mountainclmbr
New member
What change, specifically, are they pushing? I have my hunches, but want to understand what they are hinting at.
For Democrats: What does all this "I'm the change candidate" mean?
- Thread starter mountainclmbr
- Start date
- Status
It means nothing but sounds appealing. After any 2 term Presidency they are all change candidates.
Hollow but following a session of Bush Bashing it sounds like a contrast and to those that lead with emotion it FEELS substantial. Remember, it's not facts that appeal to liberals, it's emotive. Those that don't take head to the significance of emotive perspective aren't smart, educated, or enlightened.
In short, it need not MEAN anything. It need only strike an emotional cord to appeal to a liberal base and in Primary season they are the target audience.
Hollow but following a session of Bush Bashing it sounds like a contrast and to those that lead with emotion it FEELS substantial. Remember, it's not facts that appeal to liberals, it's emotive. Those that don't take head to the significance of emotive perspective aren't smart, educated, or enlightened.
In short, it need not MEAN anything. It need only strike an emotional cord to appeal to a liberal base and in Primary season they are the target audience.
blackhawk45
New member
Change to a POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Baba Louie
New member
Change? Simply means they want their name on the list of U.S. Presidents.
Edward429451
Moderator
Quite correct, but more speciffically, it means they'll activate all those foreign troops on our soil.
It's a marketing tool using a word that means quite a lot to progressives (leftists). Change=Good. Change is always good,
as soon as a norm gets established it needs to be overcome with something new. That's why teenagers develop their own fashions, music and lingo. And leftists are like perpetual teenagers, being more idealistic than pragmatic.
as soon as a norm gets established it needs to be overcome with something new. That's why teenagers develop their own fashions, music and lingo. And leftists are like perpetual teenagers, being more idealistic than pragmatic.
I have no idea what the candidates themselves have in mind when they say they are the candidate for change, but I can tell you what I think most liberals have in mind when they think of change.
Someone mentioned change to a police state. This is the exact opposite of what liberals want. Go to a site like Reddit.com, which is filled with liberals and you will see every day people lamenting the current trends in our government towards a police state. They are PISSED about it. On second thought, don't go to that website because it is also filled with overreactions and propaganda and gives liberals a bad name. But the point is still valid. The Patriot Act giving the FBI powers to take information about us without warrants or subpoenas, warrantless wiretapping, and suspension of Habeas Corpus for American citizens accused of "terrorism" are not things that make liberals happy. Bush has issued executive orders giving himself the ability to declare martial law in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
Most of the Republican candidates have shown no intention of diverging from these types of policies.
Are those things not worrisome to you? It seems like we want the same things. Freedom to do what we want without the government needlessly looking over our shoulders. The biggest difference is that liberals are willing to pay more taxes for services we deem important (that is an entire other debate), but to me it seems like the Bush administration has been taking us in the opposite direction for years now and most of the Republican candidates have shown no intention of diverging from these types of policies.
We want the exact same things in some areas of politics. Liberals think current Republicans are leading us towards a police state, and Republicans think Liberals will.
Liberals want to restore proper government function. The government should go through the judicial system to get warrants like they are supposed to. The president should not be able to drastically alter the meaning of a bill he signs into law via signing statements.
My point here is that some conservatives and some liberals are vulnerable to being swayed by emotion, but to generalize it like that is completely unfair.
The Short Answer
Stop government intrusion into our privacy through the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. Tone down our rhetoric when it comes to foreign policy. Restore Habeas Corpus to American citizens accused of acts of terrorism, which is not an act of war, but a criminal act and should be dealt with by the courts. Look at the Timothy McVeigh case. Whether Democrats will actually enact these changes is very questionable.
These are the reasons why so many Democrats and Republicans alike can get together to support Ron Paul, even though he is a Republican.
Someone mentioned change to a police state. This is the exact opposite of what liberals want. Go to a site like Reddit.com, which is filled with liberals and you will see every day people lamenting the current trends in our government towards a police state. They are PISSED about it. On second thought, don't go to that website because it is also filled with overreactions and propaganda and gives liberals a bad name. But the point is still valid. The Patriot Act giving the FBI powers to take information about us without warrants or subpoenas, warrantless wiretapping, and suspension of Habeas Corpus for American citizens accused of "terrorism" are not things that make liberals happy. Bush has issued executive orders giving himself the ability to declare martial law in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
Most of the Republican candidates have shown no intention of diverging from these types of policies.
Are those things not worrisome to you? It seems like we want the same things. Freedom to do what we want without the government needlessly looking over our shoulders. The biggest difference is that liberals are willing to pay more taxes for services we deem important (that is an entire other debate), but to me it seems like the Bush administration has been taking us in the opposite direction for years now and most of the Republican candidates have shown no intention of diverging from these types of policies.
We want the exact same things in some areas of politics. Liberals think current Republicans are leading us towards a police state, and Republicans think Liberals will.
Liberals want to restore proper government function. The government should go through the judicial system to get warrants like they are supposed to. The president should not be able to drastically alter the meaning of a bill he signs into law via signing statements.
Where are the statistics that letting gays get married will be harmful to our society? Conservative Christians do not vote on that issue based on facts.
My point here is that some conservatives and some liberals are vulnerable to being swayed by emotion, but to generalize it like that is completely unfair.
Is this some kind of joke that I didn't get? What does that even mean? Is some candidate advocating that we bring Chinese troops here to keep watch over the dangerous plebeians?
The Short Answer
Stop government intrusion into our privacy through the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. Tone down our rhetoric when it comes to foreign policy. Restore Habeas Corpus to American citizens accused of acts of terrorism, which is not an act of war, but a criminal act and should be dealt with by the courts. Look at the Timothy McVeigh case. Whether Democrats will actually enact these changes is very questionable.
These are the reasons why so many Democrats and Republicans alike can get together to support Ron Paul, even though he is a Republican.
I am actually not a supporter of Ron Paul. I like some of his ideas. I did not bring up his name in order to advocate supporting him, but rather to show that lots of liberals are worried about the same things as a lot of conservatives right now and those are the changes that many liberals are looking for.
Socialized medicine- Limits freedom radically in the name of security. Sound familiar? MORE laws, regs, and inevitable given the Fed's track record to be totally inefficient. More taxes for 'fair'=emotive.
Gay Marriage- Pure fiction. The two words don't mix. Marriage is a human, not legal, status. It is the joining of two families and the foundation of a NEW family. That foundation is built upon by the children born and growing into adults that have adult men and Women modeled for them throughout their childhood and are prepared the be productive and sound contributers to society. It is NOT just monogamous sex. FAMILY is what life is ALL ABOUT, not politics, money, careers, but FAMILY. Monogamous sodomy is NOT a family value. And marriage is an INSTITUTION in humanity (all cultures) because of it's foundation of families, not because of a tax deduction. But emotive thought goes to FAIR and the twisting begins. Be gay, I don't care, write a will and leave all your assets to your dog, PBS, your gay lover, or whomever, but to raise monogamous sodomy to the status of marriage demotes marriage from a human institution to merely a tax deduction.
Warrentless wiretapping of Americans- Hasn't happened, isn't legal, and except for Bush being 'selected' President in 2000, is the most successful LIE sold to the American left. The FISA modification DOES require a warrant, it IS reviewed by not only a judicial authority but the CHIEF JUSTICE of the Supreme Court. It is also subject to review of legislators in BOTH houses.
Terrorist acts ARE acts of War. Like it or not, we ARE involved in a WAR. Attack the US with a terrorist attack and you ARE committing an act of war. Liberty does not extend to freedom of US citizens to commit acts of war against the US.
All the new laws that would cost those additional tax dollar YOU are willing to spend DO limit liberty (defined by the LACK of need to ask permission). I don't want permission to see a doctor or get the treatment I want from the Physician I prefer and I don't want to pay more taxes to have LESS liberty.
The Christian Conservatives and liberals actually have the same vision, a Utopian society where people don't war, don't judge, don't hate or need. The only difference is the MEANS of achieving that. One looks to the individual hearts of people to be changed by a personal relationship with God, the other looks to the government to MAKE people conform. If this change of heart isn't done by free will then it doesn't really happen.
The approach to the governments role ought be a pragmatic one, not an emotive one. People have the capacity for both obviously. We all face times where we have to ask whether to let you head or your heart lead. The one that gets the most use will grow strongest and will seem the best to use as time passes for that individual. The key is to apply each where appropriate. In national politics, it's the pragmatic that serves the nation as a whole best. Let the emotive deal with whats most important, your kids and your family.
Gay Marriage- Pure fiction. The two words don't mix. Marriage is a human, not legal, status. It is the joining of two families and the foundation of a NEW family. That foundation is built upon by the children born and growing into adults that have adult men and Women modeled for them throughout their childhood and are prepared the be productive and sound contributers to society. It is NOT just monogamous sex. FAMILY is what life is ALL ABOUT, not politics, money, careers, but FAMILY. Monogamous sodomy is NOT a family value. And marriage is an INSTITUTION in humanity (all cultures) because of it's foundation of families, not because of a tax deduction. But emotive thought goes to FAIR and the twisting begins. Be gay, I don't care, write a will and leave all your assets to your dog, PBS, your gay lover, or whomever, but to raise monogamous sodomy to the status of marriage demotes marriage from a human institution to merely a tax deduction.
Warrentless wiretapping of Americans- Hasn't happened, isn't legal, and except for Bush being 'selected' President in 2000, is the most successful LIE sold to the American left. The FISA modification DOES require a warrant, it IS reviewed by not only a judicial authority but the CHIEF JUSTICE of the Supreme Court. It is also subject to review of legislators in BOTH houses.
Terrorist acts ARE acts of War. Like it or not, we ARE involved in a WAR. Attack the US with a terrorist attack and you ARE committing an act of war. Liberty does not extend to freedom of US citizens to commit acts of war against the US.
All the new laws that would cost those additional tax dollar YOU are willing to spend DO limit liberty (defined by the LACK of need to ask permission). I don't want permission to see a doctor or get the treatment I want from the Physician I prefer and I don't want to pay more taxes to have LESS liberty.
The Christian Conservatives and liberals actually have the same vision, a Utopian society where people don't war, don't judge, don't hate or need. The only difference is the MEANS of achieving that. One looks to the individual hearts of people to be changed by a personal relationship with God, the other looks to the government to MAKE people conform. If this change of heart isn't done by free will then it doesn't really happen.
The approach to the governments role ought be a pragmatic one, not an emotive one. People have the capacity for both obviously. We all face times where we have to ask whether to let you head or your heart lead. The one that gets the most use will grow strongest and will seem the best to use as time passes for that individual. The key is to apply each where appropriate. In national politics, it's the pragmatic that serves the nation as a whole best. Let the emotive deal with whats most important, your kids and your family.
Fine, then pay more. Just don't demand that I pay more taxes for these services. Or better yet, set up to supply these services privately, getting government out of it.
That would mean LESS government, but liberal solutions ALWAYS involve MORE government. (I usually wouldn't say always, but I think in this case it applies.) This is my second response to liberals restoring proper government function, my first was HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
Hugh Damright
New member
I think the general plan is (1) spend years demonizing Bush and the republican party, (2) say that we need change, and (3) claim to be the change that is needed. I think all they are pushing is their party ... the specific change needed is to have democrats in power.
Agreed. Let's get the government out of marriage altogether.
Also by your reasoning sterile men and women should not be allowed to get married. Do you believe that?
"Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," -Alberto Gonzales in a letter to the senate January 17, 2007
"Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications." -New York Times
I don't think that monitoring calls of citizens without warrants should be allowed whether they are domestic calls or international calls.
Give me a source more credible than the New York Times if you want to convince me. Some guy on the internet telling me that there is a huge conspiracy doesn't really do it.
The Oklahoma City Bombing was an act of war? Which country should we retaliate against with military action? Unless it is sanctioned by a sovereign state, it is not an act of war. Attacking Afghanistan was justified. The Taliban government was harboring and funding terrorists. An individual acting on his or her own behalf planning a bombing is not an enemy combatant, but a common criminal. The reason for the bombing should not determine whether they have the right to a fair trial or not.
What you have described here doesn't sound good to me either.
The health insurance plan I envision would not require you to have government provided health insurance, but would provide health insurance to people who otherwise couldn't afford it. It would not be required for anyone. You would be free to purchase private health insurance. I can only tell you what I believe a proper health care system would look like, not how all liberals envision it.
Bruxley, your assertion that liberals only use emotions to make decisions is so arrogant, as if conservatives somehow had a monopoly on facts. That kind of stereotyping will get us nowhere. It sure makes it easy to dismiss their views though, doesn't it?
Hector
BoringAccountant
New member
Brux...
very good rebuttal...+1
very good rebuttal...+1
In the past, I would have agreed with you, but taking the last 8 years into consideration I have to disagree. I'm unfortunate in that I haven't been alive to see what a real conservative president looks like. I would imagine he would at least run a balanced budget.
I pay and volunteer my time to help my community. The thing is, this is how a republic works. The majority elect legislators who share their views and those legislators enact laws to reflect it. If the majority think the Patriot Act is cool then I have to live with it, but I still get to vote for politicians who will vote my way and I get to try to convince people that it is wrong.
- Status