Will Democrats finally get a clue?

[BPSCG]

Can you support that? I've read quotes (which I'm sure could be drug up, if need be) that indicate otherwise.

You should know better than to demand that someone prove a negative hypothesis on this forum.

You say you have evidence that disproves my hypothesis? Show me.

Let me point out a distinction that a lot of people here seem not to have grasped. Being deeply religious is not the same as being intolerantly religious. My mother-in-law is a deeply religious Southern Baptist, church every Sunday, plus she's the church's treasurer. There are more Bibles lying around her house than any building I've ever seen that didn't have a cross on top of it.

She knows her daughter is not religious, and that her son-in-law is practically heathen. But she knows that even though I don't believe that Jesus is the son of God, I try to live a life that's consistent with what he preached, and I treat her and her daughter both with love and caring, and that's good enough for her.

So she doesn't condemn me for my lack of faith. And she doesn't condemn me for voting for Bush.

That's right, she voted for Kerry.

You may now resume pigeonholing the deeply religious in your midst.

 

[BPSCG]

Wait a sec. Clinton did win the nationwide popular vote. Twice.

Sorry - sloppy language on my part. Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.

Now let me repeat the question: Would you say Clinton never had a mandate?

 

[Jocko]

Do you think there's no difference between someone saying "I don't like gay people" and someone saying "Kill the queers, shoot them in the head"?

As a free speech issue, no I don't think there is a difference. That's because I don't gauge constitutionality through the filter of my own fears and biases. Is the latter wrong? Yes. Invective? Yes. Protected? Yes.

Is complete free reign to say whatever you want really that good? Bear in mind we don't have this in the US, either: you will be prosecuted for making threats, or advocating violent overthrow of the government.

I would prefer to take my cues on what is "allowed" from the constitution, and not some bureaucrat deciding what my level of tolerance should be. When what you say is judged by who you are rather than the content of the speech (a black man can fling the N word to his heart's content - a white man can be prosecuted for doing same)... that's PC bullsh*t, censorship and a clear violation of the first amendment. I won't address the "yelling fire in a theater" strawman because it's not relevant.

The question is, where do you draw the lines?

I don't draw them at all. No one should. And I certainly don't appreciate the anointed intellectuals trying to draw them for me.

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry - sloppy language on my part. Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.

Yeah, he did. Twice. Source.

 

[Number Six]

I think what he's getting at is majority means "over 50%" whereas plurality means "more votes than anyone else."

 

[BPSCG]

Yeah, he did. Twice. Source.

1992 - 43%
1996 - 49%

From your source. What numbers are you looking at?

 

[Anathema]

Bingo

No they will not finally get a clue.

They are the party of the perpetual cluelessness. So impressed with their own intellectual superiority that they forget to make their case on the issues to the American people. They never lose because they were disorganized or didn't have a clear message or were crippled by a dog of a candidate. They lose because "those Americans in flyover country are stupid".

In 2008, they will most likely nominate yet another Northeastern liberal who will have zero personality, a difficult to defend record, and will be virtually unelectable.

Then they will allow the Republican spin machine roll them over and have its way with them; keeping them constantly off message.

Then they will bitch and whine when they cannot even get their own people out to vote and then desperately manufacture conspiracy theories about why those nasty "Theists" stole the election by getting those "stupid" people to vote for them.

I couldn't agree more. The Democratic Party is a shambles, and it's prospects for turning that around are other-than-bright. There really is no place for a barely-left-of-center person -- such an animal is rejected outright from the Republican party, and too independent minded to be branded along with the simplistic sheep of the whackleft.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Bingo

There really is no place for a barely-left-of-center person -- such an animal is rejected outright from the Republican party, and too independent minded to be branded along with the simplistic sheep of the whackleft.

You have just described me, my family (as far as I know), most of my friends (afaik), and the *winning plurality* of the population at large (just a damn good guess).

 

[easycruise]

Re: Bingo

I couldn't agree more. The Democratic Party is a shambles, and it's prospects for turning that around are other-than-bright. There really is no place for a barely-left-of-center person -- such an animal is rejected outright from the Republican party, and too independent minded to be branded along with the simplistic sheep of the whackleft.

In my opinion, the main reason why Kerry lost is his ever-present flip flops as devastatingly detailed in such ads as this one, using his own words...

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

 

[Upchurch]

1992 - 43%
1996 - 49%

From your source. What numbers are you looking at?

Oh, you're speaking in terms of "having over 50%". I was speaking in terms of "having the most". My mistake.

 

[Anathema]

Re: Re: Bingo

In my opinion, the main reason why Kerry lost is his ever-present flip flops as devastatingly detailed in such ads as this one, using his own words...

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

I find that kind of "slicing and dicing" disgraceful and dishonest. Kerry was much more consistent than the "paint him a flip-flopper" campaign made him out to be. People want comforting one-liners in times like these, not provisionalism and lengthy justifications that take paragraphs to explain. If the world really were as simple as the average "NASCAR Dad" believes, the one-liner soundbite method would be OK. Unfortunately, we live in a complex world; one in which nuances need to be considered, and REconsidered in the course of making sound decisions. Scared people have overwhelmingly affirmed their preference for simplism over critical thought....and that's a damn shame.

 

[easycruise]

Re: Re: Bingo

In my opinion, the main reason why Kerry lost is his ever-present flip flops as devastatingly detailed in such ads as this one, using his own words...

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

After listening to all the flip-flops, give me a fundamentalist Christian any day! Perhaps it takes a fundamentalist Christian to best do battle with a fundamentalist Muslim? (grin)

 

[Upchurch]

Being deeply religious is not the same as being intolerantly religious.

True but what of the marriage amendment? Isn't that indicitive of the man's intolerance of differing opinons on a religious issue based on a religious stance?

 

[BPSCG]

Oh, you're speaking in terms of "having over 50%". I was speaking in terms of "having the most". My mistake.

'Sokay. Third time: Do you think Clinton was entitled to claim a mandate?

 

[Upchurch]

'Sokay. Third time: Do you think Clinton was entitled to claim a mandate?

Not especially, no. Like I mentioned above, In the last handful of elections, Reagan is the only one entitled to make that claim.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Bingo

Perhaps it takes a fundamentalist Christian to best do battle with a fundamentalist Muslim? (grin)

It's certainly a surer route to a holy war. Wouldn't that be grand?

 

[Anathema]

Winning by 3.7 million votes is, unfortunately, a very strong mandate. This country is solidly in the hands of conservatives for the next 4 years.

Even if 150,000 Kerry votes magically turned up on Ohio provisional ballots today (causing OH EVs to flip to Kerry) --- there's no denying: many more people went behind the curtain and asserted a strong affirmation of Bushism....

 

[Snide]

Not especially, no. Like I mentioned above, In the last handful of elections, Reagan is the only one entitled to make that claim.

Dang...and he tried so hard to get you with that tu quoque! But no, you wouldn't bite!

 

[BPSCG]

True but what of the marriage amendment? Isn't that indicitive of the man's intolerance of differing opinons on a religious issue based on a religious stance?

Please provide a quote where he cited the Bible or some other religious authority as primary justification for opposing gay marriage. Right after you answer my thrice-asked question about Clinton's mandate.

FWIW, I think in the absence of uniform state laws regarding what does and does not constitute a marriage, we do need a federal law (not an amendment). Otherwise, what happens to the gay couple that gets legally married in Massachusetts, moves to Utah, then wants a divorce? Utah regards the marriage as a legal nullity, refuses to grant a divorce for a marriage that it refuses to recognize in the first place.

And this may shock you, but I have no problem with gay marriage being recognized throughout the nation. Unfortunately, it's going to be some time before the rest of the country gets past the "ewww, gross" factor and realizes a gay couple's being married is no threat to anyone else.

But the time will come.

 

[BPSCG]

Dang...and he tried so hard to get you with that tu quoque! But no, you wouldn't bite!

Give the man credit where it's due.