"Liberal" definition

[ceejay]

I heard this on NPR today. The roots of the word "liberal" is liberty. (source Hendrik Hertzberg -- a liberal-- on "Fresh Air")

It is interesting to me how perceptions change over time. As he pointed out many of Nixon's porposals (like universal health insurance) would be too far left for Democrats of 2004.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ceejay
I heard this on NPR today. The roots of the word "liberal" is liberty. (source Hendrik Hertzberg -- a liberal-- on "Fresh Air")

It is interesting to me how perceptions change over time. As he pointed out many of Nixon's porposals (like universal health insurance) would be too far left for Democrats of 2004.

Not this Democrat.

Our country grew much more conservative during the Reagan years, and I beleive that trend has continued. Mainstream Democrats have moved fruther to the right attempting to placate Southern Democrats and the Presidential candidates such as Carter, Clinton and Gore reflect that Southern bias. The only non-Southern Dems who have run have been clobbered - Mondale, and Dukakis.

[andicap]

Some liberals believe Gore lost the election when he toned down his populist rhetoric against Bush -- especially in the debates -- at the behest of these center-Dems who are led by the Democratic Leadership Council which has a much more pro-business agenda than the tradtional left-of-center core Dems. Pro free trade, eliminate the deficit, etc.

Some pundits (read: idiots) suggest the DRC helped Clinton get elected because of the move to the center. Yes, a Democrat has to move to the center to win, but many believe Clinton on his charisma and ability to connect with people, a true "populist," (although he does just fine on Wall Street too).

Many mainstream Dems wish the "new" Al Gore who has been very outspoken since beating Bush would have taken that tact in 2000. He would now be president.

Bush is having that problem now, being tugged by the core elements of the party -- the extreme and religious right who have strong influence with Chaney and Karl Rove -- and the more moderate elements and independents -- as well as the Reagan Democrats -- who are frightened by the extreme right, but haven't warmed to the lackluster Kerry burdened with the tag "Massachusetts Liberal." Kerry is not quite as bad a candidate as Dukakis was, but when people start being nostalgia for Gore you know this guy is dull. (Jon Stewart does a hilarious impression of Kerry on the stump with his forced inflections and above-it-all demeanor.)

Bush can't abandon his base or they will punish him, but its 50-50 right now whether he can win while pandering to them. For example, supporting the Gay Marriage Amendment, which everyone knew would not pass the Senate, but was meant to get Dems on record against it.

Who says politics is dull?

[Tom]

I would rather vote for a guy who is himself and makes some mistakes han a guy who checks the polls to see who he should be. And, yes, if the guy were a democrate, and he beleied in the right things, I would vote for hem.

[Suff]

I'm quite Liberal....particularly in this crowd.

My Understanding of our Founding Fathers were they were the "liberals" of thier time. Particularly James Madison who wrote the Bulk of the constitution....

and Thomas Jefferson was seriously a Liberal for his day and age.

Many people in the country became Republican and/or conservative over the last 10-15 years. It became fashionable to be a republican and many moved that way. I've been a democrat for 25 Years...and have a set of core beliefs that don't change when a flamboyant politician attracts the mass's.

The Last Presedential Election was won by contrversial election that turned on the electoral college... and the loser received over 200 thousand more votes than the winner.

On this board people love Bush. I'm not suer why... I can't think of one reason to vote for him. He's made a mess of just about everything he's taken on.

Even if you agree with Both Wars.. You can't honestly admit he's run them well. Iraq was and is a complete travesty.... In afghanistan we can't get the Afghan/pakistan border area in check after almost 3 years there....

The economy shows signs of Life... But its still limping and he's had 4 years with it..

Our international Relationships are in a disarray.

We're in a war on terror that LIVES & DIES on Intelligence and we have no CIA director suddenly...

We're burning up energy fight legislative battles that HE KNOWS he can't win... e.g. Constitutional amendments about SEX..(comical)

Jobs are pouring overseas...

He's rung up record deficits (after inheriting a record Surplus)

People here say Kerry can't win... But I look at the Polls in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania...and the other battle ground states and Kerry has 3, 4, 5, and even 8 percentage point leads...

and the natinal polls have him winning by 7-10 if Nader drops out.


in 2000 more people voted democratic than republican...and in 2004 the democratic challenger has the lead with 90ish days to go... yet people here simply cannot or will not concede that the MAJORITY of americans want a Democratic President...

Its like a denial of some sort... they ignore the 2000 results... they ignore the polls... they keep saying Kerry Can't beat Bush and that Liberals are bad people... communists and the like...

I think thats a good thing for Kerry,, if republicans keep lying to themsleves...

But as far as me being a Liberal Democrat and spending a fair amount of time on this board... I find it odd that the Conservatives keep insulting Democrats... Like they won the 2000 election by 20 points or that they're leading in the polls..

Its devisive..... The country shares John Kerrys Vision for america... They Voted as such in 2000 when Bush need the Electoral College and the Supreme Court to win...

But the Bashing and bashing of the Majority democrats by the minority republicans is hard to take.....and unproductive...


If most people took the time to watch C-span amd Read "Roll Call" and followed trade Deals and watched the pro-business decisons being made by the EPA, FDA, OSHA, Dept of Labor et all.. You would not be a republican... They are killing the little guy....

[Suff]

Sure they're Liberal and Bush does'nt stand to gain many Votes by going there...

But still... The first President since Woodrow Wilson who did'nt speak at the NAACP annual Convention..

Thats wrong. He's everyones President. Even Mine.

He should have gone.

[Secretariat]

Good post, Suff...You should run for office.

Me, I've had enough. The debate has gotten ugly and in some cases profane. I'll wait until closer to the election to participate, as it really is just a constant barrage of the same arguments, and isn't going to really even get interesting until debate time.

Sayonnara till then.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Originally posted by Suff
Sure they're Liberal and Bush does'nt stand to gain many Votes by going there...

But still... The first President since Woodrow Wilson who did'nt speak at the NAACP annual Convention..

Thats wrong. He's everyones President. Even Mine.

He should have gone.

Yeah, I'll relutantly agree. But the crowd might just heckle him pretty good anyway. Many African-American leaders were quite cynical when he came to lay a wreath on MLK's grave. Plus, Michael Moore might have a cameraman filming all the bad things even if his apperance went fairly smooth or well. (Remember, according to the links, he even laughed how he embedded one in Iraq). Now no one, even this or future presidents, will be free from professional/reputation damage/manipulation using their own images and likenesses, in the future. The sad precedent has been set. Maybe it got headed that way a few years when folks looking for that stained blue dress a few years ago. But the train is moving and only equally disenting public views might stop it from happening in the future.

[Tom]

NO way. Bush doesn't owe a thing to the racist "leadership" of the NAACP. They are a political organaizatin and they have been outright hostile towards him. Julian Bond is a POS in the first degree. Since when does HE represent American citizens? Bush did the right thing by snubbing these losers. You guys are falling right into the trap Bond his thugs are setting - to keep black Americans seeing themsleves as victims. They would better serve themselves by looking up to black leaders like Bill Cosby and Clarence Thomas rather that extortionists and racists like Jesse Jackson and Julian Bond.
This is the thing I like the most about Bush - he cow-tows to no one, here or abroad.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Good post, Suff...You should run for office.

Me, I've had enough. The debate has gotten ugly and in some cases profane. I'll wait until closer to the election to participate, as it really is just a constant barrage of the same arguments, and isn't going to really even get interesting until debate time.

Sayonnara till then.


It's been a constant barrage of the same arguments since DAY 1 with you. Don't make it like all of sudden things have turned sour.

It's you and LJB and others who have brought "them" out of the woodwork with your constant "BARRAGE"

You only have yourself to blame if you feel the need to leave.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Suff
On this board people love Bush.

I'm not sure there are many on here, myself included, who will say they love George W. Bush. I don't love him. Far from it.

However, I think he is a better choice at the moment than John F. Kerry.

Your rhetoric is off base in my opinion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Suff
Sure they're Liberal and Bush does'nt stand to gain many Votes by going there...

But still... The first President since Woodrow Wilson who did'nt speak at the NAACP annual Convention..

Thats wrong. He's everyones President. Even Mine.

He should have gone.


After what Julian Bond had to say, I don't blame him. Why go where you are not wanted?

There are other ways to reach out to those who aren't in your corner. Why pander to an organization whose leaders say horrible things about you and your political party?

[Tuffmug]

We are now engaged in numerous Civil CLASS Wars! It's the Conservatives vs. Everybody! It's the Rich vs. everybody else! It's religious vs. secular! It's Black vs. White vs. Asian vs. Arab!

The language and tactics on all sides has devolved to the level of hate speech and bigotry. Conservatives use the word "Liberal" the same way a 1950's Southern cracker used the word "******!".
Liberals have also descended to the same low level by using the tactics of "ridicule" rather than "reasoned opposition"!

This "RIDICULE, INCITE HATRED, DIVIDE, and CONQUER!" tactic is at the core of the current Republican Party. It's how they came to power and how they intend to stay in power!

I will vote for the lesser of two evils, the Democrats!

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Tuffmug
We are now engaged in numerous Civil CLASS Wars! It's the Conservatives vs. Everybody! It's the Rich vs. everybody else! It's religious vs. secular! It's Black vs. White vs. Asian vs. Arab!

The language and tactics on all sides has devolved to the level of hate speech and bigotry. Conservatives use the word "Liberal" the same way a 1950's Southern cracker used the word "******!".
Liberals have also descended to the same low level by using the tactics of "ridicule" rather than "reasoned opposition"!

This "RIDICULE, INCITE HATRED, DIVIDE, and CONQUER!" tactic is at the core of the current Republican Party. It's how they came to power and how they intend to stay in power!

I will vote for the lesser of two evils, the Democrats!

Spoken like a democrat.:D

[kenwoodallpromos]

It means those who commit libel.

[Suff]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Why pander to an organization whose leaders say horrible things about you and your political party?

I don't think showing up is pandering... But I can give you one excellent reason to show up..

Because a very large percentage of those 140 thousand troops in Iraq are African Americans.......and I figure if you can send them to die... You should show at thier Convention...

The oldest and Largest Civil Rights Orginization in America.

[PaceAdvantage]

It would be pandering if you are offended by what the leader of this organization says about you and your party, yet you SHOW UP ANYWAY in order to SCORE POINTS. At least Bush has his principles in this situation.

Suff, you make some really giant leaps of faith. I don't get you some times.

Exactly what percentage of the troops in Iraq are African American?

"If you can send them to die, you should show up at their convention"

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[Suff]

exactly what it means.... Presidents have spoken to the NAACP since woodrow wilson.

And is you can send them to War you should take your case to them...

And when he was Campaigning as a "uniter" in 2000 he went there.... Was he Principled then?

[Suff]

and I'm far from alone in my opinion... so I'm not sure why you think I'm stretching things...

This administration is an Island unto itself.... If you disagree with them... They go ugly on you..

Oh well..

[PaceAdvantage]

Chairman of the NAACP Julian Bond didn't go on a tirade and compare the Republicans to the Taliban in the year 2000, did he?

[Suff]

whatever... The rhetoric is heated I will admit... He should of sent someone,,, Condi Rice? Powell? To at least make his case...

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's a question for everyone....

Why does it seem that every little thing Bush does is analyzed and beaten to death these days (NAACP convention being one of the latest little things)?

I don't remember George H Bush receiving this much negative attention, and his presidency is the most similar to GWB (War in Iraq, economy not the greatest, etc)

Why is it that we have celebrities onstage saying the must vulgar things about the President of the United States?

What is it about GWB that stirs these people's souls so much, that they have to embarrass themselves to get whatever point they have across?

The Bush bashers better take a step back and re-examine their strategy. It may backfire on you.

[schweitz]

The NAACP does not represent all black Americans---there was a time that this group had a noble purpose---their leadership is failing their members and it has just become a political organization, which, by the way, is against the law based on their tax-exempt status.
Bush is not ignoring black Americans---he is speaking at the Urban League next week.
By the way---have any Democratic administrations had African Americans in the posistions of power that Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell have earned with the Bush administration?

[Steve 'StatMan']

And in WWII, many African Americans served this country, and did it well, but the public recognition was seldom given. Often because of the bigortry in those times - as if praising the efforts of Black soldiers whould somehow make our also good White soldiers somehow feel less special. So President's may have shown up to the NAACP convention, and they may have sent African Americans to war, but our government's actions in those days often left something to be desired, as was pretty much standard in those days.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Here's a question for everyone....

Why does it seem that every little thing Bush does is analyzed and beaten to death these days (NAACP convention being one of the latest little things)?

I don't remember George H Bush receiving this much negative attention, and his presidency is the most similar to GWB (War in Iraq, economy not the greatest, etc)

Why is it that we have celebrities onstage saying the must vulgar things about the President of the United States?

What is it about GWB that stirs these people's souls so much, that they have to embarrass themselves to get whatever point they have across?

The Bush bashers better take a step back and re-examine their strategy. It may backfire on you. They are much more afraid of W than they were of H. H was a bit of a wimp and everyone knew it. The comments that W are getting now are, however, pretty much exactly what Reagan got from the left. I don't think the people that make extreme rhetoric really believe it -- it is just fear-mongering. The stronger the president, the more extreme the rhetoric will be from the opposition...

[Tom]

1. Who says the NAACLP represents anyone? Any balck person out there is already represented by the president with no need for a biggoted middleman.
2. What kind of uproar would there be if I started a group called the National Associate for the Advancement of White People?
Double standard here, eh?
3. The dems are really beligernet becasue the bottom line from the 2000 election that so many of them had to stand up in public and declare "I AM TOO STUPID TO VOTE. I CANNOT FIGURE OUT A PAPER BALLOT!" They were then complimented in thier ignorance by the legions of other dems who flocked to Flroiduh only to prove that THEY were too studpid to COUNT votes! hehehe

I look at the 200 election as voting's equivalent to natural selection - the votes of the idiots were naturally purged.

Now we have an idiot in the congress - some black women-name escapes me - throwing a fit the other day demanding the UN ovbersee the next election!?!?!? ?Come on, who is this trailer trash bitch anyways? Time to put her out to pasture with the other cows. This women is less than stupid. Censure is in order.
Or worse......



And good point GT...Bush is an unexspectedly strong president - he towers over any dem in my lifetime, including JFK. You have to go back to Truaman to find a dem worthy of any respect.

[Rexdale You]

I must admit i have been mesmorised by all the
verbal exchanges on this post.

Fortunately it is happening in cyberspace. If it was on the street i am sure thier would be broken bones.

A military consisting of registered democrats/republicans
(2 military systems ) So if a republican President calls for war
only republicans will be shipped to the war zone.

If the USA homeland is attacked then both political
systems defend.Provided the CIA indentify the enemy 80%.

If you have difficulty with this suggestion , maybe you should build a wall and elect Ralph Nader.

CNN has too much influence on the thinking process
of the overall population.

The land of the free is under attack mostly from within.

Try and book a flight to Cuba.!!!

Living in fear is not the way to go thru life..

The USA is the greatest country on this planet
i spend 120 days a year visiting various states.

The people are wonderful as long as nobody talks
politics or religion.

I consider myself a fly on the wall observing the
sometimes heated exchanges.

Regardless will still visit as usual.


Hope you are able to work out your differances
without hurting each other.Your nations future
you childrens future is at stake.

Sincerly Rex You
:( :( :( :confused:

[cryptic1]

Pace, I have a few thoughts on the issue you have raised.
Firstly, W. Bush was seen as a man of moral rectitude by the
U.S. public in 2000. Beyond the ideologically committed of both
parties, the mass of voters who see themselves as moderates
(centre of the political spectrum) wanted a leader who would
bring dignity and decorum to the presidency. They also wanted
a president who would deal with domestic issues . Bush was
successful by taking a somewhat isolationist approach to
foreign policy and casting Gore as part of the moral turpitude
that surrounded the white house. Now, four years later,
the liberal media and the vast left leaning intelligensia has
managed to portray Bush(rightly or wrongly) and his admin-
istration as liars and dissemblers. What was an asset four
years ago is now a liabililty as perceived by many members
of the public.
Secondly, events beyond his control, 911 etc, created a major
shift in his isolationist views. One of his weaknesses in 2000
was perceived to be his lack of background in foreign affairs. He
surrounded himself with a number of neo conservatives to
advise and direct him including Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice and Cheney.
After his war on terror declaration and his successful foray into
Afghanistan, he was rightly seen as a decisive president. How-
ever Iraq was a different story. There are probably a myriad of
reasons why Iraq was targeted, however, none of the original
justifications have stood the test of time. The courting dance with
allies and the U.N. over many months undermined to many the
necessity of immediate action. The administration was never
able to clearly articulate the necessity of Iraq in the War on
Terror. The left leaning media has created an atmosphere of
Viet Nam redux, that is, the sense that the U.S. has been led
into an unjust war, with no hope of success, for reasons that are
only known to the administration itself. If you listened to the
media the overwhelming issues are the missing WMD's, the
violence and destruction and vast oil conspiracies. The real story
that the vast majority of Iraqis are free and are attempting to
rebuild their country has been lost. There has become a vengeful
attack on the administration' s credibility over the justification for
war, as though the results are unimportant.
War and death are emotional issues. To many, the death of
soldiers for unarticulated reasons or for lies (subjectively) has
raised the pitch of this election. Though the economy is an issue,
though health is an issue, this election is being fought figuratively
and literally over the war in Iraq. The public has been dramatically
divided. The anger and hositility between those who support the
war and its ramifications and those who believe they were mis-
lead into this war by the disingenousness of the administration
is risible and clearly visible even on this board. There are few
issues that ignite even the most disinterested citizens as war,
death, and patriotism do. This election features all three, its no
wonder that civility is lost.
In many elections leaders shape the issues. In this election
one issue will dominate. To a degree Kerry is a minor player in
this drama. The focus is purely on Bush. He will be re-elected
because he is perceived as a credible leader or he will lose
because the majority of voters don't trust him and the direction
he has taken the country. Since Bush is the issue, the rhetoric
will be personal and at times vitriolic. When personality becomes
the major issue ad hominem attacks will follow. Clearly, this will
raise the passions and the intemperate language.
Sorry for being so long winded but your question deserves some answers.

cryptic1

[Suff]

I think your answer has the smell of truth to it.

People like myself that Follow the Bills he sends up to Congress,and watch the decisions his agency heads make everyday.....are in deep disagreement with his Policys..

For another Recent Example... On Friday The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that the Graduate Assistants cannot unionize.

The action was taken against Brown University in RI. The vote was split along Party Lines. They ruled the UNION formed at Brown was Illegal.

Many States allow Graduate Assistants to Unionize...and be Represented by a Teachers Union....or in Browns case it was the UAW.

The Rulling supercedes State Laws, such as ones in massachusetts that allow Graduate assistants to join unions..


I see these anti-labor decisions made by the administartion everyday... Wether it be Overtime Regulations, Trade Deals, HMO Reform, Prescription Drug Reform, Environmental Rulings, Tort Reform or Industry Regulation decisions..

I KNOW that most of these DO NOT benefit the mass's. I know they don't. But Yet I see people out here,.. Who I know are working stiffs... and I know these decisisons have NEGATIVE Effects on them an dpeople they live and love with..

But for some reason... That I cannot... for the life of me see... The Support this GUY and his Group...

GOD is the only thing I can think of.. He profoundly wears JESUS CHRIST on his Sleeve....and somehow that makes people feel he's for them.... But he's not....and I know he's not..

People are Blind to what this group has done to our country, Our Military, Our Intelligence service, Our Jobs, Our healthcare,..our Constitution,, Our Civil Rights... Our Safety, Our International Standing, Our Surplus, Our Tax Dollars.....and on and on

He's severely damaged our country.

I don't get it? Why People want a repeat of the last 3 and 1/2 years with Bush....? Has it been that Good that they want a repeat...


PLUS.... Where I disagree with you lightly is,,,, That the Far Right accused Democrats and inparticular the CLINTONS of being DRUG DEALERS, THIEVES, Complicit in VINCE FOSTERS SUICIDE....and That CLINTON RAPED WOMEN/

I don't find the BUSH bashing any harder...its just thst Republicans have thin skin,,,, That comes from being picked on in High School as most of them usually were

[Tom]

Suff, give him a break...he's only had 3.5 years to fix the stuff Clinton broke.:D
Seriously, the two questions you have to ask yourself are:

1. Am I better today than I was in 1999?
2. Whatever the answer, who is to blame or thank for that?

I think I am better off with the exception of having to line a new world of terroism, but that is not even remotley Bush's fault. I appluad his efforts in reacting to 9-11, but I don't think he is doing anywhere mear enough. Perhaps if he had a little more support fro the other side of the aisle, but tht is not excuse-he should be doing what is needed reguardless of what congress says about it.
The threat of my job disappearing is more a reality than it was then, but that is not due to Bush, it is due to the greed of my corporation, the the absaolute absence of ethics or morality that most corporate CEOs exhibit theses days.
Congress is the body that is mostly to blame for the ills of our country - it is them who should be representing us but fail at every turn, both parties being guilty. And the court system is a joke. The judges are accountable to no one, so there is a serious lack of checks and balances.
It would be for the best if polictical parties were outlawed entirely - they serve no one but themselves and are a roadblock to freedom. No parties and term limits is the only thing that is going to save this nation. No one party can possible represent my views on major issues. Neither dems nor repubs come close. I only associate with the repubs lately because they can keep the dems in check. But I don' t like them. Don't trurst them.
But the dems really scare me. They do not share my basic core beliefs as a person - I do not think most dems have morality or integrity. I think most dems are basically sick repressed people deep inside, with no courage of their convictions, afraid to take a stand. Most dems I know are shallow, programmed people.
Kerry and Edwards are perfect examples of people I consider to be straw men-bowing inthe breezes so as not to have to take a stand, telling people what they want to hear, afraid to stand up for what they believe. I can live under a president who does things I do not agree with, but I cannot live under one who is a coward and has no determination.
The founding fathers had convictions, were not afraid to act, and not afraid to lie to get free from England. Do a little research about the lies, frauds, and outright illegal activites they performed in the name of freedom. They were not saints. They were not brilliant people, but they had courage. That attribute is severley lacking in todays politcos.

[cryptic1]

Tom, if only voting were like going to a chinese restaurant
and ordering something from column a, something from column b
etc. If you could only pick and choose the various things you
liked from any party and voted for those issues instead of voting
for parties that advocate a host of things that may be unpalatable
to you. It seems you can only vote for the lesser of two evils,
or for the party that comes closest to your point of view on one
or two main issues and ignore the rest of the twaddle. Its really
no wonder that voting has declined in many countries. In
Canada's recent election only 60.5% of the eligible voters cast
a ballot. People just get sick and tired of the BS.

cryptic1

[JustRalph]

I missed this thread over the last few days or so. I have been kind of busy and skipped it thinking I would check it out later. I have been posting some other stuff when I had time. But this thread is monumental in the incredible amount of bullshit that has been laid out.

There are so many things I could respond to if I had the time and inclination. Suff, man oh man? Where you get some of what you say, I don't have the slightest Idea. It is amazing. I will just say that I disagree with you on 90% of what you have posted in this thread. I just don't have the energy to respond to your points one by one. It is amazing some of the things that you said. They are so off base that they are borderline esoteric. Only the far edge of the left could even understand your point of view. Reading your posts just make me feel stronger that what I care about and believe is right. I cannot believe that you have bought into the things that you write. Some of the things you say are inflammatory and yet they are so far over the edge I can't tell if you are serious. What are the conditions that force the left to go to such extremes? They seem to be Bush's strong will and his steadfast believe in what he thinks is right. You can say what you want about the man, 90% of the time when he says he will do something, he damn sure does it. You can't find another politician that does that. And if you do, he will be just as unpopular with the left. I don't think Bush is right on everything, but he is damn sure heads above what Kerry and the Dems want to turn this country into. You guys reinforce my beliefs every day. Honest objective hard working, hard reading politicos and just plain news junkies seem to find their own way no matter the slant. It sometimes amazes me that some of you on the left actually see it the way you do. You make these incredible leaps to find your facts or opinions. I just don't get it. I am with Sec on this. I need a break too.

Suff, God Bless You Brother........I just don't subscribe...........or see it like you do. I can pat you on the back for having your convictions and beliefs and sticking to them, but God almighty.........you make some giant leaps to backup the rhetoric. I know we are not that different. How in the hell can we see the same thing and form opinions that are so diametrically opposed?

I have been pretty busy saving the world of computers here in Central Ohio. I have been popping in lately and starting some threads and trying to follow a few things in between service calls. My business is taking off and I am going to be doing some traveling in the next few weeks. Cleveland and Louisville are on the agenda next week.

I am going to try and take a little respite away from the politics on the board for a while. I am sure something will happen in the news and I will just have to jump in here and participate........but I am going to try and take little break.

[PaceAdvantage]

Cryptic,

You sure did not live up to your name with your long reply to me. Thank you for taking the time to write. It was a great response.

==PA

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Suff
I see these anti-labor decisions made by the administartion everyday... Wether it be Overtime Regulations, Trade Deals, HMO Reform, Prescription Drug Reform, Environmental Rulings, Tort Reform or Industry Regulation decisions..

I don't get it? Why People want a repeat of the last 3 and 1/2 years with Bush....? Has it been that Good that they want a repeat...



Name a recent Republican administration that was pro-labor or labor unions? What Republican administration was pro Environment or any of the things you mentioned.

This stuff is NOT UNIQUE to the Bush II Administration, and you know it.

Has it been that good that we want a repeat?

It certainly hasn't been that bad, considering all that has happened, and could have happened, and I don't believe enough in John Kerry at this time to think it's worth making a bet on the unknown quality.

You see it differently, and that's why they race horses and hold presidential elections every four years.

[JustRalph]

I give up.........

[cratman]

You can say what you want about the man, 90% of the time when he says he will do something, he damn sure does it. You can't find another politician that does that.

In the case of a law that would require procedures designed to protect Texans from HMOs, President Bush took a number of different postions on it. He vetoed the law as governor of Texas, then he let it pass without his signature, then he campaigned on it when he ran for president, then he has his Justice Department sucessfully argue that it was not legal before the Supreme Court.

[Bruddah]

If the people of Tenn. had voted for their own "Son" and Senator/Vice Pres., he would have received 11 electoral votes. Instead, he lost his own home state and barely carried his home county. Therefore, Bush received those 11 electoral votes. Reverse this and Florida would never been an issue or the need for the Supreme Court to legally decide that issue.

Tennessee was the real battle ground lost and not Florida. If you can't carry your own home state in a Presidential election, you don't need to be President. They (Tenn) must know something the rest of the country the rest of the country saw later.

[so.cal.fan]

Just Ralph!

You can't leave this board in the midst of an election!
We need your commentary during the conventions!

[Tom]

Bruddah, who would know better than his own people? :D

SoCalFan...don't dispair...I have inside info that Just Ralph is going to be at the Republican convention as head of securtiy and computers. If Chenney does indeed opt out, JR will be also be accepting the nomination for VP. :D