| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Power of Reason > What The Democratic Party Should Do |
| Posted by: Emperor Norton II Nov 8 2004, 10:27 AM |
| I made this post on Liberalforums earlier today- I wanted some feedback from people here. From my position, here is what the Democratic party needs to do: #1 Never again run a candidate who makes more than $100,000 dollars a year. Virtually unknown men have beaten incumbent presidents before, and it can happen again. The party needs to start finding college professors and workers to champion the party, instead of lawyers, professional politicians, and businessmen. #2 The democrats need to start a policy of not stating religious beliefs, and stating an "Actions speak louder than words" policy. A man who makes less than 100,000 a year could annihilate any Repug on these grounds-What you do unto the least of them, you do unto me/It is easier to get a camel into the eye of the needle than a rich man into heaven. Dems need to start rubbing this in candidate's faces. A rich Repug is a bad Christian, no matter what he says- if a Dem candidate could have repeatedly pushed this issue, he could have destroyed Bush's religious support. #3 Dems need to start holding Thomas Jefferson and crew up like a fucking Roman Banner. These were men who forged America- and most of them have some liberal ideas that far outspeak today's standards. The separation of church and state are there for a reason- this can be backed religiously with Do unto others as you would have them do unto you/Judge not lest ye be judged mentalities. Government is there to serve the people, not the other way around. #4 Our candidates (no offense, ladies) need to fucking grow a pair. We need gung-ho candidates that aren't afraid to call our opponents out on their mistakes PERSONALLY. It's not enough for us to challenge Bush's honesty or integrity or intentions- what if Kerry, in the debate, had said Bush was full of shit when he talked about respect for life? Executions, poor intel before a war, etc. I'd sure have a lot more respect for him, and so would many Republicans, I'd bet. We need to LEAD. This is what needs to happen- not a change of policy, but a change of style. That's what is killing the Democrats. |
| Posted by: quicksand Nov 8 2004, 10:46 AM | ||||||||
My thoughts....
While I agree that ordinary people can be substantial candidates (and would like to see more), however I disagree that just because of cash flow or profession (like a lawyer) should be immediate disqualification. I don't want a champion of the Party, but a champion of human rights and economic equality. Stand up for the middle class. Stand up for the minority, whether they be gay, black, different. On Friday night I had to remind my local bartender that a fundamental American value is the protection of the minority.
I can agree with Actions rather than Words policy. Religion is divisive that's why it was effective in this election.
Yes, power flows on the behest of the people, not the other way around. Furthermore, taxes, as TJ put it, is the price of admission to a civilized society. That's basic tax and spend.
I was totally let down there on the Democrat leadership not calling Bush a liar - TO HIS FACE. Cojones are certainly called for. |
| Posted by: REBOOT Nov 8 2004, 06:04 PM |
| It's deeper than any party... The most popular value system wins the pot. The democrats are going to shift to fundie right values in order to get more votes. READ MY LIPS  Let's all go to church !!! WAHOOOOO But seriously now..... I am pretty damn serious Politics in the U.S. will be a tug of war match between fundie / non fundies. But if the democrats shift right they'll balance out and maybe win the election in 2008. It is as sickening as that ! |
| Posted by: nivek Nov 8 2004, 06:48 PM |
| EMII.... When and "IF" those silly sonsabitches running the DemonKratz EVER back off their communist and unconstitutional War on Firearms, I may take them a weeeee bit more seriously... Otherwise, until they get their collective hands off my firearms, they aren't much better than the Rest of the Capt'n Asshats... n, Freeman, by Force of Arms if necessary |
| Posted by: BigToe Nov 8 2004, 07:30 PM |
| yeah i dont get why they hell they wanna get rid of guns. hell most of the politicians use them- hunting or target.... |
| Posted by: Ashlynn Nov 8 2004, 08:28 PM |
Somebody might get hurt. That's why.  |
| Posted by: Emperor Norton II Nov 8 2004, 10:39 PM |
| Firearms are essential to the maintaining of freedom. |
| Posted by: quicksand Nov 9 2004, 11:40 AM | ||
Ah yeah Nivek... No one is going to ban weapons in the United States. Answer me this, what weapons should we ban if not Assault Riffles? How about an RPG? A tank is nothing more than a really big assault riffle on wheels. Should we allow our citizens those weapons as well? These were confiscated in Iraq. |
| Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Nov 9 2004, 11:53 AM | ||||
A government that fears its citizenry is a government that protects their interests. As long as we have a standing military that can use helicopters, jets, and tanks against us, they should be available to us as well, instead of shipped off to foreign nations at our expense. But we should not have a standing military in peacetime at all. BTW, most of *those* weapons are from the big three: America, Russia, and China. Ironic that they're sold to people who would be the first to use them to harm us, but they are banned for our own people. |
| Posted by: nivek Nov 9 2004, 12:03 PM |
| quicksand... Before I respond, need to know your idea(s) of "allow" in relation to "the People". Serious question, root of my thoughts on Arms and Freedoms. n |
| Posted by: quicksand Nov 9 2004, 12:04 PM | ||||||
Not only should the government fear its people, but the people should suspect the government. But we have the Constitution to protect the guns in the country. I have no objection to it. But what I am talking about is a reasonable limit to the type of arms we can own. Most riffles no problem. Even hand guns. I can't believe you are in favor of private citizens owning their own RPG's and tanks that could blast away many. I do think we need to maintain a volunteer army in peacetime. My point is about a escalation. Its funny you mention China, Russia, and the US - all nuclear powers. Should I or your neighbor or a religious eschatologist-wacko be allowed to own a Nuke? |
| Posted by: quicksand Nov 9 2004, 12:05 PM | ||
I thought "we" were the people in question Nivek. It is "We" who allow. |
| Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Nov 9 2004, 12:40 PM |
| Should I or your neighbor or a religious eschatologist-wacko be allowed to own a Nuke? How are you going to use a nuke defensively? Wackos usually have a cause that would fall to pieces if they ever used a nuke. My point is, there's no way you can disallow it. That's like asking if someone should be "allowed" absolute power. How do you plan on taking it away from them? If a crazy gets a nuke, he surely must realize a nuclear reaction will be the natural reward. The result is deadlock; Mutual Assured Destruction. It is just as well you didn't have the nuclear weapon at all, except to guarantee autonomy. Such weapons are a more powerful threat and deterrent than terrorism could ever be. To take a general turn: Don't your neighbors and religious eschatologist-wackos already own nukes? What about the idea that Bush could potentially put his finger on a button that would end the world? |
| Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Nov 9 2004, 12:49 PM | ||
I can't believe that you are willing to give that power to only the very last people who should have it. Have our countless military excursions and attacks on freedom at home still not convinced you who the abusers of weaponry and power are? You have not recognized the alternative. My statement was conditional - if our govenrnment has those kinds of weapons so should we. On the other hand, if we are not allowed those kinds of weapons, neither should the government be. |
| Posted by: quicksand Nov 9 2004, 01:02 PM | ||||||||
Yeah I know I am using an example in extremis and your point about how a private citizen using a nuke is well taken and I do agree with you. However, equally outlandish claims are made by the pro-gunners in this country that the gov't is coming for their guns. No way it will happen. IMHO, Constitutional support for the 2nd is shared pretty equally amoung those in the left and right. Heck, I a freakin liberal and I support it, so technically I am pro-gun. I'm talking about a reasonable limit on the types of weapons we can use. After all, we can use reason can't we?
Well a crazy is just a crazy, so Mutual Assured Destruction will not deter a non-state actor.
That was the fear over Regan. He was connected to an eschatologistilogical group and I remember much hay being made over it. Bush has the support that crazy group and Bushie is wrapped up in his own rapture. |
| Posted by: Emperor Norton II Nov 9 2004, 01:42 PM |
| Damn, would I love to have a tank... or even an armored personnel carrier... spending my weekends plowing through muddy fields and over small trees... |
| Posted by: Reach Nov 9 2004, 01:51 PM | ||
 And maybe plowing through some trash heaps too... while you're at it? |
| Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Nov 9 2004, 02:10 PM | ||
Well, you can buy a tank in the USA - but not a USA or UN tank of any year. You can buy Russian WW-II tanks, for example. The armaments are removed. You can also buy Russian Jets in the USA, including Mig-21s. Again, all armaments are removed. Because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian Migs can be purchased for under $100,000, with spare engines. Wealthy businessmen fly them for fun in the USA. |