Why do you hate liberals and liberalism so much?

[dalegg 143]

However, the Democratic party is the party of the emerging new upper middle class. It has no source of social justice, economic justice or any type of justice. That is why George Bush, the most worthless leader in the modern world, was elected twice.

Swoosh! Everyone sucks!

This is not happy, this is horrible. Our 2 main parties suck.

It's hard to know exactly how another party is going to emerge either. The best person for the job (whoever he is) is never going to be elected. He's too honest, therefore not rich enough to fund a national campaign, and not shallow enough to sell out to organizations that would fund it for him. Nope. The Republicats are going to be here for a while. Just figure out which one's you don't like more.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I have no idea if I am a liberal or a conservative... Who cares anyways??

All I know is I am a human being....

The labels lack clear distinction. So many "liberals" rely on successful business through their investments that they have an economic base much more closely associated with traditional conservatives. (Big Business) Myself, I share the values of "liberals" of the Roosevelt through Kennedy era. This totally alienates me from the "liberal" of today.

For instance, in this economic depressed area, more than a 100,000 acres of forest was lost to bug kill between 1990-2000. That is more acreage lost here than to logging from 1950-2000. This could have been logged in an environmentally safe way by heli-logging. A Roosevelt democrat would have had individuals logging around infected areas, reducing the spread of bug kill. This would have helped the community with good jobs and a tax base for our schools. A Clinton democrat did not allow logging to occur, because we know as a matter of faith, logging is bad.

Actually, Clinton made many pro-business decisions (NAFTA and the WTO). Even Gore has tried to demonstrate that business and the environment don't have to collide - there are viable solutions and compromises where all sides benefit.

I totally agree with you. The Democrats under Clinton became a big business party, however, only when it would help their constituants. Shipping working class jobs overseas to create more jobs for the upper middle class individuals certainly fits within this motiff. However, helping out working class individuals, working labor intensive jobs like logging was the furthest thing from Clinton's mind even though it would have helped the environment. The reason Clinton was elected was because he was essentially a republican, albeit, a pretty amoral one.

That's definitely true.

However, I think that your assumption that the Democrats cater to the middle-class rather than the working-class is only partially right, as they at least garner some union support; in contrast, the Republicans are even less concerned about the working-class and only care about filthy rich people.

The union support is dying, and at least the democratic party is getting honest and not supporting a rise in the minimum wage anymore. (Not like Nader who supports a raise to $10 an hour) As for viable compromise, that does not occur. I have seen no compromise. By the way. My father is John Krutilla nominated for the Noble Prize in resource economy based on his pro environment thesis. I am certainly not anti-environment; just anti the religious (liberal) fanatics who destroy the environment in the name of the environment. (P.S. look up "John Krutilla" on the interenet and see what you get). I know you are all well intentioned; I know you all are well conditioned; However, the Democratic party is the party of the emerging new upper middle class. It has no source of social justice, economic justice or any type of justice. That is why George Bush, the most worthless leader in the modern world, was elected twice.

I'm not pro-democrat for similar reasons, but I wonder about the minimum-wage issue. Last I heard the democrats were in favor of raising the minimum wage. Yet, I personally think that is not enough because what they should be doing is replace the minimum wage with a living wage.

As to the upper-middle class, I think you're partially right on that one as well. But I wonder what that means for the unrepresented (working class and lower middlle class). How are they going to vote in the future?

Finally, Bush was elected because the Democrats fell for the republican rhetoric trap. Values, morals, values, patriotism, and all the dems did was nod, rather than contradict.

Time for a new third party!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

However, the Democratic party is the party of the emerging new upper middle class. It has no source of social justice, economic justice or any type of justice. That is why George Bush, the most worthless leader in the modern world, was elected twice.

Swoosh! Everyone sucks!

This is not happy, this is horrible. Our 2 main parties suck.

It's hard to know exactly how another party is going to emerge either. The best person for the job (whoever he is) is never going to be elected. He's too honest, therefore not rich enough to fund a national campaign, and not shallow enough to sell out to organizations that would fund it for him. Nope. The Republicats are going to be here for a while. Just figure out which one's you don't like more.

Kind of like what happened with John Major in the UK. An honest politician (at least compared to the likes of Maggie Thatcher) but his problem was that his party was not, and they ended up stabbing him in the back.

[incanada1234 0]

Republicans are even less concerned about the working-class and only care about filthy rich people.

It's brilliant how you have all Republicans figured out. I know I personally only care about those that make $800,000 a year or more!

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Republicans are even less concerned about the working-class and only care about filthy rich people.

It's brilliant how you have all Republicans figured out. I know I personally only care about those that make $800,000 a year or more!

The republican elite don't care and the liberal elite pretend to care. Any questions?

[incanada1234 0]

Hmmm....well, at least they're honest about it (the Repubs). Dems are the biggest hypocrites imaginable.

[*Robert* 2]

Republicans are even less concerned about the working-class and only care about filthy rich people.

It's brilliant how you have all Republicans figured out. I know I personally only care about those that make $800,000 a year or more!

The republican elite don't care and the liberal elite pretend to care. Any questions?

Rich, I like that analogy!

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Hmmm....well, at least they're honest about it (the Repubs). Dems are the biggest hypocrites imaginable.

It's surprising how you've all the democracts figured out.

But after your revelation, I'm even happier I'm not a Democrat (or a liberal as a matter of fact).

[incanada1234 0]

But after your revelation, I'm even happier I'm not a Democrat (or a liberal as a matter of fact).

Fischkoepfin not a liberal

[Fischkoepfin 1]

But after your revelation, I'm even happier I'm not a Democrat (or a liberal as a matter of fact).

Fischkoepfin not a liberal

Read more on this topic earlier in this thread, and you'll find out why.

There's more to life than black and white and more to politics than conservatives and liberals.

[incanada1234 0]

I've read the entire thread. Trust me, you're a liberal.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I've read the entire thread. Trust me, you're a liberal.

...and so are you...in a neo sort of way.

[cmartyn 0]

I used to be a liberal but I'm all right Noooowwwwwwwwww....

[incanada1234 0]

I've read the entire thread. Trust me, you're a liberal.

...and so are you...in a neo sort of way.

I'm about as liberal as you are smart. Kidding, Stinky (a cross between your two names)

[Alex+R 0]

I've read the entire thread. Trust me, you're a liberal.

...and so are you...in a neo sort of way.

I'm about as liberal as you are smart.

She's right.