John Kerry's running mate

[maniactickler]

Kerry not liberal????????? please tell me your joking????

 

[Mitchell]

I think what really bugs me nowadays is how people say "liberal" like its a dirty word. It seems that today one has to be either an extreme conservative, or no more liberal than a centurist Democrat, to get anywhere in politics. FDR was liberal, as was Harry Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ, and they all got in, with FDR and Truman especially being great presidents. These men cared about people. It seems to me that nowadays even the Democrats have to be careful about not being too "liberal" or they dont stand a chance to win. This is sad. It is fine for someone to be an extreme conservative, and only care about the wealthy and special interest groups, and that person will get elected, but if someone is a "liberal", they are labeled and shunned. Perhaps the country needs a return to some of the more "liberal" values of the 60s where the president in office cares less about the wealthy, special interest groups, and being centurist, and more about the lower, working and middle classes instead of just the rich. It is okay to be "liberal" and care about people. I would sooner have a president in there who's "liberal" rather than one who only cares about the top percentage of the populace, and the priviliged, and doesnt give a hoot about the middle and lower classes or their plight.

Mitch

 

[MrMacphisto]

I totally agree Mitchell... although it's centrist, not centurist (sorry, I'm anal about that kind of thing... lol).

Most of the 1st World doesn't have such a problem with the term liberal, but apparently, much of the U.S. does...

 

[Mitchell]

No problem with the spell check. I'll happily accept that. Iam glad that you see my point. I'm glad I started this thread. It seems to have sparked some interesting debate.

Mitch

 

[General Zod]

I hate both parties

We all know that the repooplicans (republicans) only care about the rich basically But do the demoncraps (democrats) really care about us working stiffs? I really believe they don't The demoncraps say they care about the environment That is good but.... Back when Clinton and Gore were in power they basically shut down the logging industry in Alaska
How do I know this you ask? Well,in the truck driving company I work for,I met a married man who is from Alaska He used to work in the logging industry until the liberals shut it down He had to find work down here in the lower 48
He says the liberals,especially Gore are hated in that state My point to all that rambling is,is that the liberals care more about the environment more than the working man He and many others lose their jobs under liberal leaders Do you think the liberals care? No they don't
To me the demoncraps are just as hypocritical as the repooplicans But what do I know? I am just a stupid truck driver 😕

 

[MrMacphisto]

With any policy, there are winners and losers... There is no full-proof platform where everyone wins. Personally, I think the quality of the environment is more important than a few logging jobs. Why, do you ask? Because the environment is something that is connected to all of us. The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the ecosystems we are connected to are far more important to our species in the long run than a few logging jobs. Recognize the big picture, Gen.Zod. Protecting the environment is protecting not only the majority of society, but also our posterity.

 

[General Zod]

With any policy, there are winners and losers... There is no full-proof platform where everyone wins. Personally, I think the quality of the environment is more important than a few logging jobs. Why, do you ask? Because the environment is something that is connected to all of us. The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the ecosystems we are connected to are far more important to our species in the long run than a few logging jobs. Recognize the big picture, Gen.Zod. Protecting the environment is protecting not only the majority of society, but also our posterity.

I can agree that we should do our best to take care of the enviroment MrMacphisto But what about the people who lose their jobs as a result? Shouldn't the government help them with new job training and new job placement? I keep hearing the demoncraps are supposed to care about the working class,but I just don't see it
I am one of those people that are getting fed up with the lies and stupidity of both parties Personally,I care more about my fellow humans than an animal or a tree The above reply was not meant to inflame you or your beliefs We are all entitled to an opinion Hope this thread doesn't turn into a flame war 😀

 

[maniactickler]

news flash, liberal polititians could care less about the little man. not that republicans are so much better. but the liberal mentality is, lets raise taxes so we can give away hard working peoples money to lazy undeserving people so we can get votes. where as at least republicans say more or less to get off your lazy butt and make something of yourself.

 

[maniactickler]

i also think theres too many tree huggers out there that would rather see a few birds live than employ a whole lot of people. wake up and smell the real world!

 

[ticklebutton]

...But what do I know? I am just a stupid truck driver 😕

Zod, don't you call yourself stupid - on the contrary, the fact that you think about things & question them indicates that you're far from stupid. 😎

Watch out for those who spout black & white pronouncements - our world is so complex that it's important to read everything you can about the issues.

Balance is crucial.

I think that there can be compromise, and balance regained.

Sadly, the last four years have been a time of continual weakening of safeguards, and greedy plunder of the environment by this administration & its friends.

Huge destructive corporations are given free rein ("coincidentally" these are the big donors to the Bush campaign) - Coal fired energy companies, Pacific Lumber, BP/Amoco, Dow Chemical, among others.

Jobs are important, but the destruction of our natural world is affecting ALL our lives, including those who are make money in these industries.

Button 😎

[http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument]

[http://www.envirolink.org/external....re2.cfm/ID/9882&itemid=200402030956100.391926]

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032493/]

[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2001847951_mercury31.html]

[http://www.mindfully.org/Heritage/2003/Pacific-Lumber-Fraud26feb03.htm]

 

[beachtickler]

Birds

Maniactickler should take a long, deep whiff of what hes shoveling. Bird and wildlife watching is a multi-million dollar business in the US, employing or contributing to the employment of thousands. Logging and other extractive activities tend to enrich big corporations, much like our presidents tax cuts. Big business likes to use endangered species as a scapegoat when things dont go their way. Good choice, they are an easy target. I guess continuous listening to Rush Limbaugh will brainwash anyone that doing the right and moral thing of preserving our natural world and preserving species is somehow wrong. Its the responsibility of man as the dominant species on this planet. Seems a no brainer to me!

 

[maniactickler]

Bird and wildlife watching sounds like a big waste of government, or i should say, a big waste of my tax money. another example of the many unimportant programs in this bloated government.

 

[Roseblossom]

Re: Birds

should take a long, deep whiff of what he's shoveling.

ROFL!
Nah, to someone like that it's "the real world". Punch the timeclock, get yours and to hell with all the rest.

That, and doing Archie Bunker imitations.🙄

~Rose~

 

[MrMacphisto]

Well, I suppose the first part of maniactickler's name is very appropriate... As far as the "little man" is concerned, making tax cuts for the rich aren't helping the little man either. Even if you don't like either party, you have to admit that Democrats have done more for the average worker than Republicans. FDR alone has done more for blue collar workers than any Republican president afterwards.

 

[General Zod]

Well, I suppose the first part of maniactickler's name is very appropriate... As far as the "little man" is concerned, making tax cuts for the rich aren't helping the little man either. Even if you don't like either party, you have to admit that Democrats have done more for the average worker than Republicans. FDR alone has done more for blue collar workers than any Republican president afterwards.

I can agree to a point MrMacphisto But how are tax increases good for the working man? As far as jobs leaving the U.S.,do you really think that if Kerry wins he will pull us out of NAFTA and the WTO? I doubt it as that would piss off to many foreigh countries Remember NAFTA started under the Clinton years

 

[maniactickler]

Bottom line, if you hurt the rich, the lower class will shortly follow. its called trickle down economics. it works. and FDR started the biggest social nightmare in history........social security!

 

[MrMacphisto]

Maniactickler... your memory and/or historical knowledge must be awfully selective. Trickle Down Economics didn't work. The growth we saw in the 80s was largely due to technological improvements (a new wave of computer technology in particular) and deregulation of certain key industries (like airlines). As much as I hated Reagan, I have to admit that, in certain industries (and with careful policies), deregulation can be a good thing for economic growth. The unfortunate side effect to this is an increase in corporate corruption, but that's another discussion altogether.

Anyway, the part of Reagan's plans that didn't work were mostly based on his adherence to Trickle Down (aka - Voodoo) Economics. His assumption that money saved by the rich from tax breaks would somehow reach the middle and lower classes was, at best, a farce, and at worst, a blatant attempt to deceive the public. Instead, Trickle Down Economics simply verified a Marxist concept known as Capital Accumulation. This concept refers to how personal wealth that accumulates among the wealthy rarely reaches the rest of society if it isn't invested in industries that are labor intensive. 80s culture hailed decadence and luxuries, and thus, the wealthy tended to invest their personal wealth (note the difference from corporate wealth) mostly in luxury industries that had no positive effect on the average worker. In short, Trickle Down doesn't work, because greed is an overwhelming part of human nature.

Social Security might be a joke now, but it wasn't always that way... When FDR started it, the Great Depression had left us in a state of complete and utter helplessness due to massive unemployment and poverty. Only programs like the New Deal would be capable of pulling a country out of such financial strife. If we had gone the way of free market economics back then, we'd be living in a modern day feudalist society serving the ultra rich as serfs. Getting back to the topic of helping out workers, let's see if you can find a Republican-led program that compares to the economic recovery inspired by the New Deal, or how about a Republican-led worker's compensation program/living assistance program similar to Social Security. Reagan only truly helped the rich, much like our current president has....

 

[maniactickler]

True, technology did play a huge part of it, but what made it possible was Reagan lowering taxes to make it easier for companies to expand and grow, unlike that buffoon Carter. i simply just dont believe a liberal can run a good economy. their specialty is just raising taxes and starting wasteful social programs. simple as that. im not saying bush is a master of economy, but i sure as hell would take a republican over a liberal any day of the week to run the economy.

 

[MrMacphisto]

i simply just dont believe a liberal can run a good economy.

Hmmm... how do you explain Clinton's successful two terms that allowed us to have "ten years of unprecedented growth?" That sounds like it contradicts your notion that a liberal can't run a good economy.

 

[That Guy]

Personally, i don't like either party. But i am a bit offended by people constantly insulting Republicans by saying they only care about the rich. I assume this either refers to their close relations with corporations (which, IMO, is a lot less dangerous than the Dems sucking up to corrupt unions and fringe groups), or their support of tax cuts.

If it has to do with friendliness to business, i'll let it slide. But tax cuts for anyone should never be condemned. Tax money doesnt belong to the gov't, it belongs to the people they stole it from. And about half of the money they take comes from the richest 5%. Why exactly do these people deserve less of their own money than someone with less? Do rich people automatically lose their rights to their personal property upon becoming rich?

If your bike and your neighbor's car were stolen on the same day, and the police managed to return both, would you be mad because your neighbor got more back?

 

[That Guy]

Hmmm... how do you explain Clinton's successful two terms that allowed us to have "ten years of unprecedented growth?" That sounds like it contradicts your notion that a liberal can't run a good economy.

I'd explain it by the R&D started during the Reagan economic boom finally paying off with all the various tech-companies going into full throttle. Which was ended several years later when the Bush Sr. and Clinton tax-hikes were finally completely felt, causing the big tech-stock crash i'm sure we all remember, as well as the following recession. And just in time to mess things up for Bush Jr.

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

and even sadder that it will be Blamed on Ralph instead of credit given to Bush. The Dems would like to believe that Kerry can defeat him...truth is they dont have a candidate that stands for anything
worth voting for.

Venray: I've said it quietly to myself countless times in the past, but I can't help but openly applaud you for the clear-headed rationality you show time and again.

 

[maniactickler]

clinton had nothing to do with the economy. that was the mad rush of the dot com era. and that was just a short term spurt that started failing near the end of his term, when all the dot com businesses started failing.

 

[maniactickler]

The liberals claim to be for the poor working man, which is totally untrue. if anything, they dont want the little man becoming successful. that means they wouldnt need any government handouts, which means they lose votes. all liberals care about more than anything is the power! sure republicans want the same, but not nearly to the degree of the liberals.

 

[ShiningIce]

all liberals care about more than anything is the power! sure republicans want the same, but not nearly to the degree of the liberals.

Uh, no. You've got that backwards.