Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: A Question to Democrats, Liberals and Independants

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,697
    Post Thanks / Like

    A Question to Democrats, Liberals and Independants

    I think you have made your view clear. Bush sucks, and you want him out.

    Ok, I have an open mind I think. I have no loyalty to the Republican Party or Bush, and I want to see the best job possible done to keep me and mine (and my country and our allies) safe from Islamo-Fascism and Terrorism.

    So tell me, if you please: What is the specific plan of the Democratic Party regarding the following issues. What is their official position, and what will they do to "fix" these issues.

    I am a voter. Convince me I should vote Democrat.

    The issues:

    --The War in Iraq.
    --The War in Afganistan.
    --Terrorism Outside the USA
    --Terrorism Inside the USA
    --Terror suspects, Treatement, Punishment, etc.
    --Border Security.

    I am seeking a paragraph or two on each issue, giving me the official (or your beleif on the official) policy of the Democratic Party on these issues, so I can better choose between the Repubs and the Democrats come this forthcoming midterm election, and of course in 2008. THESE are the most important issues in my view, and I need to know where the Left stands, and what they will do.

    I look forward to the answers from our resident Liberals, Democrats and Independants. Thanks in advance.

    EDIT: One thing I forgot. I want the Democrat Position. As such, references to the Republicans is not needed in ANY form. I don;t care what you think of their side, their positions, or their views. I want YOUR (the Liberal/Democrat/Independant) Plans and Course of Action to fix these issues. As such, please do not include any references to Republicans or the Right in your answers. Attacking your opposition will not win me as a voter. Explaining YOUR solution might.
    Last edited by Warfish; 09-28-2006 at 01:36 PM.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Democrats are not the party in power. There is not one Democratic position. For instance on the war you have those like Howard Dean, and Russ Feingold who are vehemently anti-war, and you have Murtha who advocates redeployment. I would say on the whole most agree with Murtha.

    If you are unsure who to vote for listen to the individual candidate's position. For you right now that would mean your Congressman and Senator. When the Presidential elections come listen to the candidates.

    No party has one position. Look at Chuck Hagel and George Allen. How much do they agree on foreign policy?

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]The Democrats are not the party in power. There is not one Democratic position. [/QUOTE]

    That is absolutely irrelevant to the question asked. If they WANT to be put in power, they must convince voters such as myself WHY the should, why they deserve or can earn that Power.

    As for your other comment, of course there are slight differences between individuals in a Party, but the Party does indeed have a General Policy View on any and all issues. If the Democrats cannot even agree how they, should they win power, fix the issues I stated, then why would I vote for them.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I think you have made your view clear. Bush sucks, and you want him out.

    Ok, I have an open mind I think. I have no loyalty to the Republican Party or Bush, and I want to see the best job possible done to keep me and mine (and my country and our allies) safe from Islamo-Fascism and Terrorism.

    So tell me, if you please: What is the specific plan of the Democratic Party regarding the following issues. What is their official position, and what will they do to "fix" these issues.

    I am a voter. Convince me I should vote Democrat.

    The issues:

    --The War in Iraq.
    --The War in Afganistan.
    --Terrorism Outside the USA
    --Terrorism Inside the USA
    --Terror suspects, Treatement, Punishment, etc.
    --Border Security.

    I am seeking a paragraph or two on each issue, giving me the official (or your beleif on the official) policy of the Democratic Party on these issues, so I can better choose between the Repubs and the Democrats come this forthcoming midterm election, and of course in 2008. THESE are the most important issues in my view, and I need to know where the Left stands, and what they will do.

    I look forward to the answers from our resident Liberals, Democrats and Independants. Thanks in advance.

    EDIT: One thing I forgot. [b]I want the Democrat Position[/b]. As such, references to the Republicans is not needed in ANY form. I don;t care what you think of their side, their positions, or their views. [b]I want YOUR (the Liberal/Democrat/Independant) Plans and Course of Action to fix these issues.[/b] As such, please do not include any references to Republicans or the Right in your answers. Attacking your opposition will not win me as a voter. Explaining YOUR solution might.[/QUOTE]

    Do you want the "democrat position" or my position, 'fish?

    And hey, didn't you once count yourself among the independants?

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    I was trying to find the democrat's position on security awhile ago. I found this at their site. [URL=www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php]http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_.php[/URL] You have to scroll down to the bottom of the page. I hope it helps.
    Last edited by chicadeel; 09-28-2006 at 06:34 PM.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]Do you want the "democrat position" or my position, 'fish?

    And hey, didn't you once count yourself among the independants?[/QUOTE]

    If you are a Democrat, Liberal or "Independant who Sides With Liberal/Leftist Positions", then YES!

    I am a Libertarian-Leaning Independant, yes. I would vote, in a perfect World, for a Conservative Libertarian Party. It does not exist.

    So, I want to understand what the Democrats have planned (general issue positions) for America should they win in 2006 and 2008. I know what the Right has planned, basicly. I want to understand, and be informed, and I hoped my friends like Bitonti and the bman's of the board could enlighten me, position by position, plan by plan, so I could choose wisely, and informedly.

    Seeing how the positions are explained by "regular Joe's" like our board members is a vital part of this. I do not want Politic-Speak, I want Truth, as they see it.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Republican strategy in paragraph form:

    Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]That is absolutely irrelevant to the question asked. If they WANT to be put in power, they must convince voters such as myself WHY the should, why they deserve or can earn that Power.

    As for your other comment, of course there are slight differences between individuals in a Party, but the Party does indeed have a General Policy View on any and all issues. If the Democrats cannot even agree how they, should they win power, fix the issues I stated, then why would I vote for them.[/QUOTE]
    It is absolutely relevant. A candidate running in NY is different that a candidate running in VA. Do you think Hillary and James Webb agree on very much? Political parties do not speak in one voice. In Presidential elections there is a party platform but that is to allign itself with it's candidate's views. Do you think that all Democratic candidates agree with Pelosi and Reed or Howard Dean?

    It seems like you want to say that the Democrats don't stand for anything and therefore there is no reason to vote for them. That couldn't be further from the truth.

    As you vote for candidates not a party who exactly are you thinking of voting for that you don't know where they stand?

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan] Political parties do not speak in one voice.[/QUOTE]

    this is untrue

    successful political parties do speak in one voice


    there was a professor on NPR (and FauxNews) not too long ago that was making the rounds promoting his book about the politics of language

    (EDIT: could have been George Lakoff - but im not sure - still looking for the exact link)

    he said that he fed every speech he could find in the last 5 or 10 years into a computer - and sorted by politcal party of the speaker - the republicans all had used the same words - there was incredible unity - you could actually look at the list of common phrases and come up with a speech from that list that made sense - you could go out on the podium tomorrow with the republican results and have a nice set of crib notes

    the democrats it was like word salad. Everyone was speaking to their own agenda, to their own personal ideals and there was no unity - the results of most used phrases made no sense at all.

    Pretty powerful metaphor for the state of things.

    The democrats as a whole are a very shabby party. Extremely loserish. I mean seriously they lost to George Bush twice that pretty much says it all.

    I don't support the democrats because of their message or their platform. I support them because gridlock would be better than this.
    Last edited by bitonti; 09-28-2006 at 03:09 PM.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,872
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]this is untrue

    successful political parties do speak in one voice


    there was a professor on NPR (and FauxNews) not too long ago that was making the rounds promoting his book about the politics of language

    he said that he fed every speech he could find in the last 5 or 10 years into a computer - and sorted by politcal party of the speaker - the republicans all had used the same words - there was incredible unity - you could actually look at the list of common phrases and come up with a speech from that list that made sense - you could go out on the podium tomorrow with the republican results and have a nice set of crib notes

    the democrats it was like word salad. Everyone was speaking to their own agenda, to their own personal ideals and there was no unity - the results of most used phrases made no sense at all.

    Pretty powerful metaphor for the state of things.

    The democrats as a whole are a very shabby party. Extremely loserish. I mean seriously they lost to George Bush twice that pretty much says it all.

    I don't support the democrats because of their message or their platform. I support them because gridlock would be better than this.[/QUOTE]
    I thought we had gridlock! Neither side cares what the majority of americans want. Safe streets, schools, affordable healthcare and a Govt. free of asses and elephants. How about some Human Beings!

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]this is untrue

    successful political parties do speak in one voice[/QUOTE]
    Well then the Dems have never been successful because in my lifetime I can never recall them speaking with one voice.

    The Republicans are definately more disciplined and tend the whip their dissenters into shape but even they have their dissidents and don't speak in one voice.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]It is absolutely relevant. A candidate running in NY is different that a candidate running in VA. Do you think Hillary and James Webb agree on very much? Political parties do not speak in one voice. In Presidential elections there is a party platform but that is to allign itself with it's candidate's views. Do you think that all Democratic candidates agree with Pelosi and Reed or Howard Dean?

    It seems like you want to say that the Democrats don't stand for anything and therefore there is no reason to vote for them. That couldn't be further from the truth.

    As you vote for candidates not a party who exactly are you thinking of voting for that you don't know where they stand?[/QUOTE]

    One could easily counter that you are excuse making for a Party that has no focus or adgenda, but I will not. I will simply assume you're being standoffish out of ignorance to the answers to the question asked, or simply out of defensiveness from posting on this board too long. In either case, you are not being constructive to obtaining the answers I seek, so I would request you please no longer post unless you wish to answer the question posed, and not derail my inquiry further.

    In any case, it is foolish to think someone should vote with only their Politicians personal local agenda in mind. No SINGLE politician matters nearly as much as the PARTY direction, and the PARTY adgenda.

    As such, a wise and informed voter will know both the individual politicians stated positions, as well as the party he claims membership to's positions and goals and plans as well. After all, by voting in, say a Demoicrat, and helping them gain a majority, a voter is, in effect, approving of that party's NATIONAL adgenda. I don't think it's a stretch to want to know hat that adgenda IS on these very important and speific issues.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ok you want the consensus view. Here it is to the best of my ability.
    --The War in Iraq.
    The Murtha plan. Redeploy our troops immediately out or harms way and let the Iraqi govt in place try and take control. Do not get in the middle of their civil war. Keep a force in the area that can be deployed in a moment's notice to guard against other countries taking advantage of the instability. Some like Biden advocate breaking Iraq up into 3 states. Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite.
    --The War in Afganistan.
    Full effort in the search for OBL and preventing the Taliban from retaking power. This is the area we should be concentrating in.
    --Terrorism Outside the USA
    Hunt out terrorists wherever they are training and any country who aids or harbor terrorists must face consequences.
    --Terrorism Inside the USA
    Maximize law enforcement to make our borders and ports safer. Homeland security resources should be spent in the areas most vulnerable. All surveillance should be done legally under FISA statutes.
    --Terror suspects, Treatement, Punishment, etc.
    Follow the Geneva conventions.
    --Border Security.
    More border guards and increase security from present levels. Some want a wall. Some don't but the Democratic party as a whole was pushing for more border patrol funding but it was knocked out of the budget previously.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Ok you want the consensus view. Here it is to the best of my ability.
    --The War in Iraq.
    The Murtha plan. Redeploy our troops immediately out or harms way and let the Iraqi govt in place try and take control. Do not get in the middle of their civil war. Keep a force in the area that can be deployed in a moment's notice to guard against other countries taking advantage of the instability. Some like Biden advocate breaking Iraq up into 3 states. Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite.
    --The War in Afganistan.
    Full effort in the search for OBL and preventing the Taliban from retaking power. This is the area we should be concentrating in.
    --Terrorism Outside the USA
    Hunt out terrorists wherever they are training and any country who aids or harbor terrorists must face consequences.
    --Terrorism Inside the USA
    Maximize law enforcement to make our borders and ports safer. Homeland security resources should be spent in the areas most vulnerable. All surveillance should be done legally under FISA statutes.
    --Terror suspects, Treatement, Punishment, etc.
    Follow the Geneva conventions.
    --Border Security.
    More border guards and increase security from present levels. Some want a wall. Some don't but the Democratic party as a whole was pushing for more border patrol funding but it was knocked out of the budget previously.[/QUOTE]

    Thank you. Anyone else going to take a shot? Bit? Bman?

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Warfish, I know you don't agree with me on many things and you probably personally don't like me or my posts, but you have to admit, so far these libs have given you nothing you've asked for. And you're not gonna get what you're looking for.

    It's not surprising, since their only strategy on the WOT is to do anything that opposes Bush. Bitonti said gridlock is a better course of action than we've got. Oh really? Isn't the gridlock (adopted by clinton and co.) a major factor why the 9/11 plot was successful -- the wall of gridlock between government agencies.

    One of these guys had the audacity to post that democrats plan on "hunting out terrorists wherever they are training and any country who aids or harbor terrorists must face consequences". Seriously, the party with their heads so far up mr. oil-for-food annan's anus is going to punish those that assist jihadists? The party fighting to grant constitutional rights to kalid sheik mohammed -- the guy that sliced Daniel Pearl into 10 pieces, is going to make terrorists pay? The side bragging about killing the Patriot Act? The side fighting to stop eavedropping on terror suspects? The side leaking our country's classified info right into the laps of the enemy? Come on!

    You may not like or trust the GOP and conservatives, but you and your fellow moderates have a brain. You know which side has done a better job protecting you and your clan.

    The landslide and gridlock they think is coming ain't gonna happen. It's gonna be the 33% on your side that's gonna shut their mouths but good. And I can't wait.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]If you are a Democrat, Liberal or "Independant who Sides With Liberal/Leftist Positions", then YES!

    I am a Libertarian-Leaning Independant, yes. I would vote, in a perfect World, for a Conservative Libertarian Party. It does not exist.

    So, I want to understand what the Democrats have planned (general issue positions) for America should they win in 2006 and 2008. I know what the Right has planned, basicly. I want to understand, and be informed, and I hoped my friends like Bitonti and the bman's of the board could enlighten me, position by position, plan by plan, so I could choose wisely, and informedly.

    Seeing how the positions are explained by "regular Joe's" like our board members is a vital part of this. I do not want Politic-Speak, I want Truth, as they see it.[/QUOTE]

    All I can give you would be an explanation of my own ideas; they would make neither side particularly happy. So unless you want to hear them, I'll sit this one out

  17. #17
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is an awesome topic. Thank you for bringing it up. I will give you my view on things because maybe it'll shed light on where I'm coming from. Thank you for the opportunity to do so.

    [B]--The War in Iraq.[/B]
    I have never been supportive of this war. I've never been for this war becasue a) I thought the reasoning for it was B.S. (which has been proven true) and b) because it took resources away from the ones who have attacked us. In my opinion we should bring 50 % of the troops home right now. Take 25% and re deploy them to the outer reaches of Iraq always ready to strike when we see a group of terrorists meeting or moving, and the last 25% send to Afghanistan immediately. I would then recommend rotating the 50% of troops into Afghanistan and taking troops from their to go home to rest and spend time with their family.

    [B]--The War in Afganistan.[/B]
    I guess I pretty much answered this part. But I would also send economic aid to the Afghanistan farmers so they can live off of crops instead of poppy.

    [B]--Terrorism Outside the USA[/B]
    I would devote 100% of my resources to Al Qaeda. The actual Al Qaeda. I would invest lots of money in finding people who could infiltrate Al Qaeda.

    [B]--Terrorism Inside the USA[/B]
    The money saved from Iraq would go to securing our borders and ports. The homeland security is a joke. I would create a terrorism division that would include the FBI and CIA who's only purpose is to track terrorist cells and thrwart potential attacks. I would invest large amounts of money to this program.


    [B]--Terror suspects, Treatement, Punishment, etc.[/B]
    Touchy subject with my party. I would be for torture for terror suspects. However, they would have to be leaders of Al Qaeda. People who are involved in the planning of attacks or the execution of attacks. How you would determine who is who, I am not sure right now. But to torture some low level member of al qaeda I am not for. I am also not for redefining the geneva convention. I agree with Colin Powell and John McCain on this issue. I feel it would open the flood gates on possible US soldiers who are captured.


    [B]--Border Security.[/B]

    Again I differ with my party on this issue. I think that in no way should we allow people from another country to work here legally. It takes away jobs from Americans. The explanation for this program that these people will only take Jobs that Americans don't want is BS. What American who is looking for work would not want to be a carpenter that makes decent money??? I don't get it.



    I don't think I answered your question the way you had hoped, but these are my thoughts on these subjects. Again, thank you for allowing me to express myself this way.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Republican strategy in paragraph form:

    Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course.[/QUOTE]

    If thats the best you got, I don't think you are going to convince him.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Well then the Dems have never been successful because in my lifetime I can never recall them speaking with one voice.

    The Republicans are definately more disciplined and tend the whip their dissenters into shape but even they have their dissidents and don't speak in one voice.[/QUOTE]

    That's pretty funny. If you are pro-life, you are not allowed to speak at the DNC. I'd call that forcing the party line; in fact, party line is the phrase developed to describe exactly what warfish is talking about, a coherent Democratic party position.

    And what about Joe Lieberman...... the dems really allowed him tyo dissen t from the party line.

    I'd say the DEms do apretty stronghanded job of enforcing the party line.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JCnflies]That's pretty funny. If you are pro-life, you are not allowed to speak at the DNC. I'd call that forcing the party line; in fact, party line is the phrase developed to describe exactly what warfish is talking about, a coherent Democratic party position.

    And what about Joe Lieberman...... the dems really allowed him tyo dissen t from the party line.

    I'd say the DEms do apretty stronghanded job of enforcing the party line.[/QUOTE]
    Complete double standard here. All political conventions are stage managed and every script is screened by the party. Do you thing the Republicans run open convention?

    Talk about pro-Life Democrats. Did you ever hear of Casey running for Senate against Santorum in Pa? Here in a spotlighted run the Dems nominated someone pro Life.

    You talk of Lieberman? The party machine came out full force for him in the primaries. The voters voted against him. You have to let the voters voice be heard. They chose Lamont and now the party is rallying behind him. Not exactly what the Republicans are doing with their candidate in CT. The national party said they are sitting it out.

    So your talk of Dems not allowing dissent is completely wrong. The party bigshots backed Lieberman. He just lost the voters. The party machinery is backing Casey. He is strongly pro-Life.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us