Hate America?

[Tgace]

Hmmm...my point was "if you have to have your way on all those different issues to be proud again" you might as well burn the flag you have.... meaning you might as well get rid of your flag because you wont be waiving again anytime soon. Wasnt implying you were a "flag burner".

 

[psi_radar]

Hmmm...my point was "if you have to have your way on all those different issues to be proud again" you might as well burn the flag you have.... meaning you might as well get rid of your flag because you wont be waiving again anytime soon. Wasnt implying you were a "flag burner".

I see what you're saying now, but maybe you can see how I lost your point in context.

Our actions are what we are. This administration has diminished us. We voted this guy in A SECOND TIME. Bush, and his people, especially his people, are self-serving megolomaniacs. And as a democratic society, we have to take responsibility.

I do hope to wave my flag again. Looks like maybe 2008. I'm not quite sure what to do with my old one, it's getting a little ratty. Anyone know what the proper disposal procedure is, since reverent burning was tradition in the past? I guess I'll give it to the VFW.

 

[Makalakumu]

No, they really believe it's a vast-right wing conspiracy. In their minds they've been winning the elections, but the Republican's have been cheating. Honest self-evaluation is beyond many of them.

"Cheating" is a separate issue. "If" it really happened, it could only really affect a very small percentage of votes. The rest, the right took with their command of the issues. Good discussion.

 

[andy]

In answer to the comment about the democrats losing the seats of power all across the country--
It's because of the extreme leftist stance on gun control that was taken in the 1990's
there are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up. Yes, thats not the only reason but it is a large one.

 

[michaeledward]

there are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up. Yes, thats not the only reason but it is a large one.

I think this 'fact' needs to be checked.

The current population of the country is around 280,000,000 people. I do not believe that more than 66% of the country are private gun owners.

 

[andy]

michaeledward

"#of guns#of owners all firearms 200-240million
60-65 million handguns 75-80 million 30-35 million (3)(7)

" but there are some people who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the brady bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban, and they did it in areas where people could be frightened."-Bill Clinton.

my source is--www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm:flame:

 

[michaeledward]

michaeledward

"#of guns#of owners all firearms 200-240million
60-65 million handguns 75-80 million 30-35 million (3)(7)

" but there are some people who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the brady bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban, and they did it in areas where people could be frightened."-Bill Clinton.

my source is--www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Hey Andy, take a look at this.

It's because of the extreme leftist stance on gun control that was taken in the 1990's
there are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up.

Andy, first off, this quote of yours is a grammatical disaster. This thought is actually two sentences. You probably meant to indicate that with the carriage return. But, in common usage, we end a sentence with a period, and begin the next sentence with a capital letter.

Your thoughts should look like this:

It's because of the extreme leftist stance on gun control that was taken in the 1990's.
There are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up.

So now, let's examine the second sentence.

There are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up.

Sentences in English have 'subjects', in this case the noun 'owners' is the subject of the sentence.

We describe nouns with adjectives. In this sentence you have used several adjectives to describe the 'owners'; '2 hundered million' is an adjective, 'private' is another adjective, and 'gun' is the last adjective. Each of these adjectives was used to describe the subject of the sentence' 'owners'.

So, your adjective of '2 hundred million' is describe the 'owners', not the guns.

I am quite certain the guns were not "getting fed up". It was the 'owners' that were getting 'fed up'.

Please, come along and play, but do try to say what you mean.

The statement is incorrect. Also, the assumption that there are only two hundred million weapons in America, I think, may also be wrong. That number seems very low. And, as an expert on gun control, I'm sure you know there is no one place, anywhere, where information about what weapons are sold is stored.

And, lastly, the 'Brady Bill' is 'extreme'? To check an make sure that someone with a criminal record is not purchasing a weapon is an 'extreme leftist stance'? You might be able to argue that the 'Brady Bill' is in conflict with the Second Amendment to the Constitution; is a five day waiting period an 'infringment' on the right to keep and bear arms? Not to mention, the provision was set to expire in 1998 anyhow.

 

[Tgace]

So are you saying that the Dems. stance on gun control isnt a factor in theyre recent decline?

*Hoping my grammar is correct*

 

[Tgace]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110005899

What Americans will not tolerate is pessimism, defeatism and stagnation. It's not for nothing that Jimmy Carter's presidency ended amid an era of "stagflation." When Mr. Carter put a sweater on in the Oval Office and told Americans to get ready to start accepting less, he might as well have resigned. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in a landslide in 1980, promising a brighter, better and stronger America. Four years later he won in a walk talking about "morning in America."

Americans don't want to make do with less or accept defeat. They want a new beginning, a fresh start, a rebirth. Franklin D. Roosevelt knew he couldn't offer the same old tired solutions to the greatest economic crisis to beset the nation. Instead he offered the New Deal, itself a derivation from his cousin Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal decades earlier. Bill Clinton similarly understood this and ran for president as a "new Democrat"--a Democrat who would be tough on crime, strong on defense and not a big spender.

There's a debate raging now whether the election really did turn on "values"--as if the word only applied to abortion and gay marriage. If that is the extent of the debate for Democrats, it will prove to be a dead-end street. The short answer is, of course the election turned on values. But the hard answer is that it's hard to think of an election that didn't. Fighting the war on terror, bringing democracy to the Middle East, protecting Social Security, ending an era in education dominated by the soft bigotry of low expectations--it's hard to find a contentious political issue that is devoid of fundamental moral judgments. And on each one of these issues, it is the Republican Party that has been offering fresh ideas, a chance for a new beginning. Democrats need to get a reform agenda and start thinking about ways to be born again.

 

[Tgace]

And heres another criticism of the Democrats I see repeated frequently...
http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/004350.php

The problem faced by the left, however, is that they don't want the type of success that emerges from a distributed, bottom-up economic and political system (capitalism, democracy). They want to be the elite rulers of a top-down power structure (socialism, oligarchy). Unfortunately for them, top-down just isn't as competitive as bottom-up, so they keep losing despite their expectations.

How accurate is that in your opinions? And even if its inaccurate, if thats the perception that is loosing votes, how do you fix it?

 

[andy]

well thanks for the english lesson. as for the stats I found-I didn't gather them, I was simply clarifying where i read them.

It's quite clear the liberal stance on gun control cost alot of dems the positions of power they enjoyed. Also, the quote on the brady bill was from bill clinton not I. As for checking someones background to see if they are one shy of a sixpack?--Of course thats a good idea. It's the fringe gun grabbing groups that played a keyrole in bringing the democrats down. For example: the misrepresentation of an assault weapon versus a semi-automatic that was constantly played out with the the so called "assault weapons ban."
'

the number of guns in america and the source could only take the count from those civilians that cared to share the info. Obviously not everyone took the time to take the study. (If i understand your point)I myself did not make an assumption sir, it was a quote
from a source you may or may not choose to consider.

 

[Dan G]

Course I also think I should be king, and we just know that won't happen either.

Mmmm.... suspiciously knowledgeable on tea drinking...

pro-monarchy views...

Sound almost English...

I'd send your CV to Buckingham Palace on the off-chance that a vacancy arises. Charles Windsor isn't the strong contender that he once was, so you might be in with a chance.

Any chance of a knighthood?:knight:

Dan

 

[Makalakumu]

Sorry, this may be a bit off topic. I'm not sure what the Dems can do to win back votes. Telling the truth is out. When Carter sat down and told Americans that would should begin to settle for less, he was right. And, the tough solutions he proffered were political suicide.

Reagan promised hope. We got it with the following...

1. We run up our national deficits into the trillions.
2. We outsourced our energy resources.
3. Americans have absolutely nothing saved, on average.
4. Americans are saddled with more more debt then we ever have been before.
5. Our banks can only cover 1.5% of the wealth they claim...(and this number is still dropping).
6. We make less money, when adjusted for inflation.
7. We work harder and longer.
8. Etc...

This promised helped us grow. And every year, this hopeful promise stretches our economic system further and further. The party isn't going to last forever folks...there will be a limit.

Here is a little advice...

1. Buy some land in the country.
2. Pay off your debts.
3. Buy gold.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Tgace]

Ah the defeatism mentioned upthread personified....

If the Dems have a better solution, the key is in how its presented. Defeatism, pessimism and "Anti-Americanism" (or the perception thereof) is whats killing them IMO. Instead of lamenting the opponents works they have to package their plan as one of hope and "pro America" if they want more people on their side IMHO.

 

[Tgace]

And yet Regan will go down in history as the President that "won the cold war". My memory of Carter is hostages, desert one and Billy Beer.

 

[Tgace]

Or you can belittle those who vote against you...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

That wins hearts and minds (and ballots).

 

[andy]

michaeledwards?
care to comment on my grammer? or the points i raised. (because my grammar sucks) but the points are legit,--

since my grammar lacks I tried to clarify my points

 

[Tgace]

This article has a lot of interesting points...
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/A11901023.htm

The era of Democratic dominance in the 20th century was shaped by the muscular presidency of Franklin Roosevelt—activist at home as well as abroad. FDR’s New Deal defined a domestic liberalism that consisted of government intervention in the economy to provide jobs and social insurance. Its constituency was blue-collar, and its exemplars, after Roosevelt, were Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson.

This tradition was ruptured in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s when the movement against the Vietnam war redefined liberalism around the issues of peace, race, and freedom of “lifestyle,” and on behalf of a new constituency of college students and graduates. The new liberalism was effective in defeating the old liberalism in the battle for control of the Democratic party, but it proved pitifully weak against the Republicans.

In the 30 to 40 years following this transformation, only two Democrats captured the White House. The first was Carter in 1976 and the second was Clinton. Both were governors from the South who were taken for conservatives and who labored to reinforce that impression. Carter, as one of his long-time associates explained at the time, liked to “campaign conservative and govern liberal.” It was a formula that could work for one election with any given electorate. He used it to become governor of Georgia, then forsook reelection to run for the presidency. For this it also proved successful, but when he sought reelection, his true colors having been revealed, he was roundly trounced by the upstart Reagan.

Clinton’s was a more complicated story. He campaigned in 1992 as a “New Democrat,” code for “not a liberal.” Once in office, he too shifted abruptly to the Left, but, perhaps to his good fortune, retribution came down on him faster than on Carter. In the mid-term elections of 1994, the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich touting his “contract with America,” won a stunning sweep, impelling the agile Clinton to execute a sharp turn back to the center. Announcing that “the age of big government is over,” he signed conservative legislation on welfare reform and the “defense of marriage, and spoke out for stronger anti-crime measures,” V-chips on televisions, school uniforms, and restrictions on teen smoking. In short, he made himself the champion of what were then called “family values,” more or less the same issues that in the 2004 exit polls acquired the label “moral values.”

Liberals, like one-time Kennedy aide Richard N. Goodwin, protested that “the venerable principles of the party . . . have been abandoned.” But few Democratic politicians were willing to argue with Clinton’s success. “We’re all New Democrats now,” declared the then House minority leader Richard Gephardt.

One lingering illustration of the change was the bipartisan support for the war against terrorism following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Not only did most Democrats support the Republican President in using force to oust Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, but Senate Democrats voted to authorize the more controversial war in Iraq by 29 to 21. By comparison, when Bush’s father had sought authorization for war in 1990 in the face of Iraq’s outright aggression against Kuwait, only ten Democratic Senators had voted “yea” to 45 “nays.” (In the House, Democrats opposed the recent war by a ratio of three to two; they had opposed the first Gulf war by more than two to one.)

If the bold part were reversed I may just switch affiliation again.

 

[andy]

tgace,
good article

 

[Makalakumu]

Ah the defeatism mentioned upthread personified....

If the Dems have a better solution, the key is in how its presented. Defeatism, pessimism and "Anti-Americanism" (or the perception thereof) is whats killing them IMO. Instead of lamenting the opponents works they have to package their plan as one of hope and "pro American" if they want more people on their side IMHO.

What can you really tell people?

For twenty five years, we've stretched our countries wealth in order to grow. We've "created" wealth in the form of debt in the name of progress. Most Americans are worth less then absolutely nothing. Most financial institutions operate on the belief that your money is actually there. And our "real" wealth is going overseas at the rate of 600 billion dollars a year.

What could you tell people about this? Could you suggest that American's suddenly stop spending and pay their debts? Our economy would crash overnight. Could you tell people that if one of our major trading partners suddenly lost faith in the American financial system that our dollar would only be worth 1.5 cents if we were lucky?

What can you really tell people? How can you possibly spin this? Or should we just ignore it and hope it goes away? Both Dems and Reps are guilty of this.

I wouldn't want to be president and have to deal with this fiasco, because there are absolutely no easy solutions. One can only forarm themselves with this knowledge and attempt to create real wealth for the future. One can reject materialism and embrace pragmatism in order to get a jumpstart on a spartan future.