - which hasn't happened

than you are worried about the many things the Republican Party has actually done to take away your rights. Please help me understand. You insist that Democrats are trying to take away your guns - despite all the evidence to the contrary - and then you use actual things that the Republicans have done and continue to do as "proof" that Democrats can't be trusted?

That doesn't make sense to me.

[slackmaster]

111. Please go to www.thomas.gov and look up a bill called HR1022

It's a draconian limitation on what kinds of firearms people can buy, based on the expired "assault weapons" ban but greatly expanded and with provisions to prevent people from transferring grandfathered ones to anyone including their own children.

It may not stand much chance of passing, but the fact that some prominent Democratic legislators are pushing that kind of thing really is keeping people out of our party.

[flamin lib]

Dems? Exactly who was it that came up with the Assault Weapon

ban?

Didn't Oran Hatch and Larry Craig propose background checks at gun shows and assigning special federal attorneys to monitor gun transactions?

Wasn't it Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and James Jeffords (R-VT)who proposed legislation that would extend background checks to pawn shops and repair facilities?

I believe the Hyde-McCollum act would have required trigger locks, a minimum age requirement and institute a lifetime ban on ownership in some cases?

I think if one were to honestly look at legislation proposed and/or passed it might be obvious that as many Republicans favor gun control as Democrats.

[bluedawg12]

147. Here's an interesting review of the gun control issue

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704180001

It's a pretty complex issue and seems to be a political football of convenience. Ex: Romney and his hunting saga and Kerry and Huckabee duck hunting pics.

A blanket statement about gun control laws is disingeuous. There are already gun control laws. Citizens cannot own land mines, not kidding, some "RW patriot militias" brag about them. I suspect RPG's, tanks, are restricted, too. No ack-ack's in the backyard! LOL.

It's not about gun ownership, as much as it is, about society defining which weapons are appropriate for citizens and wether or not there should be any regulation by law enforcement.


"What we're concerned with is any legislation that chips away at our rights because we know govt can't stop once they start."

Really, then why seek an over-arching federal law based on a constitutional ammendment defining marriage thus, over-riding state laws?

It violates the so called strict reading of the constitution and the repugnance with meddling with that document, originalism.

It violates the "states rights" principle.

It is also non-libertarian- it risks more government enroachment into private lives and chipping away at the right to privacy.

We have already seen bedroom laws--and that is the last place the government should be- with repsect to consenting adults.

Why not focus more on crimes against children? Porn, abuse, abduction, molestation?

[fedupconservative]

151. I never gave my opinion on same sex marriage

If you want to know, I could care less nor could I care about the abortion issue. It's my Christian Right brethren who's lives hinge on these issues.

[bluedawg12]

172. I never said "you," I used the third person

because we were discussing political principles and comparing them in general.

I didn't know what you thought about those issues until the present.

Actually, you are more of the Goldwater school of conservatism, am I correct? I believe he was less concerned about social issues than economic and military matters.

I would prefer to get politics out of cultural issues - as there seem to be some more serious matters on which to focus our attention.

[readmoreoften]

204. Good. Welcome aboard, friend.

Indifference to those issues is fine by me. But seriously active anti-gay folks or anti-choice people probably won't find much comfort in the party--or at least at DU.

[fedupconservative]

212. The people who are staunch anti advocates of those issues

are no friends of mine.


I find it rather silly that we make such an issue over gay rights and abortion in the first place. The health of my country and it's people are what matter to me.

[benEzra]

174. That article missed the most salient point, I think.

Here's an interesting review of the gun control issue

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704180001

That article missed the most salient point, I think.

The article is correct that the party (primarily DLC'ers) pushed hard for new gun bans in '96, '00, and '04. I don't know why anyone would dispute that. It's also indisputable that supporters of those bans lost seats in every election between 1994 and 2004 (both (D) and (R)), and that the Senate was turned blue in 2006 by anti-AWB Dems, aided by Dean's "no new gun bans" message as part of the 50-State Strategy.

The point the authors of that article miss is that it was the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch itself that created the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme, not imaginary . Dropping that in '06 is what allowed Webb, Tester, and Casey to defuse the gun issue entirely.

The gun issue is not, and has never been, about hunting guns; only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter, and even Sarah Brady herself is OK with 19th-century-style deer rifles. The issue is about handguns, small- and intermediate-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling, and defensive-style shotguns. Many of the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America are already banned in the State of California, and would have been outlawed nationwide by S.1431 (2004), H.R.1022 (2007), ad nauseaum.

Senator Kerry's vocal support for S.1431 hurt him badly in '04, just as Gore's support for similar measures cost him TN and WV (and thereby the electoral college) in '00. Both Gore and Kerry made their support for hunting, and 19th-century-styled hunting guns, loud and clear, but that completely missed the point.

It's a pretty complex issue and seems to be a political football of convenience. Ex: Romney and his hunting saga and Kerry and Huckabee duck hunting pics.

Romney has the same liabilities on the gun issue as Kerry did in '04 and Gore did in '00, i.e. he unwittingly promised to outlaw the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America. Romney was clueless on the issue until it was too late. I'm not sure what to think about the Huckabee sideshow.

A blanket statement about gun control laws is disingeuous. There are already gun control laws. Citizens cannot own land mines, not kidding, some "RW patriot militias" brag about them. I suspect RPG's, tanks, are restricted, too. No ack-ack's in the backyard! LOL.

By and large, gun owners are OK with the existing strict controls on automatic weapons, explosives and other ordnance, RPG's, and firearms over .50 caliber, and have been for 74 years now. That does not mean that we are OK with arbitrary bans on the most popular CIVILIAN rifles in America, a la S.1431 or H.R.1022.

It's not about gun ownership, as much as it is, about society defining which weapons are appropriate for citizens and wether or not there should be any regulation by law enforcement.

The question of what weapons are appropriate for citizens was settled by compromise 74 years ago and embodied in the National Firearms Act.

Restricted military/government/law enforcement weapons (NFA Title 2): automatic, burst mode, and selective-fire weapons (including assault rifles, MSM fearmongering to the contrary), sound-suppressed weapons, cut-down rifles and shotguns, explosives, and guns over .50 caliber (except shotguns). Possession of any Title 2 weapon outside military/police/government use is a 10-year felony, unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

Civilian guns (NFA Title 1): semiautomatic (one shot per trigger pull) or manually operated handguns, rifles, and shotguns, except that handguns and rifles must be .50 caliber or less, rifles and shotguns must meet minimum barrel length and overall length requirements, and may not include sound suppressors.


The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is merely an attempt to move the most popular NFA Title 1 civilian guns into the restricted government-use-only category, and is absolutely unacceptable. You'd affect fewer gun owners with an outright ban on hunting than with a ban on "assault weapons" as defined by H.R.1022.



----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[uppityperson]

163. Who was in power and pushed throught the PATRIOT Act?

Who wants to change it or get rid of it? They are very much affronts to our liberties and many Democrats are working hard to get those rights restored. Are Republicans doing the same?

Why would you trust your Republican gvt that has foisted these off on you? Why blame the Democrats?

[fedupconservative]

180. Again, I think someone missed why I'm here

It's for reasons like you stated above. I've had enough of the rope-a-dopes.

[uppityperson]

187. No, I read why you say you are here.

that was in reply to your post stating :

You mean Dems haven't proposed anti-gun legislation?

I seem to recall Obama wanting to get rid of all semi-automatic weapons.

What the left needs to realize is that conservatives don't really care about owning automatic weapons. What we're concerned with is any legislation that chips away at our rights because we know govt can't stop once they start. Look at England and Australia for example.

We can also see this thru the example of our individual autonomy. Look at the Patriot Act or the National ID card. Does anyone believe those aren't affronts to our liberties or or that govt will stop right there? I just read where the FBI wants to open up a database on all Americans thru the use of retina scans and palm imprint readers. Do you understand why we don't trust the govt when it comes to our 2nd amendment rights?

You don't trust gvt, esp republican gvt that pushed through PATRIOT Act and took away your rights, but still distrust Democrats because you fear they want to take away your rights. So what is a person to do? Vote for those who have shown by their actions that they want to limit your rights, or vote for those you fear may take away your rights (guns)?

I have read why you say you are here, have been following this topic today. Am wondering which way you lean.

[fedupconservative]

189. I hear you

Good point. I've grown to distrust govt whether they be Dem or Rep controlled.

As it stands, I'd give 70-30 odds I would be satisfied giving your side a shot and please don't take that as presumptuous.

Also understand that my misgivings of my party have reached it's pinnacle so my anger might push me harder than a change in my core beliefs.

[CANDO]

173. So just when will the NRA rally their flock to march on DC to save the Constitution from the Bush Ad

They make the argument over and over that the 2A will guard us against a tyrannical government, and we've been living with THE MOST constitutionally challenged administration ever, and with the support of these same NRA types!

[fedupconservative]

183. The NRA is as incompetent as our president

What was once our revered organization that stood up for the rights we(conservatives) hold most dear, has turned into nothing more than a money hungry political group that stands for little that it originally did.

My sentiments concerning the NRA are gaining traction in our party.

[yardwork]

73. It's simply a lie that "Democrats will take your guns away." A right-wing lie.

As other posters have said, check out the Gun Forum here on DU. Lots of Democrats own guns, enjoy guns, and totally support the right to own guns.

[bunkerbuster1]

78. It might be truthful to say that some Dems would like to take away guns

But to paraphrase Dwight Eisenhower, "their numbers are small and they are stupid."

I agree with the spirit of your post. I think Democratic positions on "gun control" are merely attuned to those of their constituencies; and for those Americans who live in urban or densely populated suburban areas, there is a tendency not to have a lot of guns around. Plenty of Americans simply never SEE guns, and think that gun ownership is kind of weird.

That's not my upbringing, but I can understand the mentality, and it doesn't frighten me; it shouldn't frighten conservatives or liberals who are more hawkish about gun ownership.

[yardwork]

83. The whole thing is a myth invented by the Republicans to get votes.

It's not easy to get millions of people to vote against their own interests. The Republicans have hurt rural Americans in every possible way, so they have to come up with a Big Lie to scare rural people into continuing to vote Republican. "They'll take your guns away!!!" did the trick. It's sad how gullible people are.

Guns, gays, and God. The three-part scare designed to keep the people in line.

[bunkerbuster1]

90. Yeah, but... we don't have to just let them do that.

I think the OP makes a perfectly good point--why shouldn't either Barak or Hillary simply say "Unlike Mr. Bush (Chimpy HATES being called "Mister Bush," but I digress) I support the entire Constitution, and of course that includes the Second Amendment"? Hell, spend an hour in a town hall meeting talking about nothing but guns, guns, and guns. Expose the Republican lie for what it is, once and for all.

If it'd set some minds at ease it'd be worth tolerating the foul smell of inbred redneck shit-kickers...


(kidding!)

[fedupconservative]

98. You're absolutely correct

I believe that Dems could get millions of disaffected Republicans if they could assure us they wouldn't mess with our 2nd amendment rights.

I think Dems have a lot going for them right now and it wouldn't take much to push many of us over the threshold.

You've got universal healthcare, which while many of us will complain it will be just another huge bureaucratic nightmare, we know we're driving jobs overseas because of current costs and many know someone who has gone thru a nightmare either paying or dealing with health insurance.

Then there's Iraq. Many on my side are enormously agitated with the nation building and corrupt govt contractors. It's your ace in the hole.

Really, I think our sides have more in common than what people think. Perception is the problem.

[yardwork]

101. Democrats do assure the voters that they won't mess with the second amendment

but the corporate-owned media won't report it. John Kerry went hunting and the media laughed at him. Apparently it's ok for Dick Cheney to shoot someone in the face, but its not ok for a Democrat to go hunting without being laughed at.

Democrats say over and over again that they won't take people's guns away but people choose to believe the NRA and the media and the right-wing brochures and talk radio.

[bunkerbuster1]

103. Well, yeah. We need to break up the corporate media trusts.

Forgot to mention that little detail. I am skeptical that either Obama or Clinton will make that a priority.

[yardwork]

107. Me too, unfortunately. I'm even more skeptical that McCain would.

[bunkerbuster1]

115. Well Duh! The corporate media that's built up the Republican "Maverick?"

Of course he's not going to do diddly to break up the military contractor / media giant GE, or any of the other multinationals.

[uppityperson]

164. But it was an accident with Cheney and Kerry didn't really mean it wahhh

It is annoying and a talking point that has little bearing in reality but is easily repeatable.

[benEzra]

178. The gun issue is about lawfully owned handguns and "assault weapons," not Mauser-style hunting guns.

The Kerry campaign made it support for hunting loud and clear, as did Gore in '00. Problem was, only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter, and Senator Kerry had unwittingly promised to outlaw the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America and voted for a ban on same (S.1431, FWIW).

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch would ban or restrict the most popular civilian guns in U.S. homes. More people own "assault weapons," as defined by the MSM and H.R.1022, than hunt, and party strategists would do well to understand that and take off the "gun ownership = hunting" blinders.

----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[fedupconservative]

186. You understand

"More people own "assault weapons," as defined by the MSM and H.R.1022, than hunt, and party strategists would do well to understand that and take off the "gun ownership = hunting" blinders"


The issue goes way beyond hunting and that's what people need to understand.

We want the right to protect ourselves from our fellow man as well as the govt.

Some won't understand but it is how we feel.

[yardwork]

235. I want the right of habeus corpus. I want the right not to be arrested for being a "terrorist"

I want the right I had when I was born under the U.S. Constitution that said I couldn't be arrested on trumped up charges by the federal government and thrown in jail someplace not even on American soil and tortured until I go crazy and never allowed to talk to an attorney and never have charges filed against me or given an opportunity to go to trial. That right has been taken away from me.

That right was taken away from me by Republicans.

[fedupconservative]

237. No, that right was taken away by neocons

IT is absolutely against everything a real Republican would believe.

It's like saying Democrats are against welfare because Clinton reduced the benefits.


Myself and many others in my former party are aghast at the assault on our liberties and freedoms. And that extends to insurgents or whatever BS name the Bush administration gives them in order to skirt the Geneva Convention or our Bill of Rights.

Just another reason I'm here. Dems seem to be more concerned with protecting our rights and liberties(in most cases) than the joke that has become the GOP.

[yardwork]

242. Maybe it's against what "real" Republicans believe but they're few on the ground.

All I see are Republicans who have gone along with this - and some Democrats as well.

[slackmaster]

195. In fairness to Senator Kerry, Mike Huckabee got laughed at a lot worse for his "hunting" trip

Remember the one bird he blasted earlier this year?

[bunkerbuster1]

110. The two Dem candidates we have aren't exactly tone-deaf.

I wouldn't be real surprised if Barak or Hillary had a "Sister Soulja" moment and decided to skewer some cartoonish straw-man of a gun control advocate in some public way, if their handlers thought it might swing a swing state.

Not that I'm a big fan of such grandstanding, but I could see it happening and taking the wind out of the GOP's sails.

[yardwork]

113. The media would ignore it and the NRA would still make shit up.

I couldn't believe the NRA billboards I saw against Kerry in 2004.

[bunkerbuster1]

117. Where was this? Just curious.

Not doubting they were out there, but I didn't see any such signage here in Gawdz Country, GA, in 2004.

[yardwork]

120. Eastern North Carolina, near the military bases.

NRA billboards with pink poodles on them referencing a certain "French-looking" Democratic candidate who would steal everyone's guns.

Interestingly, last time I was there the W stickers were all gone.

[BlackVelvet04]

129. I'm a gun owning liberal....

who if for one second thought the Democrats were going to try and take my guns away wouldn't vote for a Democrat.

Very few Democrats are going to come out and say they support gun rights because of the crap they would take from the gun grabbers, but I don't think it's an issue with most Democratic candidates. Each side has a very vocal group to the extreme end of their political spectrum. Those who want guns outlawed on one side and those who think anyone who wants an Uzzi should be able to have one. Both extremes are just plain silly.

As a gun owner from the south, I think that there does need to be strict background checks for new gun sales.

Gun laws that work in New York City or Chicago don't work in rural Virginia or Tennessee. It just isn't a black and white issue and both sides need to accept that and work it out.

[backscatter712]

153. Lots of Democrats do support the Second.

Check out the Guns forum here.

I personally own two firearms, have a bunch of friends that shoot, and am a big believer in the RKBA, for self defense, hunting, and recreation.

Yes, there are a few gun-haters here too. Like I said, the Democratic party is a big-tent party.

[readmoreoften]

203. I agree. I think it's our party's dumbest platform. I'd do away with it tomorrow. /nt

[Coexist]

29. some answers for you - what do you think:

1. How much will your candidates Health Care plan cost, what does it cover and how will we pay for this?

Do you mean how much will it cost per person, how much it will cost business owners, or how much will it cost the government?

The first two are dependant on what you are asking, the third:

How much will it cost you?
That depends on whether or not you have insurance - subsidies are available
How much will it cost us taxpayers?
A. The Obama plan will cost between $50-65 billion a year when fully phased in.

Q. How will we pay for the Obama plan?
A. The Obama plan will realize tremendous savings within the health care system to help
finance the plan. The additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in
technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered
by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year,
as they are scheduled to do.


2. Will your candidate not only pull us out of Iraq but the majority of other countries we have troops stationed?

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

I don't know about other bases.

3. What is your candidate going to do about the impending economic nightmare of $58 Trillion in future entitlements for Medicare, SS and govt pensions?

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

Medicare will, obviously, fall under his insurance plan.

In re: pension:
Reform Corporate Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Workers and Retirees: Current bankruptcy laws protect banks before workers. Obama will protect pensions by putting promises to workers higher on the list of debts that companies cannot shed; ensuring that the bankruptcy courts do not demand more sacrifice from workers than executives; telling companies that they cannot issue executive bonuses while cutting worker pensions; increasing the amount of unpaid wages and benefits workers can claim in court; and limiting the circumstances under which retiree benefits can be reduced.

... and personally, I think staunching the flow of the $356 billion per year we're pouring into Iraq may help.

4. How trustworthy do you believe your candidate to be?

More than most politicians, actually. Senator Obama has spearheaded ethics reform in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate, and in the post I OP'd below, you will see that he has fought for transparancy throughout most of his career.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4457600&mesg_id=4457600

Welcome to DU!

[fedupconservative]

42. Thank you

Very reasonable ideas.

As far as health care, I'm insured. IT may seem callous but I'm more interested in the financial obligation to the country because if our obligations are too high the system will collapse and everyone would suffer.

Do you know if we'd be able to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid under Obama's program?

[Coexist]

49. I don't personally know Senator Obama, but...

I think, in a way, his health insurance plan expands these programs so that people can pay to be included, if that makes any sense. I could be very off. But Government employess pay very little for good coverage because of the gov't - I think that this all ties in.

[bpeale]

65. now that actually scares me!

i have paid into this plan (edit: social security) since i was 16 yrs old. i'm turning 60 this year. i have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into this system & now you want to leave me out in the cold? you just cannot do that unless the young are prepared to step into that fold & take care of their parents. most of the seniors don't have kids who can afford to support their parents too. i supported mine, but there's no one to support me. what do i do then? live on the street. starve to death? what?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

68. We don't need to get rid of Medicare...

We need to adequately fund it to cover everyone. No more money wasted on Private co insurance profits and advertising. No more money wasted on for-profit healthcare. no more extraordinary profits for the drug co's that spend more on commercials for drugs than they do on research and development.

[yardwork]

75. Why would you want to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid?

[SammyWinstonJack]

234. Selfish? One of those, "I've got mine, so go screw yourself" types?

:puke: Nothing pisses me off more! :grr:

[benEzra]

179. Re: health care, note that $50-$65 billion is less than 1/3 the annual cost of the Iraq War. (n/t)

[ReformedChris]

30. Welcome, and it took me years to wipe away the conservative indoctrination that I was subjected to..

Some Answers to Your Questions in My Eyes

1)Depends on who is elected. I was squarely in the John Edwards Single Payer Camp. I would love nothing more then to see HMO"s destroyed and Pharma to be put back on a leash. True Universal Healthcare is the only answer for the rampant greed in the industry.

2) I really struggle with this issue. I have no greater fear then an elected Democratic President saying "we need to have patience with the situation and not act rashly in Iraq" and or we need to "Withdrawl Progressively to give the Iraqi's a chance". The Democrats are inheriting very much the same situation that Richard Nixon inherited from LBJ in Vietnam. We need to get the hell out of there before 1 more American life is wasted or one more civilian is slaughtered.

3) Entitlement is a very conservative term. I prefer "Where your tax money will be spent on you". Its all about closing tax loopholes and becoming fiscally responsible. Defense spending is incredibly high and it really does take too much of a percentage of our national income. Everyone in Washington has burnt through our money like wildfire and only cutting useless spending and raising upper level taxes will save us from that nightmare.

4) Edwards is gone so I am going to support the Democratic nominee. Obama has the sizzle right now, but he has to expand on his plans and show his vision for America. He shot himself in the foot in Florida (and with me) when he talked about scaling back Project Constellation, our return to meaningful spaceflight and huge economic boon to Florida. That dosent mean I wont support him, but he has to realize investing in our future is more than giving Pre-K and Energy Alternatives. Im a big believer that NASA can answer many of the questions of this planet in the future and Obama basically bashed it's future. With HRC, you know what your going to get: Another Clinton Presidency. If you flourished in the 90's like my family did, you will have a strong memory of that and associate it with her. But you also have to look at her Senate record and her war vote.

[stillcool]

31. I do not accept...

that the costs estimated of health care nor the proposed plan of any candidate can be assumed accurate today, or in 2009. And I do not believe any plan will be enacted without some serious tweaking by Congress. What I do believe is that both candidates are committed to solving the health care crisis.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html
Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html

I don't think we will be retreating from areas on the globe where military instillations provide security for business interests. After all, it's who we are.
I don't know what to tell you about your concern with your future entitlements. What is it you would like to see done?
Lastly on that trust thing...I don't do it.

[Subdivisions]

36. Welcome to DU, fedupconservative. I'm sure your questions

have already been given sufficient coverage so I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.

What does it mean for you to be "conservative"?

Are you able to open up your heart and your mind and accept people moreso based on the content of their character rather than looking down upon them because they happen to be gay, or poor, or of a racial/ethnic/cultural background other than your own?

Do you now or have you ever been an active member of freerepublic.com?

And if the answer to that last question is yes, the next question would be: Why?

[bunkerbuster1]

41. My best answers to your reasonable questions.

1. Probably less than I'm paying now for really lousy coverage. If not, I'll take better quality coverage than what I have now for the same cost. Based on what I've seen of the inefficiencies of for-profit insurance companies vs. the efficiency of government-supplied insurance, I can't see how this could fail to pass. But I'm honest enough to admit I don't know for certain.

2. No. We have over 700 bases and there's no way Obama or Clinton could get us out of a majority of those places.

3. I don't know where you get that $58 Trillion from, but from the tables I've seen, I think our obligations are eminently manageable so long as we stop running budget deficits in good times ASAP. (modest deficits in lousy times, as a stopgap measure to get us back on track, are acceptable IMHO.)

4. About as far as I can throw him/her (I already voted for Edwards and he's out, but I'll gladly support either Hillary or Barak in the general.) And I don't think that candidate would want it any other way.

Welcome to DU. We don't necessarily go out of our way to be obnoxious to newcomers, but it does seem that way sometimes. Hang in there if you can.

[fedupconservative]

47. Of course we can get out of other countries

The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and can direct them to deploy back home when he wishes. As I see it, we either keep our forces stationed all over the globe or bring the majority of them home so we can fund some of your democratic initiatives.

[bunkerbuster1]

51. Well, my "can't" was figurative.

Yes, a new President can, conceivably, lead and get enacted the type of legislation and renegotiate treaties to get us out of these foreign entanglements, that's true.

I just don't think it's realistic to imagine that either Democrat will do this. Frankly I wouldn't give a nickel for that President's life were he/she to do it.

[Selatius]

79. The president would be assassinated before he could give such an order.

Removing 700 military bases world-wide would be a catastrophe to industries that profit off of war. There is no way on earth they would give up such money without trying to stop the president, likely by any means possible.

[gaspee]

149. Nice

"Fund some of *your* democratic initiatives."

Are you sure you're reformed?

[fedupconservative]

50. future obligations

Here's some links.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-03-debt-cover_x.htm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8225

We've got have to either cut benefits or increase taxes to pay for these future obligations that are coming due.

[bunkerbuster1]

61. Those numbers don't come as much of a surprise.

Here's the thing to keep in mind--when you look at which presidential administrations have run higher deficits and run up the overall national debt versus those who've reversed both, it's always Republicans spending beyond their means, and Democrats actually funding the stuff and getting the debt under control, or at least more under control.

I recognize those are difficult burdens to overcome. They won't be overcome in one year or ten. First thing to do is to stop pretending that a tax-cut fairy is going to come down and magically increase revenues if we only give out some more breaks to business; I'd love for someone not named Walter Mondale with the balls to tell me "I will increase your taxes."

Second thing to do is to face down the military industrial complex and proclaim that the era of the US maintaining its global dominance by outspending the rest of the world combined, is over. It won't close the gap but it will help.

Third thing to do is to face facts and recognize that future SS and Medicare payments will involve both higher retirement ages (which we're already veering toward) and more active end-of-life management.

And that's really all that can be done.

[fedupconservative]

66. Thanks for being frank

And I fully agree.

[bunkerbuster1]

74. If I can't be Frank, I'll always try for Ernest. n/t

[Johonny]

45. My answers

1. How much will your candidates Health Care plan cost, what does it cover and how will we pay for this?

Depends on the candidate. It's best to find the candidates webpage or call their office.

2. Will your candidate not only pull us out of Iraq but the majority of other countries we have troops stationed?

No. No Democratic candidate is for the complete removal of America from the rest of the world accept Ron Paul. If you agree in principal with Ron Paul that America has no place in the international community than you are probably more comfortable in the Libertarian party and the many off shoots there of.


3. What is your candidate going to do about the impending economic nightmare of $58 Trillion in future entitlements for Medicare, SS and govt pensions?

Depends on program. Economics is much harder than simple fixed in time figures often thrown out to scare the public. SS is almost 100 % fixed into the far future just by uncapping it. Medicare of course depends on how the candidate fixes option 1.

4. How trustworthy do you believe your candidate to be?

Trust the facts of political systems offered by the politician not the politicians in the system. I.E. if the politicians program depends on Gravity not existing you can probably feel safe that their program was not well thought out. If they are/or are not their trustworthy the program will never work.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. Here's Some Potential Answers

1. Until the overall plan is developed, there is no real sound answer. Anything at this point is a guess. However, i have seen estimates that it would cost less per year than Iraq. That's a pretty strong selling point, IMO.

2. Probably not. Most of the other countries in which our troops are based asked us to be there. We have been integrated into THEIR economy, not the other way around. There is a canyon of difference between being asked to stay and assimilating into their way of life, rather than imposing our way of life on them.

3. Probably right now, the liabilities on SS, etc., are a rock and a hard place. It's a political sword of Damacles to suggest suspending huge defense programs because our economy has become dependent upon that gov't spending. (Precipitated in the lion's share by your ex-pals.) In all honesty, the only solution is to raise the taxes for everyone above about $60k household AGI by a little bit, and by more on those making tons of money. Deficits are an economic drag factor and increasing revenues to gov't has, historically, created economic growth. It's the opposite of what the supply-siders and norquisians would have you believe, but the data is clear. They're completely wrong.
So, i would guess that taxes will have to rise, including a huge increase in the cap number of OASDI.

4. As with any politician, trustworthiness is gut feel. But, i know that everyone on the Dem side has admitted to making mistakes. I trust people who admit to mistakes much more than those (like Silverspoon's gang) who simply tries to reframe the debate rather than admit they got it wrong.
The Professor

[El Pinko]

52. RE "Future SS Entitlements"

In the 80s, at Greenspan's recommendation, Reagan doubled the FICA witholding tax.

If the government pays back all the IOUs it has taken out of social security withholdings, they fund will be solvent until at LEAST 2053.

This is money that we've all paid in and deserve to get back.

So nothing "needs to be done" about social security.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6827519/

[bunkerbuster1]

62. Agreed fully. But the debts we've incurred by robbing Peter to pay Paul...

they do have to come from somewhere.

But I do agree that it's pretty horrid for anyone to claim that SS needs to take it on the chin because we stole from it!

That said, we'll probably continue to edge up the retirement age, and yeah, we'll need to bump up the income limit for FICA witholding, which--while it sounds attractive to many of us--makes the buy-in from wealthier Americans less solid, and creates some problems, not insurmountable but problems nonetheless--of their own.

[uppityperson]

64. Here's an idea for you. Now that you've gotten some replies, take a break, go look through

other threads that address these issues. Do some research by reading what others have written already. Lots to read but pick and chose and see what you can find.

[fedupconservative]

89. Good idea

Yes, information overload.

But I think I should try to answer as many questions as possible for those who were polite enough to respond to my query.

[yardwork]

67. Welcome to DU!

As you've noticed, the Republicans have done a very poor job on the issues that you raise.

I'll tell you right up front that I'm a socialist-leaning Democrat, so you and I may disagree on some things. I think that we probably don't disagree on the *outcomes* - we just disagree on how to get there. In other words, I figure that you probably want the same kind of life I want - one where individuals have the right to express themselves and run their own businesses without unwarranted interference, where people get the health care they need at a reasonable cost, where our country protects its people from attacks but doesn't spend all our money trying to police the world, where the government doesn't impose burdensome taxes that interfere with people's abilities to take care of themselves, and where the politicians we elect aren't completely crooked and dishonest. Would you agree?

I feel that the Republicans have done a much worse job with the things I care about, so I'm a Democrat. The Democrats aren't perfect but they are much much better than the Republicans.

To answer your questions:

1. Each person in the United States pays more for worse health care than any other "advanced" nation on earth. We need to reform our present situation, in which corporations get tax breaks to insure their employees but small businesses and the self-employed get nothing , to a single-payer system where everyone in the country is guaranteed access to health care. This does not mean "socialized medicine." It means that we would save billions of dollars a year on the paperwork, personnel, and wasted effort that goes into filing zillions of insurance claims to hundreds of different insurers. The change would save money. It would also provide health care to the millions of folks who don't have it, which would save us more in terms of improved productivity and saved lives.

2. I don't think that any candidate is talking about pulling troops out of most of our overseas bases. I wish that someone was. I know for certain that the Republicans want more bases and more wars, not less. They wrote it down in their PNAC (Program for a New American Century) papers.

3. What is anyone going to do about the impending economic nightmare? Bill Clinton turned a deficit into a surplus, and W. Bush turned it back into the biggest deficit we've ever had. Sounds like we need a Democrat again to turn it around. Sounds like the super rich might have to give up some tax breaks, too, and pay taxes just like the rest of us.

4. I believe that any Democrat is more trustworthy than the Republicans these days.

[bpeale]

71. BTW, welcome to democraticunderground

hope you find a home for your ideas etc. to help you select a candidate you can support. word of warning though, stay away from General Discussion: Primaries ... it's flaming hot in there & you won't learn anything anyway.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

243. Yeah, did he pick a good time to post in GD or what?

All of the turbo-flame-blasters are busy in GD-P these days.

[Vickers]

80. From the way you pose your questions, maybe you ain't ready yet.

And I'm saying this as an ex-Repuke (and current gun-toting CCW permit Democrat).

[davepc]

86. Stay home on election day. Tell all your GOP friends to do the same.

[grace0418]

87. Let me warn you that healthy dialogue is not currently DU's forte, unfortunately.

Generally speaking, DU is a great place, full of information. But during the primaries, it seems to have devolved into something much less than healthy or logical, where supporters of each candidate spend all their time slinging mud at the other candidates. Just fair warning that it's normally not like this here, but any discussion about Obama vs. Clinton is guaranteed to turn ugly it seems.

Having said that, neither candidate is perfect, but both are more than qualified for the job.

[newportdadde]

91. How about some honest answers?

1) Health Care - doesn't really matter none of the current candidates on either side will do anything with health care. There is just too much money in it and it takes money to get elected... never happen until we are at riot status, I'm talking father shooting insurance adjusters and HMO CEOs because his kid can't get chemo.

I do have a very slight fear here <5% that some half-assed plan will get through and those of us with employer based health insurance will find ourselves dropped into Health Savings Accounts buying ourselves our own crappy individual plans.

Eventually we will get to some type of single payer system although I believe this many years/decades away.

2) I do not honestly believe either party will get us entirely out of Iraq at all.. or even down to a token presence. There is just too much money being made there for big business and nobody wants to be the looser(particularly Hillary). If we control Congress and the White House(Obama) you might see a small token with-drawl of troops. Zero withdraw if its a Republican win.

3) I'll only talk to Social Security here. I don't think either candidate will address at all. You might get the FICA cap raised up a bit. More then likely though as boomers retire and become the unstoppable voting block they are destined to be you will just see them raise the FICA tax on their children and grandchildren, of course any surplus produced will then be immediately dumped into the general fund.

If they had just left it the fuck alone after they raised it in the 80s and stopped stealing all of the new revenue with IOUs it would have been fine.

I guess if all else fails we can just print more money and inflate our way out of the obligation.

4) I have slightly more trust in Obama then I do Clinton but I wouldn't count on either of them to not flush me down the toilet if a mega corp asked them too. I fully expect both to support NAFTA, H1-Bs etc etc.

As far as the 2nd amendment.. I get that it makes a lot of people nervous. I'm a gun owner(handgun/rifle/shotgun) so I get it, however, I'm often reminded of a 2006 bumper sticker I saw that said "NRA members for Jim Talent". Jim Talent lost but so far I can still do everything with a gun that I could do two years ago.

Seriously... nobody is coming for your guns.

[Aristus]

95. Welcome to DU, fedup! I'm in a weird situation here, myself.

I'm a die-hard liberal Democrat who, nevertheless, voted for Bush Sr. in '88 and '92. Haven't voted for a single republican in any race ever since. Anyway, to take just one of your debating points: the notion that a corporate tax is actually a tax on the individual. I take it by that that you mean raised corporate taxes will be passed on to the consumer through higher prices. My response is: corporations are going to raise prices anyway, whether their taxes are raised, lowered, or left the way they are; the consumer will ALWAYS get stuck with higher prices. May as well get some much-needed revenue out of the corporations.

It's unacceptable to suggest that companies get to use our highways, waterways, bridges, canals, air transporation infrastructure, etc. etc., without pitching in to pay for their upkeep. This is the greatest country in the world for starting up a company in the expectation of making millions, even billions. It shouldn't be too much to ask that a company be compelled to give something back in return for the privilege; especially since they have no compunction about shipping well-paying manufacturing jobs overseas instead of keeping American citizens gainfully employed. While we're on the subject, I think we should levy massive, crippling taxes on the corporations, and then offer generous tax breaks and incentives for those companies that keep their manufacturing base here in the U.S.

The right-wingers love to daydream about how perfect everything was back in the 1950's. One thing they never seem to mention about the decade, though, is that an American working man in the Fifties, with only a high school education could work a well-paying job in the manufacturing sector, and support a family on one salary, while the wife stayed home raising the kids with "family values", and so on. With the loss of those factory jobs, the nuclear family that the righties praise to the sky is endangered. Both parents have to work just to make ends meet, never mind buying surplus-income goods made possible by good wages, while the kids become either latch-key children, getting their values from TV and video games while the parents are at work, or else they, too, have to work demeaning, drudging jobs in the service sector to help the parents keep the foreclosure another month off.

Anyway, welcome again to DU. I hope you're getting some substantive answers to your questions. Maybe we CAN find common ground, and make this country once again the light of the world. B-)

[Jackpine Radical]

108. Well, my vote just put you on the Greatest page because

I think it's incredibly valuable to have these discussions around here.

I'm not going to get into any detailed answers about the specifics of your questions, but I want to share with you something of my general sense of how things are going on the left side of the aisle--a place I have inhabited for these past forty years, after having, like you, come in from the cold, heartless world of conservatism. In my case, it was the Vietnam War, which I had some up-close and personal experiences with as an Army grunt, that provided the main impetus in unseating me from a sort of proto-Libertarian conservatism and dropping me into the political cauldron of the University of Wisconsin in the late-60's.

Anyway, I've been watching the shifting fortunes of the left these many years, and I have a few things I'd like to mention to you. First of these is that many of the problems we are now facing have their origins in the Reagan years, and even the Nixon years, when the repeal of human decency started happening in earnest. I don't mean to suggest that LBJ was any angel; in fact, I cheered from my foxhole when I heard he was pulling himself out of the '68 race.

For all the talk about the Libberul Dummycrats you hear around, by my standards I don't think there has been a true liberal Administration since FDR. Kennedy somewhat, and LBJ ditto, but they were both cold-war saber rattlers, while they admittedly did do much good domestically, especially Lyndon, with the 1964 civil rights legislation, Medicare, etc.

I have a fondness for Jimmy Carter, largely because of what he did after leaving the White House. I see his administration as basically decent and honest, but irreparably damaged by runaway inflation driven by OPEC (which had been unleashed as a result of deals made by Henry Kissinger in the Nixon/Ford years), and by the hostage crisis (which we may never know the truth of--remember the "October Surprise"). Carter really was no liberal. Nevertheless, he had an engineer's mind and displayed some vision about alternative energy and the environment.

Clinton? Clinton was certainly no liberal. NAFTA, Welfare "reform," and a few other things made that perfectly clear. Nevertheless, he did manage to stop the hemorrhaging of the Treasury. He was also luckier than Hell in that regard, in that he managed to be President during a thoroughly exciting time of technological and social innovation.

And that brings us to the present.

There are no liberals left in the race. You have Hillary and Obama, both of whom I see as "corporation-safe" candidates. The real liberals were starved out of the race by a mass media who gave them no space to breathe. It was kinda like "failure to thrive" in a neglected infant.

Because there are no liberals, there are only watered-down, milquetosty solutions to our major problems. Any campaign position held by any candidate, of either party, has to pass a test of corporate-friendliness. Anyone who neglects this fundamental principle will find his air supply immediately cut off.

That said, I still see either of the Democratic candidates as infinitely preferable to a McCain. I see myself as without a dog in the Primary fight, but I will cast a Democratic vote in the fall, because either of the watered-down, corporate-approved, SAFE candidates with a chance of winning is a better alternative than any Repubican. The wimpy Demcrat will buy us some environmental time, will somewhat cushion the coming economic blows for the poor, will get more people covered by health care plans, will roll back the stacking of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, and will allow us to rejoin the world community and start a long, slow process of recovery from our recently acquired reputation as a collective mob of axe-murderers.

[Mountainman]

116. Why do you not talk about military spending? Why do you call SS an entitlement?

The government has the money to fund SS but it us used for other things. Gore would have had a lock box on the trust fund. That's what is needed. SS is not an entitlement. It is money paid in by wage earners and their employers. It is not the government's to play with and it is owned by the workers. They are not entitled to anything they are owed that money!

If we would cut military spending and stop transferring wealth from the middle class to corporations and the wealthy via government borrowing and spending for war and it's tools we would have more than enough money to pay for Medicare, SS and Govt Pensions.

Spending on social programs is why many of us pay taxes. We want the money to improve the general welfare as the constitution states it should do.

We all pay into health care either through insurance, private pay or through taxes. Cut out the profit motive and all that money could be used in a single payer system that would not raise taxes.

Your problem is that you think along the lines of conservative ideology and you can't see things through any other paradigm.

[bunkerbuster1]

119. I'm not FedupConservative

but he's spoken to these issues in the sub-threads; I'd suggest you read 'em.

What's interesting to me about the OP is that a lot of likely Republican voters that I've gotten to know aren't two-dimensional cartoon characters; most of them are willing to hear out a rational explanation for why we Dems tend to hold the views we have. Based on what I've read of Fed Up Conservative, I count him among those who are willing to listen. Can't really ask for much more than that.

[Selatius]

122. Individual miles may vary as far as "a lot" goes. I live in Mississippi. Most are hardcore Repubs.

Lots of them are simply uninformed or misinformed and vote Repub because their parents voted Republican.

[fedupconservative]

125. Big difference

between the Evangelical Right and Conservative Republicans.

One votes based on what Jimmy Swaggart tells him, the other based on fiscal and conservative policy.

[guitar man]

130. well the first thing to know is

that it's the "fiscal and conservative" policy of the last 30 years that has brought us to the point where we are. The "house that Reagan built" looked great on paper, but in practice has been an out and out disaster.

We are now living in the ashes of "the house that Reagan built", all except the few uber wealthy at the top. It seems in the original plans, a fireproof column was built to hold up the luxury penthouse they live in. The rest of it burned down around us. :(

[fedupconservative]

135. Reagan was no fiscal conservative

He was a charismatic leader who led us thru the Cold War but you're right, his domestic policy was the start of the mess we're in today.

The system is broken because of all the lies and half truths my side has been spoon feeding us all these yrs and many of us are seeing the damage the miserable GOP leadership has gotten us in.

[guitar man]

140. yes

that's why I put the "fiscal conservative" part in quotes.His "trickled on" economics, later re-branded "supply side" economics have been a disaster. That should be enough in itself to turn just about any middle class republican voter away from the GOP. Their entitlement programs for the rich have been excessive, disgusting and tragic for the majority of working people in this country.

[Mountainman]

124. The questions in the OP seem to me right out of the right wing talking point play book.

I responded to the OP.

[fedupconservative]

128. Get it out of your system

Go ahead and blame me for everything that's wrong but in the future don't complain that the Right never listens.

[earth mom]

121. There is really little difference between Hillary & Obama & the rethuglicans.

So you should be right at home.

FYI, just so you know, Social Security is NOT broken. * & Co have just looted the hell out of it along with every other publicly owned & operated entity they could get their hands on.

At this point, given the choices of candidates we have-who are not real democrats in the first place-I foresee very little changing in 2009 and beyond.

[slackmaster]

136. Certainly McCain is closest to Hillary and Obama

Who are nearly indistinguishable in terms of policy.

[earth mom]

139. Yep. My husband who is a dem and was for Edwards, may vote for McCain.

I'm pissed about it, but what can I do?! :argh:

It's looking like McCain is already a done deal.

[bluedawg12]

148. Wow- makes my head spin. I hope he takes a second look at

McBomb--we will be in Iran waging a third war in no time.

[earth mom]

197. I heard someone being interviewed on the news say that there are 3 Dems in the 08 race:

Hillary, Obama & McCain!

I had to laugh because I view Hillary & Obama as rethuglican lite. While some rethuglicans see all 3 of them as Dems!

I do think all 3 of them will go into Iran. It's the game plan and probably why they got rid of Edwards.

:nuke:

[backscatter712]

126. Welcome!

I'll try to answer as best as I can. My answers are likely not to agree with answers from other DUers - the Democrats, and the progressive movement in general is very "big tent", so you'll see a lot of disagreement.

1. Depends on the candidate. My guy's Obama, who's plan is not to completely nationalize the health care system, but to do a few things. He'll create a government health care plan, which any American can join, which will be similar to the health care plan that federal employees receive, targeted at uninsured Americans, and Americans with health issues that make them uninsurable. If you want, you can stick with private insurance. The competition with government health care will probably compel the insurance companies to come up with more affordable plans. He'll also expand programs like SCHIP and Medicaid to help those who can't afford health care. He'll also do things like allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies about prices, which may help bring those down to affordable levels. He'll also put some rules in place that will keep insurance companies from denying coverage and jacking up premiums for people with preexisting conditions - that's sorely needed reform. After reforms, we'll actually be SAVING money compared to the current system - if we can improve efficiency, get everyone covered, deal with medical conditions while they're still minor and cheap to treat instead of leaving them until they become life-threatening, expensive emergencies, bring premiums down, and bring medication costs down. You might pay more taxes, but that'll be more than counteracted by the reduction in insurance and medical expenses - you'll actually have more money in your pocket. And we won't be literally letting people die for lack of health care.

2. Neither Obama or Clinton will make hard promises of troop withdrawal - a million things can happen in Iraq after they take office. We do believe that bringing troops home, and focusing on things like diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and alliances between us, the Iraqis and neighboring countries will help bring peace and stability. Neither of them are stupid when it comes to foreign policy. You'll find that most of us have huge problems with Bush's foreign policy, which consisted largely of saber-rattling. Democratic candidates are more likely to focus on building alliances, using diplomacy, cutting unnecessary military presences, but not leaving us toothless.

3. It's not as big of an emergency as many would lead you to believe. A few things like raising the upper limit of income taxable with the FICA tax (currently, the cap's at about $98,000) will infuse enough money into Social Security and Medicare to pay for it into the foreseeable future. Yes, it's a tax increase, but it's not a huge one.

4. I think Obama is actually damned trustworthy. Some people may bring up the Rezko scandal, but IMHO, it's overblown. He has a solid record of working for us, and I personally thing he's a truly decent person who actually will work to make our government work.

[fedupconservative]

134. Thaks for your candid response

That sounded fairly reasonable to me.

[eridani]

127. We are now spending twice as much as countries with universal health care

We just aren't getting it. Therefore going to single payer would be essentially free. Of course my candidate is Kucinich.

[ulysses]

138. not to be combative...ok, maybe to be a little combative.

:) You sound like a drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub conservative libertarian. How far *should* our eventual candidate go to convince you to vote Dem? What would it take?

[NNN0LHI]

142. Where have you been for the last seven years as the Repigs have been getting us into this mess?

Do you understand things have been done that may take generations to straighten out?

Don

[fedupconservative]

143. Does it matter where I've been?

Or where I'm at now?

[NNN0LHI]

154. I just don't care for when some of the people who got us into this mess now want dates certain...

...when we can get our ass out of it and concise cost estimates to boot.

Something seems funny when that occurs. Not the kind of funny that makes me laugh either.

Going to take a long time and a lot of money to get us out of the hole that the current Repig regime has put us into. There will be no snapping of fingers and shazzam everything is alright again. Everything is not alright. Everything is not going to be alright for a long time. That is as concise as I can get after over 7 years of having toe tapping bathroom cruising Rethugs running the show in Washington.

Don

[ulysses]

157. where you've been might speak to

the kind and amount of common ground we're likely to find.

[Justpat]

150. I hope so.

We need more intelligent, respectful people like you.


Welcome. :hi:

[fedupconservative]

159. Thanks

I'm a bit overwhelmed by all the responses I've gotten and want to thank everyone for helping me find some answers.

I'm already feeling pretty positive about the answers I've gotten to my question. They might not be everything I want to hear but like life, we all need to make compromises sooner or later.

[mmonk]

155. Personally as far as SS and entitlements go,

giving tax money to Wall Street money managers won't reduce taxes. Second we should go more to pay go as we started doing before bush who has exploded the debt obligations exponentially and thus has created more of a crisis going forward. We shouldn't keep subsidizing oil companies with taxpayers money while they rake in record profits. We shouldn't extend tax credits to industries that take our manufacturing base overseas (thus losing both higher incomes and more revenues to cover costs). We already spend more per capita in health care costs than countries with government systems with less people covered which we have to cover in local county taxes. The only solution is reducing costs and either cut out the middle man or attempt some sort of solution where the middle man can't control the system. Just my opinion. I have a degree in Liberal Studies with concentrations in economics and government. I've been in private business all my life.

As far as politicians go, never totally trust them. But that being said, I trust Obama enough to vote for him.

[trof]

156. I dunno. You a Scotch drinker?

That would be more than enough common ground for me, right there.
But seriously, welcome to DU.
:hi:
This might be a rough place to start your conversion.
It gets kinda hairy in here sometimes.
;-)

[KansDem]

158. Here's a good website to research the candidates

On the Issues

I find it's a good place to start!

Oh, and welcome to DU! :hi:

[uppityperson]

165. How does what you've heard compare to your answers to these questions?...

1. How much will the Republican candidates Health Care plan cost, what does it cover and how will we pay for this?

2. Will the Republican candidate not only pull us out of Iraq but the majority of other countries we have troops stationed?

3. What is the Republican candidate going to do about the impending economic nightmare of $58 Trillion in future entitlements for Medicare, SS and govt pensions?

4. How trustworthy do you believe the Republican candidate to be?

[fedupconservative]

191. I'd say pretty positive

1. I'd rather spend money helping Americans than trying to force our form of govt on a country that will still despise us.

2. The first part sounds reasonable. I've yet to hear anything definitive on the second part. Myself, I'd like to pull out of 90% of the 130 countries we occupy and use the money here instead.

3. The answers I've read are lacking. We're talking about an obligation that stands around $400,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. An increase in payroll or FICA taxes won't make a dent. How will we pay for this?

4. I seem to gravitate more towards Obama but everyone knows Repubs have preconcieved notions about Hillary. I'm trying to keep an open mind but I think if others in my party start looking at the other side of the isle, it will be Obama and not Clinton.

[CANDO]

170. On the health care issue..........

if you haven't seen SICKO, do it. Put your ideology aside and watch this movie. I think it'll have an affect on you. If it doesn't, you're not human.

[Zodiak]

175. Welcome to DU...and to this neck of the political woods

I used to hail from your neck of the woods, political spectrum-wise. Back when I was younger, a military brat, and healthily indoctrinated in the prevailing wisdom of my little North Texas town. The libertarian/conservative side of me still survives when it comes to freedoms, privacy, getting involved in unnecessary foreign entanglements, etc., but the economic libertarian in me died a thousand deaths after I saw what the big world had to offer for too many Americans, including me at some point (I had a heart attack while still in college and G.H.W. Bush had yanked health insurance from military dependents just before the heart attack)

Anyways...here are my answers to your questions.

1. My candidate dropped out of the race, so at this point I am for Obama. However, having said that, I am not really for either candidate's positions on this issue....both will do nothing about the source of the problem. The main problem with healthcare is that we allow the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to run the medical system, and not doctors. Hence the two most important entities in healthcare, doctors and patients, both get screwed while the insurance companies rake in millions, and offer less and less coverage (even the rash of "tort reform" that took over in some states has not quelled th tide, because malpractice is only 2% of the total cost of healthcare). Because of this, far too much of the system is invested in covering the profit motive of an insatiable middle-man. Eliminate this middleman from the system by instating a single-payer national health plan where 100% of people are covered, and a tremendous amount of waste will be removed from the system. Most of the world's industrialized nations do it, and it makes their businesses MORE profitable because the burden of supplying health insurance for their workers is taken off of their shoulders. We already pay more per capita for healthcare than anyone else, and we get very little in return for it except rich insurance and pharmeceutical execs.

2. Neither Democratic candidate has a hard position of removing troops from Iraq, which I think is not what the American people want to hear. Having said that, I believe that a lot of the fiscal problems our country finds itself in is a direct result of this war and out-of-control military spending. Hillary uses the same pro-war language as Bush when you hear her rhetoric, and she is on record saber-rattling for Iran. Obama has talked though abut Pakistan. Neither inspires much confidence about getting out of wars.

3. Pensions and Social Security are trust finds for older Americans. They paid for it when they worked, and it is their money. I do know that our government has been raiding it like no one's business to make it insolvent 20-25 years down the road, but all it takes is an adjustment to the cap on FICA. As it stands now, peple who make more than $98,000 do not pay a cent in FICA tax over that amount. Raise the cap to $250,000 and suddenly those programs are solvent for the foreseeable future.

4. My candidate dropped out of the race. As far as politicians, I believed he was somewhat sincere. As far as the two that remain, I trust Obama much more than Clinton.

Hope you find some more cogent answers than mine in your quest.

[benEzra]

184. Health care, the gun issue, etc....

Some thoughts...

First, if it helps on the gun thing, I'm one of those eeee-villll "AK-47" owners that the republicans at the Brady Campaign are always warning you about.



:)

A lot of Dems (and Dem candidates) are pro-gun and anti-AWB. The Dems who flipped the Senate from (R) to (D) in 2006 were all anti-AWB, and at least one of them has long had a concealed carry license.

I think the biggest problem with some national Dems on the issue is lack of knowledge, not idealogical hatred of gun owners (Feinstein and McCarthy possibly excepted). A lot of them simply think that "gun owner = hunter," which is flat wrong. I'd also point out that it was the conservative wing of the Democratic party (the so-called Democratic Leadership Council) that shoved the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch into the party platform in the early '90s, and most of those who still cling to it are DLC'ers (most notably Dianne Feinstein).

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

On the health care issue, I'll just say that I've seen the holes in our current system firsthand. Even if you have insurance, our current system will probably bankrupt you if you or a family member develop a chronic illness, unless you can get Medicaid. Our son was born in '99 with 22q.11.2 deletion syndrome, aka the DiGeorge sequence of VCFS, and even though we have insurance, we've teetered on the edge of bankruptcy for years as a result of what insurance refuses to pay. Thank God that our son finally qualified for Medicaid after 7+ years without it, or else we would have probably lost our house.

Gratuitous kid pic:

[fedupconservative]

193. I agree with you

It's a travesty that a person with health insurance can still be pushed to bankruptcy.

I believe this issue is gaining prevalence on my side.

[lastliberalintexas]

205. ben's point about the Bradys is also very important

Sarah and Jim Brady are still REPUBLICAN voters, they do not support Dems. Henry Hyde was also a notorious "gun grabber"- which in my opinion made sense given that he really didn't believe in any individual freedoms. My former Congressman, Dem Jack Brooks, always had NRA support- until the NRA became a complete republican lobby organization and decided to help Gingrich implement his Contract on America by waging war against Southern Dems, even if they had received A ratings in the past. Oh and, Dr. Howard Dean, the current chair of the DNC, also received great ratings from the NRA while he was in office. I had never met a single Dem who was "anti-gun" until I worked in DC and ran into Northeastern Dems. But then again, many of the NE republicans were also "anti-gun", thus reinforcing the idea that the divide wasn't really along party lines.


As to the healthcare issue, I agree with the poster who said that you should watch Sicko. If that does not turn you into an anti-corporate Socialist, then nothing will! :)

Welcome to DU. You've picked an interesting time to join, so just remember that the primaries aren't the best time for reasoned, adult discussions.

[lonestarnot]

185. Ewwwwweeee No!

I might catch some'n.

[rainman99]

196. I thought I was a repub until 2003, myself.

So, here is what I've found out since converting:

1. We can pay for it when we quit paying Halliburton.
2. No.
3. We had a balanced budget 8 years ago. I refer back to number 1.
4. Much more trustworthy than Bush, that's for sure.

[Oilwellian]

206. Great thread and welcome to DU

I just spent the past hour reading this thread and see most of the points I would make have already been covered. I will add though, I'm a Democrat with a gun and have never feared the Dem party taking away that right. What has always amused me though about the rightwing stance against big brother taking away their guns...they claim to fear big brother and yet are willing to give their name, address & credit card/bank information to an organization (NRA) that is in bed with big brother. So millions of gun owners have inadvertently put their name on a list of gun owners....something I thought they were fighting against. Just a thought I've always pondered on.

Personally, I'm voting for Obama in the primaries because he inspires and brings people together...something we desperately need in these dark days. I believe if Hillary gets the nod, this country will continue to be divided at a time when we need to come together and solve our very serious problems.

[EFerrari]

208. You're worried about Medicare, SS and pensions

while George Bush is bankrupting us destroying Iraq for no reason and giving millionaires tax cuts?

You really need to re-arrange your priorities.

[fedupconservative]

213. Have you read any of my posts?

If so you would see that I'm here for the very reasons you just stated.

Try to have an open mind friend......I am.

[EFerrari]

225. I responded directly to your OP.

And no, my mind is not open. It's occupied by reality and facts and stuff that I consider critically.

If you're a fed up conservative, all I can say is, what took you so long to see that your party is run by people that are trying to roll you?

[Greyhound]

209. I'm sure you can. Over the last 30 or more years the two parties have morphed into one.

Sure there are cosmetic differences but in the ways that really count, the ways that government effects and controls our lives, they are pretty much the same. Democrats talk about gay rights, but never deliver them, Republiks talk about fiscal conservation, then run up the largest debts. In the end, if you watch the results and tune out the distractions, you see that both parties work for the ruling class at the expense of the working people.

Your questions;
Any plan that raises overall costs at all is nothing but another giveaway to big businesses. We already pay more than anybody else, by any measure, and receive far less. So you shouldn't vote for any of the 3 (realistically) remaining candidates with any expectation of change in the current health care denial scam.

Again, none of the 3 will get us out of the Iraq quagmire, although McCain & Clinton seem to be the most likely to expand on the crimes we've committed there.

The "impending economic nightmare of $58 Trillion in future entitlements for Medicare, SS and govt pensions" doesn't exist in any meaningful way and simply removing the FICA cap will be more than sufficient to fund the programs for far longer than it is possible to estimate with any reliability.

None of the 3 should be trusted at all, period.

I think that you and I and millions of others are destined to be eternally disappointed. We are not really "liberal" or "conservative", we are Americans with at least a sense of what that once meant.

The American Dream was never about how much crap you can buy, it was about individual liberty within the common community. They established it and gave us the opportunity, we threw it away and forgot what was important for the illusion of luxury.

[fedupconservative]

214. Wow, great post. I fully agree.

[defendandprotect]

211. Let me recommend that you think in terms of extending MEDICARE to everyone ---

the system is already set up ---

we just have to make sure that they don't STARVE the system ---
nor PRIVATIZE the system ---

It should be a single-payer system --- with NO involvement of insurance companies ---

As for your questions 2 thru 4 ---

they are also my questions ---

What happened to bring you here --- Iraq? Corruption?

[defendandprotect]

216. Basically, America is spending more on health care than Switzerland which has the most luxurious

of health plans . . .

Here's a question and kind of self-answer re costs of health care by Ralph Nader recently ---

“Senator Obama, you have often spoken about your health insurance plan as a way to reduce costs. Yet you do not discuss three major cost reduction opportunities. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, estimates that ten percent of the entire health expenditures in this country go down the drain due to computerized billing fraud and abuse. This year, that amounts to $220 billion.

“Under a single payer plan, administrative expenses would be cut by about two-thirds. That would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings. And the Harvard School of Public Health study estimates about 80,000 people die every year from medical malpractice in hospitals, estimating costs years ago of $60 billion a year. These are large savings in a $2.2 trillion a year health care industry.

“Do you agree and, if so, why have you ignored proposing practical actions in these areas?”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/02/6801 /

[Dark]

224. Welcome, and yes there are plenty of things we agree on.

Firstly, don't believe everything you hear from the right-wing talk radio. Some dems are in favor of stringent gun control, others are completely against it. I myself say that there are reasonable restrictions we could institute, but restrictions on the 2nd amendment, like on the 1st, should be done with the utmost care and be as unrestrictive as possible.

Generally however, we liberals want the same things that TRUE conservatives (not the current crop of neocons and fundamentalist Christians) want:

- An open and uncorrupt government.

- The government to interfere with our lives as little as possible.

- An efficient government.

- A strong, stable economy with enforced labor protections to safeguard employees' health and job security.

- Opportunity to get a job with a living wage and a good set of benefits.

- A foreign policy M.O. that puts our brave troops in harm's way only as a last resort.

- Aggressive counterterrorism operations that nevertheless stay within the bounds of the Constitution.

- The Constitution should remain the absolute final word on our laws.

- Laws that keep America's beautiful scenery as pristine as possible.

- Exceptional care and aid for our wounded veterans.

- Better security along the borders to prevent terrorists from entering the country.

- The rights of all Americans, including GLBT ones, to have their bedrooms left alone by the government.

- A balanced budget (Note: Deficits have gone down under Democratic Administrations, and gone up under Republican Administrations).

- Americans to be united as one people again.

- The chance to feel good about America again, and be the shining city on the hill to the rest of the world.

There's many more that I'm sure both sides can agree on.

We may not always agree, and this board is full of left-leaning moderates such as myself to far-left socialists -- and we do argue.

But I think we can all agree that such a platform would be acceptable to most Americans.

Oh, and there's one more thing we can agree on: We can't wait for Bush to leave office! ;-)

[fedupconservative]

226. That's what I'm talking about!!!!

Damn brother, if this is what the majority of Dems want, I'm 100% on board but you guys need to do a better job of getting this message out if it is indeed the prevalent thought of you party.

[Dark]

227. The Dems are doing a better job of getting their message out now.

But the problem was, to me, four-fold:

1.) The Republicans were better at PR. They learned that most Americans don't follow politics enough to delve into the issues, and campaigned that way. They made a lot of issues black/white. Reality is actually a lot of shades of gray.

For example, take education. I know you said you're against the DOE, but consider this: The traditional Republican mantras have been "Those who can't do, teach" and "Private schools' students get better grades at a lower cost." True. But, there's a lot more to the issue. For one thing, private school's can choose whom they accept and whom they don't. Public schools can't -- they have to take everyone. That includes the mentally and physically handicapped and those who don't speak English (and that doesn't mean just the kids of illegal immigrants). That is going to obviously lead to higher costs.

Also, private schools require tuition, so kids who come from poorer families often can't afford to attend. Those kids also have statistically lower performance. They also don't have access to as many resources (state of the art computers, 24/7 broadband internet access, tutors, etc.).

Then, you have to consider the pay of teachers. I'd love to be a teacher, and have had more than one person tell me that I'd make a great one. However, their pay is much lower than most other people. Many of the teachers I've known have had to have at least two jobs to get by. It's hard to attract the best and brightest w/o a decent salary. You end up with a minority who is truly dedicated to their job, and a majority of people who simply have been "educating" for years and don't care any more about their job.

Also, public school teachers are paid a lot more than private school teachers, leading to an even higher cost per student.

But, try turing all that into a slogan.

2.) The Dems have been, since Clinton, moving closer and closer to the right. That not only alienated their base, a bad thing to do in politics. It also gave people a choice between a group that had proven its conservative record (before Bush) and a party that said it was conservative, but had a moderate/liberal legacy.

Which one would a thinking voter choose?

3.) Republican half-truths. The S-Chip program, where the Republicans demonized a 12-year-old and said that it would apply to anyone making $83,000, is a perfect example. The $83,000 came from a REJECTED claim in New Jersey, or New York (can't remember which state). Luckily, Americans are finally seeing through that BS.

4.) The demonizing of liberals. I'm sure you're familiar with this. Remember all the "they hate America" and "They want the terrorists to win" chants? Yea, most of us don't. I won't lie, there are some on our side who do blame America for everything wrong in the world.

But most of us love our country, and want it to be a safe place for us to raise our children. We want to make the country better. We also, however, realize that just like not every Christian is an abortion-clinic bomber, not every Muslim is a suicide bomber.

5.) Taxes. This is one thing that we probably do disagree on. But let me explain our rationale as to why taxes aren't always a bad thing:

America had some high tax rates through some of its most prosperous years. It was at like 90% for some brackets between WWII and the Reagan Revolution. Those were some of America's best times economically.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we should return to that.

But when the rich pay only 15% on their earnings while the middle class pays 30%, that seems a bit unfair.

I'm not saying extremely high taxes are a good thing. Look at the economic boon after Reagan cut taxes down. But there's a happy medium, and the middle class paying twice the percentage as the rich ain't it.

Anywho, that's my two cents (and then some) ;-)

[fedupconservative]

233. I agree teachers are underpaid

The problem from my viewpoint are the administrative costs that have nothing to do with teaching our children. If curious, check out your local school districts budget to see how much goes towards teachers and how much goes to 'other'. It's one of the reasons charter schools can educate our children for a fraction of the costs while also showing better results. I do not remember how the teacher salaries compare though.

4. There were many on the right who were fighting our own party for such nonsense. Schoolyard tactics but what do you expect from the bullies from my party? *sigh* they really are an embarrasment.

5. I'm pretty flexible here. I'm actually a fan of progressive taxes, I just fight any unnecessary taxes or waste I see.


Thanks for presenting your viewspoints in a way you new I'd take to. I really see no reason why I couldn't get behind a number of democratic issues or support a dem candidate.

[bread_and_roses]

228. Are you ready to renounce the "ownership society" and affrim the common good society?

That's really what matters. For specifics on plans, etc., go do some research - and expect disagreements on details. The real question is do you believe that a civilized society makes sure that all of its' citizens have enough to eat, clean air and water, health care, education, and old age security regardless of what they can "buy?" Because if you believe that, then it means some form of what conservatives call "big government" and it means paying fair, progressive taxes. Fair taxes mean that corporations, which depend on the roads, schools, water systems, courts, etc. also pay their fair share - not a lower rate than the poorest among us.

It's not about the details of the "plans." We fight about those all the time. It's about how you define a civilized society.

And I, for one, have trouble believing you have had any change of world-view. I scanned thru this thread and it looks to me like you want to convince us that actually, your positions are right, you've just had the wrong man on the job. You come in here basically spouting the old con of "States Rights" on education, and calling SS and Medicare - two of the most popular and effective programs in the US - a "nightmare?"

It's not up to us to "convince" you. It's up to you to look around this country and the world and ask yourself why the apotheosis of your "Conservative" philosophy has resulted in this nightmarish crumbling wreck of a society which can point to nothing but the number of people it kills around the world and imprisons at home as "accomplishments," and ask yourself why your "philosopy" led us here. And then ask yourself where you want to go from here. I somehow doubt that it's where most of us want to go.

(A thumbs-up for tompainespeaks above - and don't we have something called the "gun-geon" for the OK Corrall fights?)

[guitar man]

252. Best post I've seen in this thread

especially this part:

The real question is do you believe that a civilized society makes sure that all of its' citizens have enough to eat, clean air and water, health care, education, and old age security regardless of what they can "buy?" Because if you believe that, then it means some form of what conservatives call "big government" and it means paying fair, progressive taxes. Fair taxes mean that corporations, which depend on the roads, schools, water systems, courts, etc. also pay their fair share - not a lower rate than the poorest among us.

Are you getting this, fedup? What kenzee has posted here strikes at the heart of what is wrong with pro big business conservative policy and has always been wrong with it. If you want to make the jump, you have to SERIOUSLY consider what is written above. The words "to promote the general welfare" were put into the preamble to the Constitution for a good reason. If you believe in promoting the general welfare, even if it costs more than we might want to pay sometimes....especially for the wealthiest among us, then you're in the right place.

Hell, I don't like paying taxes, I don't think anybody does. And, I certainly want to see our system fine tuned to make the most efficient use of every penny we pay into it. However, the "cut taxes on the richest, shower them with corporate welfare and we'll all benefit" meme is THE BIGGEST SACK OF HORSESHIT ever fed to the American people. Almost 30 years after we took the first bite of that horseshit, we have found that IT DOESN'T WORK. IT NEVER WORKED AND IT NEVER WILL WORK


I have no problem with wealth, wealthy people or getting wealthy.Hell, I'd like to be that way myself. But, like it or not, the scope of influence of the uber-wealthy needs to be kept on some kind of a leash or they WILL get out of hand and run rampant over the lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the common people. And they need to pay their fair share for what their business interests use in the way of public resources. We made the mistake of letting them run rampant since the rise of Reagan and look where it has gotten us...a country damn near in ruins. And you know what, I seem to remember plenty of people were getting plenty rich before Reagan came along with the idea that things were just so difficult for them . Horseshit.

that's just a little food for thought. good luck in your continued quest, wherever it may lead you.


<edit typo>

[defendandprotect]

258. Let's all meet here again in about 10 days and see how this is going --- !!!

[sheelz]

229. I don't know if i can do all that here

are there other options?

[ItNerd4life]

248. You've already encountered the variety of people in this party

by their responses here on DU. Some are immediately put off by conservatives, some are willing to listen and exchange, and others just like to have fun. In essence, the same type of people within the Republican party.

Ignore the radicals and just focus on the people who like to exchange ideas, you will get a better idea and answers to what you are looking for.

Now, some radical thoughts to your questions:
I like the idea of a more market based health care system, (which goes against what most of the people on DU believe). I think the current system stinks. I also believe in using the government as a safety net, not just charities. A good example of a competitive health care system is lasik eye surgery. Not all surgeries have to be performed, give insentives for people to shop around and find the best hospital. I'll never forget one time I challenged the charges on a doctor's bill and they asked "Why are you disputing the costs? You don't have to pay for it". Which is exactly why they charge whatever they can, there are no market forces to keep costs down.

Foreign policy. Nobody likes a bully, and that's what this country has become. We need to respect other countries and work with the countries who hold are beliefs, we need to try to persuade other countries the value of our beliefs. Persuading people is kind of hard when you're a bully.

Neither party has given much of a crap about national debt. The only reason we starting breaking even in the 90's under Clinton was because the economy was rolling. If you look at the rate of governmental spending, it's averaged over 6% a year for over 40 years. For many years Democrats had control of congress and they kept yelling to spend more money. We must get spending under control, I'm not sure any of the candidates are willing to make this happen. Remember, if people want nationalized health care, it costs money. The candidates all talk about helping people, it all costs money. Eliminating Bush's tax cuts, won't make up the difference of the dollars that are being promised.

Also, how the government spends it's money must be changed. Given budgets, the governmental departments must spend the money otherwise their budgets are reduced the following year. So, they make sure they spend all the money they can get so they get a bigger budget the next year. Not a good program to make the government efficient.

On trust, a friend of mine said it best on why he trusts Obama. I don't think he has better ideas, I just think he's smart enough to not get the country into trouble or make us look stupid.

Some additonal thoughts:
Every new government program makes people dependent on the government, if you are dependent upon the government you are not free.

Government can act as a counter balance to the power & greed of people and corporations. It's why Milton Friedman was mistaken in his belief of a free marketplace. We need the government to protect society. For example: By putting in place pollution laws. Without these laws, what type of cesspool would this country be?

Someone earliers mentioned the preamble and discussed "Promote the general welfare" as key. I agree, but not in the way they stated it. It doesn't say provide the general welfare (i.e. healthcare, food, housing, etc). It says to promote it. I think it means to create the infrastructure so that a free people can succeed. However, I have no problem with the government acting as a safety net for when those people fall.

I hope I didn't bore you too much. Happy investigating.

[fedupconservative]

250. Actually, you sound more like me than my party

If you see any of my other posts, you'll see we're pretty much in agreement on everything you said. Maybe we just say it a little differently.

I really don't think there's much of a difference between the core of both parties but we're lead to believe we're on different stratospheres over mostly irrelevant issues. Really, I'd prefer to see no parties. Candidates would be forced to think for themselves and people would actually need to know a little something about whom they'd choose rather than voting based on what letter follows your name(I've been guilty of this myself).

Thanks for your thoughts.